How Conclusive Is Dna Evidence?

[Sethbag]

Now, what do you have to say since the same people who used DNA evidence to 'prove' that the Lamanites are Asian also say that we are all descended from a single man who lived approximately 15,000 year ago?

This isn't true. The whole argument was based on statistics, and dealt with predictions based on probabilities, not on actual hard facts. The very fact that the aborigines of Australia were isolated from other human populations from something like 40,000 years ago until relatively recently is just one controverting example.

[charity]

But what would a missing tribe tell us? At best, it could give a suggestion that a limited population of non-Siberians came and survived as a distinct group. If you hope against hope, it could be linked to ancient Israelites (LDS apolgists insist this is scientifically impossible, and they're probably right). But it would never salvage the notion that current DNA evidence conclusively demolishes: that the Native Americans, as a whole, are principally blood descendants of father Lehi. That idea is forever dead.

My question to charity relates to this. What alternative conclusion could be hidden in sampling error? None that I see as relevant.

So what's the point? Again, it's just a distraction unless you can show how it is relevant.

the dude, what alternative conclusion could be hidden in sampling error? That there are other haplogroups in the population, which because of the sample problems, did not show up in the "random" sample. Duh! And other haplogroups are not irrelevant!

[Sethbag]

Why Me, I will confess to you I feel some of the same things you do on this, even if we're coming at a lot of this discussion from opposite sides of the table. I don't know where the Book of Mormon came from. I read the "automatic writing" theories and think hmm, could be, I don't know. I read Uncle Dale's Spaulding/Rigdon stuff and think wow, he makes it sound plausible, but plausible is not the same as fact, nor even is it necessarily strong probability. And I don't know how probable Spaulding/Rigdon really is. My judgment, with respect to how the BoM came about, must necessarily remain suspended. It does irk me to an extent, because I'd rather have closure on that question, just as you would.

I guess the same could be said about a lot of things, even if I don't really care about them as much as I do about the BoM. Look at the Catholic Church and the many various relics. Who can say where some bone fragment really came from? Or some splinter of wood? Ok, someone has reproduced a Shroud of Turin-like effect by a certain process, but that doesn't prove that's how someone really did make it, and yet I don't really believe the Shroud of Turin is what the believers say it is, either. We just don't know, and that's irksome in some way.

I realize that in this we differ, but regardless of how the BoM came about, I do believe it's almost certainly a fairy tale, albeit it one with some legitimate religious sentiments worthy of thought and consideration. I'm sure I draw this conclusion based on considerations which you would see differently. Just wanted to tell you what you said does in fact resonate with me. I too wish we knew for sure how the BoM came about, one way or another.

[jwhitlock]

Smac:

Amen. I was trying to figure out an appropriate response to this; you hit it on the nail.

One interesting angle that physicsdude brought up in this was the alleged emphasis on studies done on isolated tribes. While references on the "study" are still needed, it seems that someone may be trying to push the assumption as "fact", that since a tribe is isolated, their DNA must have remained pristine for thousands of years. Given the mathematical and probability studies that have been done on how far back we need to go before everyone now living on earth has a common ancestor, it doesn't appear that "isolation" has any bearing whatsoever on DNA studies given the long (2600 years) time period involved.

Still, we may see more yammering on the isolated tribe angle as time goes on.

-jwhitlock

[Helmuth]

I know this topic has been brought up a million times, but Mormons always knock off DNA evidence as inconclusive, although this is just something FARMS more or less made up. DNA evidence is much more conclusive than Mormons will admit.

[And then you explain to us how conclusive DNA evidence is].

Hi there PhysicsDude! I like Physics, too.

Here's what seems to have happened here. You have seriously misjudged the sophistication of Mormon arguments. You seem to believe that all Mormons deal with the DNA accusations by saying "DNA evidence is inconclusive", and so by showing them the reality that it *is* conclusive, you can blow the lid of this whole charade and maybe lead some to see the error of their ways at last!

Look, for an example of the Mormon rebuttals to the critics' claims, see http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20..._of_Mormon.html

This is a paper by David Stewart, a physician. His paper takes the weakest possible genetic position and defends that position: that descendants of the BoM people constitute *ALL* of the native americans, that not only was there no intermarriage with other people groups, there were *NO* other people groups, only Lehites and Mulekites. He spends a lot of time examining the problems in determining what ancient Israelite DNA actually looked like. He further points out usefully that DNA shows a *link* between current East Asian and Native Americans. That link is not directional. As far as DNA is concerned:

a) Americans could have migrated from East Asia, the scenario everyone focuses on.

b ) The East Asians could have all migrated from America! (This scenario is obviously not viable, given other scientific evidence outside of DNA.)

c) East Asians and Americans both migrated from a common orgin. This is actually quite plausible.

And that's from a guy that, while he has some medical background, is really just a hobbyist. Jeff Lindsay who you were referred to by another poster is also only a hobbyist. There are other actual professional microbiologists and geneticists in the Church whose attention has been brought to bear on this issue and who have crafted rebuttals of Thomas Murphy and Simon Southerton. Look, Murphy is not even a microbiologist. He has no expertise in this area whatsoever; his contribution was the creativity and innovativeness to see a connection no one else had seen: that sampling studies could afford a novel angle to discredit the BoM. Southerton is the only BoM DNA critic I'm aware of with any training whatsoever in the area they're trying to address.

In short, you greatly underestimate your opponents in this debate. The anti-mormons (whose credible geneticists consist entirely one man: poor lonely Dr. Southerton) are simply outmatched and outnumbered by all the Mormon scientists. Really the anti-mormons need to recruit some more scientists to support their side of the debate. Right now the debate is totally one-sided. There are plenty of geneticists in the world who are not Mormons; go out and rally them to the cause! Give us a real challenge, not just a couple hacks grasping at straws.

[Sethbag]

Helmuth Hubener, "The Dude" is a qualified geneticist too.

[thesometimesaint]

Helmuth Hubener:

Jeff Lindsay is a scientist, thought not a geneticist (He never claims to be one).

It is his Links to real geneticists that make his article thought provoking.

[charity]

In considering scientific credentials, it is well to consider that to be an expert in an area does not mean that one is experienced in inferential statistics. It is one thing to collect data, and another to correctly apply it.

[The Dude]

This is a paper by David Stewart, a physician. His paper takes the weakest possible genetic position and defends that position: that descendants of the BoM people constitute *ALL* of the native americans, that not only was there no intermarriage with other people groups, there were *NO* other people groups, only Lehites and Mulekites. He spends a lot of time examining the problems in determining what ancient Israelite DNA actually looked like. He further points out usefully that DNA shows a *link* between current East Asian and Native Americans. That link is not directional. As far as DNA is concerned:

a) Americans could have migrated from East Asia, the scenario everyone focuses on.

b ) The East Asians could have all migrated from America! (This scenario is obviously not viable, given other scientific evidence outside of DNA.)

c) East Asians and Americans both migrated from a common orgin. This is actually quite plausible.

Yeah, that's what I thought Stewart was claiming as well. But I had a hard time getting him to defend those claims in our thread in the Pundit's folder. see here The best he would do was hold out hope that it could be possible in the statistical extreme -- a somewhat different claim than what he published.

Also, you might like to notice the differences between the original version of Stewart's paper, which was published in the FARMS review, and the version that was modified on the FAIR site after our Pundits debate. There are a number of interesting changes.

original version, published by FARMS... this PDF is closest to what Stewart actually presented at the FAIR conference

edited version, currently located at FAIR... this is the one you linked to.

And that's from a guy that, while he has some medical background, is really just a hobbyist.

I never dared to call him a hobbyist. He's a pretty smart guy, and a keen debater, but I think he's got this all wrong... to the detriment of LDS who believe him.

[why me]

Why Me, I will confess to you I feel some of the same things you do on this, even if we're coming at a lot of this discussion from opposite sides of the table. I don't know where the Book of Mormon came from. I read the "automatic writing" theories and think hmm, could be, I don't know. I read Uncle Dale's Spaulding/Rigdon stuff and think wow, he makes it sound plausible, but plausible is not the same as fact, nor even is it necessarily strong probability. And I don't know how probable Spaulding/Rigdon really is. My judgment, with respect to how the BoM came about, must necessarily remain suspended. It does irk me to an extent, because I'd rather have closure on that question, just as you would.

The problem seth is that there will not be any closure and so...the circle jerk will continue throughout our lives. Now, I know that I could be wrong about this...but I don't think so. And it will be the same with DNA. The book is a mystery to be sure and if it is a fairy tale, wow what a fairy tale...a tale that has given confirmation to millions of people through inner manifestations of truth. It is the strangest thing since the invention of the water closet.

And so you will be irked for quite some time, I am afraid. What to do? And as you know, plausibility doesn't add up to much. And so here we are again on a DNA thread and soon we will be on another Spaulding thread and soon we will be on another automatic writing thread....the interconnected world may now be 'flat' but the circle jerk is still a circle jerk.

[structurecop]

The %.6 European DNA from modern Native Americans is obviously from intermarriage from the Europeans.

Patently false. Check your sources. Haplogroup X is ancient DNA, PRE-Columbus.

[Homestar Runner]

Hi PhisycsDude - I'll have a go!

It has been proven reliably that Mitochondrial is an accurate method of tracing genealogy

But for pete's sake, it sure ain't the only way. There's also YDNA. And there's also Lymphocyte Antigens telling us stuff too.

For those of you that don't know about LA, here's a blurb I found:

These HLA genetic codes represent the histocompatability of antigens on the surfaces of cells. Unlike mt DNA and Y chromosomes, HLA genes are not passed only along purely maternal or paternal lines, making it easier for minority genes to persist. They found that the A*1 antigen was found in Palestine and in the Andes. They found that the B*14 allele was carried from the Near East to the Eastern Maya, the Nahua, and the Cherokee populations. They found the B*21 allele in frequencies greater than 15% in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Palestine as well as in Uto-Aztecan populations as a Central Amerind composite. See James L. Guthrie, "Human Lymphocyte Antigens: Apparent Afro-Asiatic, Southern Asian, and European HLAs in Indigenous American Population," Pre-Columbiana, Vol.2, Nos.2 and 3, Dec. 2000/June 2001, pp.90-163.

Now where is the Israelite DNA?

We need you to point to what Israelite DNA would look like. Are you restricting it to people of Hebrew descent only? Tell us what that would look like. Issac

was Sarah's son, but we don't know where Hagar or Keturah came from that bore the other kids. Abraham's house had servents that converted and were adopted into his own family - the Bible doesn't say where they're from. Ishmael married an Egyptian, and their son had two Hittite wives. Jacob fathered 12 sons and 1 daughter by 4 different wives, and we know nothing about 2 of them (Zilpah or Bilhah). It gets worse from there as the tribes are scattered back and forth, off to Egypt, wandering in the wasteland, making it to Israel.

That's just stuff out of the Bible. You also have to know where Zoram is from, and the wives they take with them. So tell me, how can you claim any kind of certainty that there is no asiatic or european DNA in Lehi and gang?

I could grab scriptures about this all day, but you get the point.

I get the point that you select verses that support you, and ignore those that don't. Many verses in the BoM support the notion that being a Lamanite is kind of like being an American (i.e. - there's more ways than genetics to gain the title).

Some were called Lamanites because they rejected the gospel as personally given by Jesus Christ

(4 Nephi 1:38) And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites

Zoramites became Lamanites, and we don't know where Zoram came from.

(Alma 54:23-24) "I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem. And behold now, I am a bold Lamanite;..."

(Alma 43:4) "For behold, it came to pass that the Zoramites became Lamanites;"

Some were called Lamanites because they defected from another side.

(Moroni 9:24) "And if it so be that they perish, we know that many of our brethren have deserted over unto the Lamanites, and many more will also desert over unto them; wherefore, write somewhat a few things, if thou art spared and I shall perish and not see thee; but I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee."

Some were called Lamanites because due to certain "dissentions"

(D&C 10:48) "Yea, and this was their faithâ??that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions."

Also, everyone left standing in the land one day around 400 A.D., were called Lamanites:

(Alma 45:14) "But whosoever remaineth, and is not destroyed in that great and dreadful day, shall be numbered among the Lamanites, and shall become like unto them, all, save it be a few who shall be called the disciples of the Lord; and them shall the Lamanites pursue even until they shall become extinct. And now, because of iniquity, this prophecy shall be fulfilled."

Now I know what refutes this evidence, is that there were already indigenous people in America that all the Israelites intermarried, and the Israelite DNA was lost. But is this really plausible?

It is completely, totally, absolutely, emminently plausable. And again, it's also completely plausable that Lehi and gang brought Asiatic DNA with them.

Hope this helps.

HSR

Oh - and also this: Apparently, there ARE genetic links between various populations in the Americas, and various populations in the middle east:

* Non-Mormon scientists have found Semitic DNA among Native Americans. (See Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes, [boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2002], p. 114.)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found new genetic links between Native Americans and Middle Easterners. (See Virginia Morrell, "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans," Science, 280:520 [April 24, 1998 and April 11, 2004] ).

* Non-Mormon scientists have found the presence of several indicators of Jewish ancestry among Antiquian populations of Colombia. (See Carvajal-Carmona, L.G., et.al."Strong Amerind/White Sex Bias and a Possible Sephardic Contribution among the Founders of a Population in Northwest Colombia," American Journal of Human Genetics, 67 [5] 1287-1295 [Nov.2000]. Available online.)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found Haplogroup 1c and 4 among Jews and among the Cheyenne and Zapotec tribe of America. (See M.F. Hammer, et.al., "Jewish and Middle Eastern Non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-Chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97[12]:6769- 74 [June 6, 2000]. [Available online.] and T.M. Karafet, et.al., "Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-Chromosome Founder Haplotypes," American Journal of Human Genetics, 64[3]:817-831 [March 1999]. [Available online.]

* Non-Mormon scientists have found Haplogroup X among Algonquin-speaking groups, such as the Ojibwa and in the Middle East. (See Roger Highfield, science editor for Britain's The Electronic Telegraph News Service, April 11, 2004.)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found DNA Haplogroup X, sometimes referred to as Haplotype N, in the Middle East and among the Fremont Indians. (See Brown, M.D. et. al., "mt DNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link Between Europe/Western Asia and North America?" American Journal of Human Genetics, 63 [6]: 1852-1861 (Dec.1998); also P. Forster, R. Hardin, A. Torroni, and H.J Bandelt, "Origin and Evolution of Native American mt DNA Variation: a Reappraisal, "American Journal of Human Genetics, 59: 935-954 [1996]; also R.L Parr, S.W. Carlyle, and D.H. O'Rourke, "Ancient DNA Analysis of Fremont Amerindians of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99:507-518 [1996].)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found significant evidence of Middle Eastern genes entering America before Columbus by analyzing human lymphocyte antigens. These HLA genetic codes represent the histocompatability of antigens on the surfaces of cells. Unlike mt DNA and Y chromosomes, HLA genes are not passed only along purely maternal lines, making it easier for minority genes to persist. They found that the A*1 antigen was found in Palestine and in the Andes. They found that the B*14 allele was carried from the Near East to the Eastern Maya, the Nahua, and the Cherokee populations. They found the B*21 allele in frequencies greater than 15% in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Palestine as well as in Uto-Aztecan populations as a Central Amerind composite. See James L. Guthrie, "Human Lymphocyte Antigens: Apparent Afro-Asiatic, Southern Asian, and European HLAs in Indigenous American Population," Pre-Columbiana, Vol.2, Nos.2 and 3, Dec. 2000/June 2001, pp.90-163.

HSR

[Sethbag]

Why Me, you're not kidding. I'd say most of the last week I was pretty bored with MADB and kind of wondering what the whole point was. Then someone started that whole what do aliens on other planets thread, and I got all nice and fired up again. Throw in a little Godmakers and the last couple days on the board were pretty decent. But yeah, we argue ourselves in circles, and then do it again, and again, and again. And I've only been on this board for less than a year. I'm almost willing to say those doing this for years now are either masochists, have a martyr complex, or just like yanking peoples' chains. Oh, and some of us like the sound of our own voices. And by that I don't exclude myself - there's a certain pleasure in a little verbal back and forth.

As far as the Book of Mormon - yeah, it's a remarkable book. So are a lot of other books, both religious and otherwise. The "Boggle Theory" doesn't do much for me. I think there are plenty of other reasons to suspect that the BoM was invented by man, during the early 1800s, not the BoM claimed timeframe.

As far as DNA goes, the bit about the Asians only serves to reinforce the idea that the native Americans came over from Asia, as concluded by other means that DNA, by anthropologists, archeologists, etc. I think as time goes on a more and more accurate "big picture" view is emerging of how the Americas were settled, and the Book of Mormon history simply isn't there.

[charity]

As far as DNA goes, the bit about the Asians only serves to reinforce the idea that the native Americans came over from Asia, as concluded by other means that DNA, by anthropologists, archeologists, etc. I think as time goes on a more and more accurate "big picture" view is emerging of how the Americas were settled, and the Book of Mormon history simply isn't there.

Don't you think this is way overstated? The "big picture" never was intended to cover every little bit of history. So, in the big picture, American pioneers came west and settled Oregon and Washington states. They sure did. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a group of Russians in Washington, and French-Canadians in Oregon. It's only been 150 years, and you can barely find traces of the pioneer era Russians and French-Canadians. How much of them will be left in the year 3450?

And we keep having to repeat, because evidently you don't get it. Just because the sign "Zarahemla 5k" hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean that it won't be in the future. How much is there still to explore and discover?

[The Dude]

the dude, what alternative conclusion could be hidden in sampling error? That there are other haplogroups in the population, which because of the sample problems, did not show up in the "random" sample. Duh! And other haplogroups are not irrelevant!

These potentially missed haplogroups would be relevant to a limited population model -- something that cannot, in principle, be proven or disproven by DNA studies. Therefore, sampling error is moot in my view. You may disagree.

But do you agree they are irrelevant to conclusions about a global or nearly-global BoM population model? For that kind of model, sampling to this date has painted a picture that won't be changed if/when a few missed haplogroups turn up. Maybe we can at least agree on this much.

[Sethbag]

And we keep having to repeat, because evidently you don't get it. Just because the sign "Zarahemla 5k" hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean that it won't be in the future. How much is there still to explore and discover?

Oh, I get it alright. I just don't agree with your "god of the gaps" like argument. Ok, so the scientists haven't yet discovered everything, so in theory there are still ways one might imagine the Nephites turning up. Personally I think the civilization on the scale I believe the Book of Mormon to describe already probably be fit into any of the areas still unexplored, but that's just speculation and opinion on my part. But just how small are you willing to make your claims in order to maintain the ability to fit them into what's not been explored yet?

If we explore 90% of what's currently unexplored, over the next 30 years, will you still cling to the hope that the Nephites are to be found in that last 10% of what's currently unexplored? Or how about 30 years later when 90% of that last 10% has been explored, or another 20 years after that, when another 90% is searched.

When we finally get to the last little patch of jungle, or hole in the rock someplace, and search it, what will you do? Or will you instead cling to the certainty that we'll never really, truly, search everywhere - that there will inevitably always be places we didn't know to search, and so didn't?

[Sargon]

Helmuth Hubener, "The Dude" is a qualified geneticist too.

I thought we didn't know the true identity of our super-friend.

Sargon

[The Dude]

I thought we didn't know the true identity of our super-friend.

Sargon

I'm just a hobbyist.

[Sethbag]

I thought we didn't know the true identity of our super-friend.

Well I don't, and you apparently don't. But at least back when this board was under FAIR it was acknowledged that his identity, and credentials, were known to at last some mods, and were not in dispute.

[Sargon]

Oh, I get it alright. I just don't agree with your "god of the gaps" like argument. Ok, so the scientists haven't yet discovered everything, so in theory there are still ways one might imagine the Nephites turning up. Personally I think the civilization on the scale I believe the Book of Mormon to describe already probably be fit into any of the areas still unexplored, but that's just speculation and opinion on my part. But just how small are you willing to make your claims in order to maintain the ability to fit them into what's not been explored yet?

If we explore 90% of what's currently unexplored, over the next 30 years, will you still cling to the hope that the Nephites are to be found in that last 10% of what's currently unexplored? Or how about 30 years later when 90% of that last 10% has been explored, or another 20 years after that, when another 90% is searched.

When we finally get to the last little patch of jungle, or hole in the rock someplace, and search it, what will you do? Or will you instead cling to the certainty that we'll never really, truly, search everywhere - that there will inevitably always be places we didn't know to search, and so didn't?

You are assuming that we will recognize Nephite remains when we see them. As far as we know, they wouldn't look much different then say, Mayan ruins that we have already discovered.

Sargon

[Fortigurn]

You are assuming that we will recognize Nephite remains when we see them. As far as we know, they wouldn't look much different then say, Mayan ruins that we have already discovered.

So exactly what have LDS archaeologists been looking for all these years?

[why me]

Why Me, you're not kidding. I'd say most of the last week I was pretty bored with MADB and kind of wondering what the whole point was. Then someone started that whole what do aliens on other planets thread, and I got all nice and fired up again. Throw in a little Godmakers and the last couple days on the board were pretty decent. But yeah, we argue ourselves in circles, and then do it again, and again, and again. And I've only been on this board for less than a year. I'm almost willing to say those doing this for years now are either masochists, have a martyr complex, or just like yanking peoples' chains. Oh, and some of us like the sound of our own voices. And by that I don't exclude myself - there's a certain pleasure in a little verbal back and forth.

True enough. Also, I do believe that many are waiting for the golden apple to fall off the tree and reveal the truth once and for all. But that golden apple seems firmly on the tree and it doesn't seem likely to fall off anytime soon to pleasure the critics or the devout lds. And so, here we are occupying time, engaged in a treadmill run. But yes, there is still pleasure in it. And to think that there have been many before us, if we venture back to the late 1820's and to the early 1830's when the battle all began.

We are just in a long line of critic/lds DNA inheritors, as their DNA has been passed to us.

[charity]

sethbag, I would not predict any kind of timeline. I can fairly confidently predict that at my age, I won't be around in 30 years. And by then, on the other side, I will know absolutely where the ruins are. If I am even interested at that point in such a mundane, mortal thing.

But what will happen to you, when in 30 years, some undeniable piece of evidence is uncovered that critics cannot discount? Are you prepared to jump back in to full activity, become a bishop, and give firesides on your years of inactivity and how relying on the arm of flesh led you down the garden path?

[Helmuth]

Hi,

I apologize that, essentially, I didn't know what I was talking about as far as DNA. And also, David Stewart *did* study microbiology, at least on an undergraduate level. Sorry for my wrong statement before!

Thanks TheDude, for the link to that thread. I feel smarter now. Although I did not understand all of the thread, I understood a lot of it. I realize now not only that I *didn't* know what I was talking about, but also that I *still don't*, nevertheless, I will risk embarrassing myself again and sum up what I learned for PhysicsDude's (all these Dudes everywhere!) reading pleasure:

*Everyone agrees we don't know what ancient Israelite DNA looked like. That whole side of the critics' argument (NAs don't match modern Jews, look at the Lemba, etc.) is silly and wrong and can be thrown out. Unfortunately, that was most of what your post was referring to, PhysicsDude, so... that's wrong, rethink your position.

* It comes down pretty much to dating issues. Tht is, the dates are too early (10,000-50,000 years before present).

One thing I said, though, seems to be true: you greatly underestimated the sophistication of the arguments on this issue. I guess so did I!

[Fortigurn]

Hi,

I apologize that, essentially, I didn't know what I was talking about as far as DNA. And also, David Stewart *did* study microbiology, at least on an undergraduate level. Sorry for my wrong statement before!

Thanks TheDude, for the link to that thread. I feel smarter now. Although I did not understand all of the thread, I understood a lot of it. I realize now not only that I *didn't* know what I was talking about, but also that I *still don't*, nevertheless, I will risk embarrassing myself again and sum up what I learned for PhysicsDude's (all these Dudes everywhere!) reading pleasure:

I'm going to express my profound respect for the acknowledgments I've placed in bold.

[moderator]Knock off the constant mockery of other posters. You are on your last leg here.

-Chaos