Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[asbestosman]

Wait a minute, did The Dude just accuse Dr. Stweart of fabrication, or was it the other way around? Isn't that tantamount to an accusation of lying?

I never suggested an 18 year generational time. This is purely your fabrication. Iâ??m becoming more and more alarmed by your inability to correctly cite simple concepts, either from my statements or from the genetic literature, without introducing substantial distortion.

[juliann]

Exactly. And, as I point out above, leaving out the "at least" in the phrase "at least in modern times" changes the sense. The actually sense seems to me to be that our confidence is higher for modern times but it is still thought to be true further in the past. Why leave out the "at least"?

Why don't those like Juliann find something nefarious in that? Bias?

Dictionary games! Love 'em. We started with this one from TD: "I don't see the huge difference between "on the whole" and "virtually all." Now there appears to be a huge difference with "at least". Hard to keep up. DS didn't hide "at least". The complete quote (which he supplied rather than paraphrase) is sitting right in front of you. The best you can say is he isn't concerned about "at least" but not that he hid it.

But...let's not get distracted. Everybody give us your definitions of "at least"!

[juliann]

Wait a minute, did The Dude just accuse Dr. Stweart of fabrication, or was it the other way around? Isn't that tantamount to an accusation of lying?

Don't leave us in suspense. Tell us.

[asbestosman]

Don't leave us in suspense. Tell us.

Hmmm. Apparently it was Dr. Stewart. I can't say that blame him after all the insults going back and forth, but I really wish those two would tone down that stuff. I'd hate to see either one banned at this point. They are both unquestionably bright.

I'm cheering for whoever wins.

[William Schryver]

I have followed the thread very closely. I have read each of the long, detailed posts at least twice each, because I am genuinely interested in this topic, and yet I am untrained in the science. That said, I think I am capable of understanding the arguments that have been put forth by both TD and DS. Both have attempted, for the most part, to explain the issues in such a way that most observers can grasp their meaning. Supplemented with some extracurricular research, I think I have been able to follow along.

At this point, my impression is that it all boils down to one significant point:

The Dude is confident in the assumptions that undergird the divergence dating, despite the fact that only a few years ago those assumptions were different and resulted in considerably more ancient results.

David Stewart is not confident in the assumptions that undergird the divergence dating, and he believes that it is likely that the future will prove them flawed in some fashion, despite the fact that there is considerable scientific consensus at present regarding them.

In my estimation, this is the core issue around which the debate revolves. I can understand why The Dude is biased towards the reliability of the current science. I can likewise understand why Stewart believes it possible that the science is flawed in some way.

I also think that Stewart makes a strategic error in failing to incorporate the reality of Jaredite survivors into his argument from the very beginning. Doing so would move his target time period back at least 2000 years.

I also feel that The Dude is being unfairly maligned to a certain degree, since a careful reading of the thread reveals that Dr. Stewart was at least as guilty as The Dude in occasionally tossing out a disparaging comment or two.

In conclusion, I think both sides elucidated their respective positions well. The bottom line is that current population genetics DOES seem to indicate a more ancient origin (~9000 - ~13,000 years BP) for Amerinds than is suggested by the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, this same field of science provided a much earlier date (~20,000 - ~35,000 years BP) not that long ago. It is reasonable to suggest that these dating calculations may yet undergo future refinements that place the date of divergence closer to the time indicated by the Book of Mormon.

[asbestosman]

I'd say William Schryver wins. He's pretty smart--at least for a scarecrow.

I'd also say that the real question of the debate is to figure out how confident we can be in the present numbers. Is there any objective way to know?

[juliann]

Hmmm. Apparently it was Dr. Stewart. I can't say that blame him after all the insults going back and forth, but I really wish those two would tone down that stuff. I'd hate to see either one banned at this point. They are both unquestionably bright.

I'm cheering for whoever wins.

Oh, don't worry. A vote was taken through the screaming the last time it was used and it was determined that "fabricate" meant to produce something, you know...like a shirt? I just hope TD will wear it.

[Tarski]

In my estimation, this is the core issue around which the debate revolves. I can understand why The Dude is biased towards the reliability of the current science. I can likewise understand why Stewart believes it possible that the science is flawed in some way.

I think there is some truth in this assessment. I have never been impressed with the "science has been wrong before so my pet theory might well be right" type of argument.

It is a favorite with creationists.

The problem is this: If science is wrong about something then all sort of things may be the case- not just whatever religiously motivated theory one person my hold. We can only wait to see what parts of science turn out to be wrong--chances are it will not be among the things of which we a currently most confident and even in those cases no one knows what direction science will go.

[juliann]

The problem is this: If science is wrong about something then all sort of things may be the case- not just whatever religiously motivated theory one person my hold. We can only wait to see what parts of science turn out to be wrong--chances are it will not be among the things of which we a currently most confident and even in those cases no one knows what direction science will go.

Isn't this the position that LDS scholars/scientist have held when it comes to DNA accusations from the get-go ?

[Tarski]

Isn't this the position that LDS scholars/scientist have held when it comes to DNA accusations from the get-go ?

Hmm. Let me rephrase. A randomly selected piece of mainstream science will almost certainly NOT be proven to be flat wrong in the future. So, on what basis does Stewart think we should entertain that a traditional model of lamanite population migh be write after all? Anyone could win the lottery?

[juliann]

I also feel that The Dude is being unfairly maligned to a certain degree, since a careful reading of the thread reveals that Dr. Stewart was at least as guilty as The Dude in occasionally tossing out a disparaging comment or two.

No, no, no....you aren't going to get away with that one, Will. Stewart was smacking the apologists when he began...not The Dude. Stewart has always been an equal opportunity smacker.

Both critics and apologists would do well to reevaluate and correct some of the blatant errors in their claims and logic, whatever conclusions they may ultimately arrive at. There are numerous vital points that both camps have missed by failing to critically evaluate their underlying assumptions and take a comprehensive and fresh look at the data.

The responses he got? (And this is all from just one of TD's posts, mind you)

Who cares? These points are begging the question of an Israelite link, and do not, at this time, contribute to a scientific understanding of Native American origins.

you offer specious reasoning

If you actually spelled out your alternative model in clear language

A careful reader

To do otherwise is sloppy scholarship at best. At worst, attribution employed in this fashion can be a tool to introduce specious material while reserving oneself a fall-back position if the material goes sour.

TD started this and he hasn't stopped. Stewart has shown remarkable restraint given the nonstop provocation.

[juliann]

Hmm. Let me rephrase. A randomly selected piece of mainstream science will almost certainly NOT be proven to be flat wrong in the future. So, on what basis does Stewart think we should entertain that a traditional model of lamanite population migh be write after all? Anyone could win the lottery?

But we aren't talking about "randomly selected". Very specific principles are being appealed to that have already undergone massive revision. And, you can drown me with your knowledge in this area...but even I know that a lottery is not analogous to this.

[Hawkmoon]

This is true, CI. After my last Pundit post, the only comment from a Stewart supporter was from Hawkmoon who was disappointed with some belittling comments I made. I willingly made changes because, indeed, I don't need to belittle him to make my real scientific points.

(I did leave in "nincompoop" because I thought it was such an accurate label after his critique of Seielstad. If you really are up to speed on the topics, CI, maybe you should read the Seielstad paper for yourself. Do you want me to email the pdf to you? It's only ~2 pages of text.)

Supporter? I neither support nor challenge his position... I am merely one (of the few apparantly) who was interested in the debate. Furthermore, I didn't want to see it devolve into a spitting contest... otherwise, we could have went directly to Tarski (the all-knowing dispenser of wisdom (with an expert always a door or two down) vs. Juliann (the ever critical purveyor of argumentation) Part XXXIII. It appears I failed.

P.S. I never directed a comment towards Dr. Stewart because he doesn't post in this thread (you do) nor does he appear to read it (and you do).

[Hawkmoon]

(And thanks for stepping accross party lines a bit).

Ah, yes! It is such a great occurance when one does this, huh? Is there anytime we could expect you to do so? I thought not.

[Tarski]

Ah, yes! It is such a great occurance when one does this, huh? Is there anytime we could expect you to do so? I thought not.

I already have several times--and it was sometimes more than just a step accross party lines.

For example,

1. I recently argued that entropy does not disprove

Mormonism.

2. I supported Asbestosman's speculative use of "Hilbert's hotel" as a way to resolve the polygamy in heaven numbers problems.

3. I argued that so called mathematical proofs that God cannot have progressed to his current state are flawed (thus supporting Mormons).

4. I vocally supported the idea that Mormons are Christian on more than one thread both here and other forums.

There are probably more cases too.

[Hawkmoon]

I already have several times--and it was sometimes more than just a step accross party lines.

For example,

1. I recently argued that entropy does not disprove

Mormonism.

2. I supported Asbestosman's speculative use of "Hilbert's hotel" as a way to resolve the polygamy in heaven numbers problems.

3. I argued that so called mathematical proofs that God cannot have progressed to his current state are flawed (thus supporting Mormons).

4. I vocally supported the idea that Mormons are Christian on more than one thread both here and other forums.

There are probably more cases too.

After reading your replies in the entropy thread I have just realized why I errored. No one knows what the heck you are saying when you cross party lines. Strangely, when you don't you are understood fairly easily.

[William Schryver]

juliann:

No, no, no....you aren't going to get away with that one, Will. Stewart was smacking the apologists when he began...not The Dude. Stewart has always been an equal opportunity smacker.

Well, it is a rough neighborhood -- not for the faint of heart by any means.

To TD's credit, he did edit the most egregious stuff out of his last post -- after Hawkmoon shamed him into it.

All I'm saying is that Stewart hasn't been a shrinking violet -- nor would I expect him to be.

All in all, I think it's been a fairly civil debate. Both participants are quite self-assured and confident in their qualifications to speak to the issue, and I think both made some strong arguments to support their respective cases. The Dude is right in saying that his position is consistent with that of certain LDS geneticists. I don't find that surprising.

On the other hand, Stewart correctly demonstrates that The Dude often soft-pedals the qualifications that most of the studies placed on their findings. It is abundantly clear to me that there is a great deal of uncertainty that still attaches to this entire field of science, notwithstanding the smug confidence that our resident critics place in it. Stewart correctly ascribes a characterization of "Level IV" to this entire body of genetic studies. Without historical data to verify results, all that current researchers can do is make what they believe to be informed guesses regarding certain essential variables in the equations. Those assumptions have not been static over the course of the past three decades. It is therefore reasonable to think they may yet be modified further in order to correspond to new archaeological or anthropological data.

I look forward to the final statements. I think the thread represents an important contribution to the entire debate, and those interested in the topic would be well-served by studying it closely in order to understand the arguments put forth by the respective sides.

[The Dude]

I have followed the thread very closely. I have read each of the long, detailed posts at least twice each, because I am genuinely interested in this topic, and yet I am untrained in the science. That said, I think I am capable of understanding the arguments that have been put forth by both TD and DS. Both have attempted, for the most part, to explain the issues in such a way that most observers can grasp their meaning. Supplemented with some extracurricular research, I think I have been able to follow along.

At this point, my impression is that it all boils down to one significant point:

....

In conclusion, I think both sides elucidated their respective positions well. The bottom line is that current population genetics DOES seem to indicate a more ancient origin (~9000 - ~13,000 years BP) for Amerinds than is suggested by the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, this same field of science provided a much earlier date (~20,000 - ~35,000 years BP) not that long ago. It is reasonable to suggest that these dating calculations may yet undergo future refinements that place the date of divergence closer to the time indicated by the Book of Mormon.

Fair, balanced... who is this scarecrow? It sure doesn't sound like my nemesis (according to Mr. Scratch ).

I agree with Tarski's point that just because there have been revisions, there is no reason to expect further revisions to bring a consensus that suddenly lines up with traditional BoM views. That's a false hope to hand out to non-scientific readers. It takes advantage of the advanced degree status that lay people naturally look up to.

The hope might seem justified if one points out that revisions have tended to move the dates more recent. Simplistically, it could be seen as a trend that might continue. But this ignores logical reasons, outside of the dating estimates, for why this hope is false. In the same breath where such revisions are pointed out, it should also be pointed out that the markers we are discussing are spread so far over the western hemisphere, and are so dominant, that they could not have arrived as recently as 2,500 years ago. By Stewart's own admission there is no known process that could lead to this dominance in such a short time. None. The Book of Mormon offers an impossible genetic scenario before we even get to the actual dating estimates. This blows away Stewart's otherwise justified concern about confidence intervals. In other words, Will, the consensus genetic picture doesn't just boil down to one specific point.

In response to this, Stewart sounds frustrated:

You should have announced from the beginning that you felt that the traditional LDS view is was implausible or impossible even before we brought genetics to the table, and that dating was really not your core concern. Then I would have been able to direct my time and energy to more productive projects rather than engaging in this debate.

So who thinks I ambushed him? Of course my view is that based on genetics (including but not exclusively dating estimates) the traditional position is impossible! Hello!?!? Is it somehow my fault that David Stewart didn't tell anyone about the genetic hierarchy of Y-chromosomes in his FAIR/FARMS paper?

[cdowis]

>The problem is this: If science is wrong about something then all sort of things may be the case- not just whatever religiously motivated theory one person my hold. We can only wait to see what parts of science turn out to be wrong--chances are it will not be among the things of which we a currently most confident and even in those cases no one knows what direction science will go.

I took a class in the history and philosophy of science which has affected my view on such matters. I have come to a few conclusions:

1. Science is a methodology.

2. Science is neither right nor wrong on any conclusions, because science, as a non-intelligent entity, as a methodology, cannot come to any conclusion. That is similar to saying, "My computer came to a conclusion that....."

3. Scientists come to conclusions.

4. Scientists are human beings, with all the strengths and flaws common to humanity. This includes pride, greed, subjectivity, arrogance, and, yes, ignorance and ignoring facts.

5. A "conclusion" is not a fact. "Common consensus" is not a fact. An observation is, in many cases, a fact. A data point (piece of data) is a fact.

Thus, "The fossil record tells is...." is a flawed statement. "Scientists have concluded from the fossil record...." is the correct way of making a statement.

"Science is wrong" is a flawed statement. "Scientists have concluded falsely...." is the correct way of making that statement.

[cdowis]

Part II

There are two basic levels of scientific endeavor == "hard" and "soft" science.

Chemistry is the former, archeology is the latter. Most of our discussion is based on conclusions from the soft sciences. The BOM critics tend, in my experience, to pretend that "science has proven such and so..." as if there were a specific chemical experment conducted, replicated multiple times, and the BOM was disproven. So it is important to distinguish between the two sciences.

Archeologists depend on discovery based, in many cases, on excavation of a very small sample of possible excavation sites. The depth of excavation also becomes a factor.

Chemists can do direct experiments while archeologists can only use relatively small samples of data to draw conclusions. Only until we have discovered the time machine can archeologists come to the level of actual knowledge of their field in the same way as the chemists.

So, what archeologists conclude regarding the BOM is, for some people, not particularly important. It is more indicative of their ignorance based on a lack of tools, and the sad state of mesoamerican archeology rather than a commentary on the validity of the BOM text.

Anyway, just a few musings.

[YH8]

Anyway, just a few musings.

Just a few musings? Hardly.

Semantics? Hardly.

These are valid and salient points that our Ministers of Scieigion ignore and/or try to beat down with their eruditeness.

Philosophy? No way. Science is where it's at. What? There's something called Philosophy of Science? What? Empiricism is a brand of philosophy? They didn't teach me that when I got my Ph.D. in "science." Oh yeah, that's right . . . my degree letters stand for Doctor of Philosophy . . . why didn't they teach me any philosophy? Cuz they were too busy using a metaphorical electron microscope to teach you how to do your science.

[William Schryver]

cdowis:

I took a class in the history and philosophy of science which has affected my view on such matters. I have come to a few conclusions:

1. Science is a methodology.

2. Science is neither right nor wrong on any conclusions, because science, as a non-intelligent entity, as a methodology, cannot come to any conclusion. That is similar to saying, "My computer came to a conclusion that....."

3. Scientists come to conclusions.

4. Scientists are human beings, with all the strengths and flaws common to humanity. This includes pride, greed, subjectivity, arrogance, and, yes, ignorance and ignoring facts.

5. A "conclusion" is not a fact. "Common consensus" is not a fact. An observation is, in many cases, a fact. A data point (piece of data) is a fact.

Thus, "The fossil record tells is...." is a flawed statement. "Scientists have concluded from the fossil record...." is the correct way of making a statement.

"Science is wrong" is a flawed statement. "Scientists have concluded falsely...." is the correct way of making that statement.

There are two basic levels of scientific endeavor == "hard" and "soft" science.

Chemistry is the former, archeology is the latter. Most of our discussion is based on conclusions from the soft sciences. The BOM critics tend, in my experience, to pretend that "science has proven such and so..." as if there were a specific chemical experment conducted, replicated multiple times, and the BOM was disproven. So it is important to distinguish between the two sciences.

Once again, C.D. has cut to the heart of the matter with surgical precision.

It continues to perplex me how the understanding of these simple truths can elude so many people, and lead them to a false (and potentially destructive) sense of assurance about things that are so far from â??provenâ?.

While it is true that there is a certain degree of â??consensusâ? among the reigning high priests of archaeogenetics, Dr. Stewart has clearly demonstrated the transitory nature of this shared certainty, as well as the numerous arbitrary assumptions on which their conclusions are based.

When I compare the nature of this archaeogenetic â??evidenceâ? against the testimony of men who saw, felt, and hefted actual metallic plates, the empiricist in me is still inclined to give more credence to the solid witness of the latter over the grasping guesses of the former.

[Tarski]

cdowis:

Once again, C.D. has cut to the heart of the matter with surgical precision.

It continues to perplex me how the understanding of these simple truths can elude so many people, and lead them to a false (and potentially destructive) sense of assurance about things that are so far from â??provenâ?.

While it is true that there is a certain degree of â??consensusâ? among the reigning high priests of archaeogenetics, Dr. Stewart has clearly demonstrated the transitory nature of this shared certainty, as well as the numerous arbitrary assumptions on which their conclusions are based.

When I compare the nature of this archaeogenetic â??evidenceâ? against the testimony of men who saw, felt, and hefted actual metallic plates, the empiricist in me is still inclined to give more credence to the solid witness of the latter over the grasping guesses of the former.

But it is trickier than that. How do you think Uri Geller was able to trick empirical scientists who put him in the lab to test his powers? Other factor should enter in: Plausibility and reproducibility and consistancy.

[William Schryver]

But it is trickier than that. How do you think Uri Geller was able to trick empirical scientists who put him in the lab to test his powers? Other factor should enter in: Plausibility and reproducibility and consistancy.

Indeed, it is "tricky". It is even more than "tricky" to draw conclusions about mutation rates when there is no way to verify those conclusions given the absence of historical data. It is impossible to establish "plausibility" or base findings on "reproducibility" and "consistency" when all we are left with are assumptions as to factors such as generational times and the genetic constitution of ancient population groups.

As Dr. Stewart observed, the studies upon which these current conclusions are based rate far down the line of methodological rigor required in other fields. We are simply asked to accept these conclusions on "faith", and I find it quite ironic to see so much of it informing the beliefs of our erstwhile champions of empirical data.

[The Dude]

As Dr. Stewart observed, the studies upon which these current conclusions are based rate far down the line of methodological rigor required in other fields. We are simply asked to accept these conclusions on "faith", and I find it quite ironic to see so much of it informing the beliefs of our erstwhile champions of empirical data.

Hi Will,

Just wondering if you saw what I said in my last post on this thread. Here it is again:

The hope might seem justified if one points out that revisions have tended to move the dates more recent. Simplistically, it could be seen as a trend that might continue. But this ignores logical reasons, outside of the dating estimates, for why this hope is false. In the same breath where such revisions are pointed out, it should also be pointed out that the markers we are discussing are spread so far over the western hemisphere, and are so dominant, that they could not have arrived as recently as 2,500 years ago. By Stewart's own admission there is no known process that could lead to this dominance in such a short time. None. The Book of Mormon offers an impossible genetic scenario before we even get to the actual dating estimates. This blows away Stewart's otherwise justified concern about confidence intervals. In other words, Will, the consensus genetic picture doesn't just boil down to one specific point.