cjcampbell Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 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.Ah. So you accept DNA evidence that appears to contradict the Book of Mormon (even when it does not) but you reject the same DNA evidence as far as Australian Aborigines goes? Well, I guess that tells us how seriously to take your arguments...
YH8 Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 I thought we didn't know the true identity of our super-friend.SargonAre you sure about that?
Fortigurn Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 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. -ChaosExcuse me? I make a post expressing respect for another poster, and I am accused of 'constant mockery of other posters'? Could you please supply evidence for this 'constant mockery of other posters', and explain why you responded so antagonistically to me expressing respect for another poster?
maklelan Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Now, scientists (both Mormon scientists, and non-mormon NON-PARTIAL scientists) have tested thousands of native Americans, all over North and South America, from hundreds of secluded and remote tribes. It was found that 99.4 of native Americans HAD east-Asian Mitochondrial DNA, and .6 of them had European (not Israelite) DNA. This is conclusive! It means that the Native Americans CAME from east-Asia, its %100 accurate about it. Now what is interesting is that scientists also are able to extract DNA from skeletons and hundreds of skeletons, found in America which are believed to be a thousand or more years old (many of which were tested and confirmed by BYU scientists) and they showed to have %100 of east-Asian DNA. The %.6 European DNA from modern Native Americans is obviously from intermarriage from the Europeans. Although scientists try to find the most remote and exclusive Native American tribes, just one or two intermarriages can change the mitochondrial DNA that they have.My question is this: how many samples from the Asian side are ancient and how many are modern? My understanding is that only one sample of ancient Asian DNA has ever been analyzed, and it is quite distinct from modern. The comparisons are being made to modern Asians. In addition, modern Jewish DNA is being tested. this is as far as I'm familiar with the topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
YH8 Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Excuse me? I make a post expressing respect for another poster, and I am accused of 'constant mockery of other posters'? Could you please supply evidence for this 'constant mockery of other posters', and explain why you responded so antagonistically to me expressing respect for another poster?I think you might not be on your last leg anymore.
structurecop Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Excuse me? I make a post expressing respect for another poster, and I am accused of 'constant mockery of other posters'? Could you please supply evidence for this 'constant mockery of other posters', and explain why you responded so antagonistically to me expressing respect for another poster?If I were you, I would delete that comment ASAP as to avoid banning from the board. That is, if you value posting here.
Sargon Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Personally, I disagree with almost everything Fortigurn says as far as his thoughts towards LDS theology and history are concerned. And I often am frustrated by that, but I saw no reason for the red ink here. There are others who are more deserving of red ink then him, perhaps you have not yet figured out his personality. (I might be the one person with the most experience with Fortigurn, having known him on other boards).Sargon
Sethbag Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 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.That's why I say we should be having a barbecue. I'm still planning on it, just my backyard really decayed mightily over the winter. My rye grass came in only patchy, most of my flowers and other things died, the grape vines went dormant, etc. Finally I let the rye grass just grow unmolested for about 6 weeks, so I had bare brown patches of dormant Bermuda grass with occasional 15" tall oases of rye. But all that's changing - this last Saturday I mowed it all down, pulled out the weeds and stray rye that was growing in the garden area, etc. I'm not done yet, but I'll get the yard looking OK, and then have it. I'm thinking middle of March now.It'll be kind of like the Allied and German sailors who'd meet up in a bar in a neutral country during WWII, or that famous incident during WWI when the English and German soldiers crossed no-man's land on Christmas day, visited with each other, swapped food and drink, etc. and then went back to shooting at each other the next day.
Fortigurn Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 If I were you, I would delete that comment ASAP as to avoid banning from the board. That is, if you value posting here.Could you please explain why? I expressed respect for what another poster said (it's very rare to see anyone back down on these hot issues, and I respect that kind of integrity). In return, a moderator accuses me of mockery, and 'constant mockery' at that. I have asked this to be clarified, and I am now told that objecting to the warning and asking the reason for it is grounds for banning. Is this for real?Personally, I disagree with almost everything Fortigurn says as far as his thoughts towards LDS theology and history are concerned. And I often am frustrated by that, but I saw no reason for the red ink here. There are others who are more deserving of red ink then him, perhaps you have not yet figured out his personality. (I might be the one person with the most experience with Fortigurn, having known him on other boards).SargonThank you. Sargon, I believe you know I was being sincere. We've always treated each other with respect, and respected each other when a backdown was in order. I acknowledged I was wrong when you corrected me, and vice versa. I find it difficult to believe that spirit isn't present here.
charity Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Rule #1. Don't spit into the wind.Rule #2. Don't tug on Superman's cape.Rule #3. Don't pull the mask off the Lone Ranger.Rule.#4. Don't mess around with mods.We like our mods here. If they tell you to knock it off, you knock it off and live to fight another day.
structurecop Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Could you please explain why? I expressed respect for what another poster said (it's very rare to see anyone back down on these hot issues, and I respect that kind of integrity). In return, a moderator accuses me of mockery, and 'constant mockery' at that. I have asked this to be clarified, and I am now told that objecting to the warning and asking the reason for it is grounds for banning. Upon further review, I see that you were honestly being respectful of his backing down. The first time I read it, it did appear to have a sneering tone. Your clarification does help. I hope the Mods agree.
Sethbag Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Ah. So you accept DNA evidence that appears to contradict the Book of Mormon (even when it does not) but you reject the same DNA evidence as far as Australian Aborigines goes? Well, I guess that tells us how seriously to take your arguments...Show me where I'm wrong. The articles I recall reading in the last year that discussed what you're talking about were statistical predictions, not actual hard DNA evidence. Are you saying you've read articles where actual DNA was found to be in existence in every single human being in the world, that was demonstrated to have existed 15000 years ago? Does this evidence show that the Aborigines of Australia also have this same 15000 year old DNA? If you have, and you can show it, I'll be happy to reverse myself - after all, my memory could be faulty on this point.
Fortigurn Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Upon further review, I see that you were honestly being respectful of his backing down. The first time I read it, it did appear to have a sneering tone. Your clarification does help. I hope the Mods agree.Thank you. I have no idea what the words 'profound respect' mean to you, but to me they mean 'profound respect'. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could possibly read those words as 'sneering'.Rule.#4. Don't mess around with mods.We like our mods here. If they tell you to knock it off, you knock it off and live to fight another day.I can't 'knock off' what I wasn't doing in the first place. I asked them to explain why I was being threatened for expulsion for expressing profound respect for what another poster had written. I also asked to see evidence for this 'constant mockery of other posters' which is charged to me (strange that none of the moderators has brought it to my attention until now).Is it reasonable to ask for evidence of the charges made against me? Or is that a bannable offence?
cdowis Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 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.I am not charity but sampling error can be crucial, considering that the haplogroup x discovery was found in only a few tribes, and not universal. What other DNA characteristics could be hidden in these missing samples. Another finding in a single sample was that a full-blooded Amerindian has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.Sampling error is not a distraction, but a crucial issue.
Sethbag Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Here is an article on wikipedia on y-chromosomal Adam that, as I recall, closely mirrors articles I've read in other sources in the last year on the subject.In relevant part:Time frameY-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by at least 30,000 years, or many hundred generations.
Doctor Steuss Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Here is an article on wikipedia on y-chromosomal Adam that, as I recall, closely mirrors articles I've read in other sources in the last year on the subject.In relevant part:Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by at least 30,000 years, or many hundred generations.Maybe Adam was hanging out alone in the Garden of Eden for 30K years until he got his rib taken from him.
structurecop Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Maybe Adam was hanging out alone in the Garden of Eden for 30K years until he got his rib taken from him. According to the Talmud, Eve is wife #3 for Adam.
SolarPowered Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Excuse me? I make a post expressing respect for another poster, and I am accused of 'constant mockery of other posters'? Could you please supply evidence for this 'constant mockery of other posters', and explain why you responded so antagonistically to me expressing respect for another poster?In Fortigurn's defense, I took his post to be expressing sincere respect to Helmuth having had the humility to admit that he had been mistaken. (And I note that Fortigurn and I usually butt heads when we interact.)Mods: I very much appreciate the work you do here. I understand that there's a lot of pruning to be done to keep things from getting out of hand here. Many kudos for your work!
charity Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 According to the Talmud, Eve is wife #3 for Adam.Lilith and who?
Fortigurn Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 In Fortigurn's defense, I took his post to be expressing sincere respect to Helmuth having had the humility to admit that he had been mistaken. (And I note that Fortigurn and I usually butt heads when we interact.)Thank you. That is exactly what I meant. Sargon will tell you that he and I always backed down when the other pointed out we were wrong, and we respect that. I appreciate your comment.
structurecop Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Lilith and who?After Lilith took off, God started forming another woman right in front of Adam. Adam was so disgusted by seeing her internal organs form that he refused to have anything to do with her. Finally God put Adam to sleep and took his rib to create Adam.
The Dude Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 I am not charity but sampling error can be crucial, considering that the haplogroup x discovery was found in only a few tribes, and not universal. What other DNA characteristics could be hidden in these missing samples. Another finding in a single sample was that a full-blooded Amerindian has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.Sampling error is not a distraction, but a crucial issue.Sampling error is crucial to what?It isn't crucial for knowing whether or not a Hemispheric model is blown out of the water. We can draw that conclusion with current surveys, sampling error notwithstanding.It might seem crucial for knowing if there's a case for LGT. But since we'll never know the character of Lehi's DNA, it really doesn't matter what DNA characteristics could be hidden in the missing samples. Missing samples, like this Greek example you love bringing up, will never prove or disprove LGT. It's a wild goose chase you're hoping for.
charity Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 I don't see any LDS trying to prove anything with DNA. I just see anti's trying to disprove a lot with DNA.
cdowis Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Sampling error is crucial to what?Did you read my post? To provide evidence for the original inhabitants of the American continent. It isn't crucial for knowing whether or not a Hemispheric model is blown out of the water. We can draw that conclusion with current surveys, sampling error notwithstanding. Did not say it was. It might seem crucial for knowing if there's a case for LGT. But since we'll never know the character of Lehi's DNA, it really doesn't matter what DNA characteristics could be hidden in the missing samples. Missing samples, like this Greek example you love bringing up, will never prove or disprove LGT. It's a wild goose chase you're hoping for.You asked why missing samples are crucial, and I gave you the reason, and two specific examples of why they could give us crucial evidence. I am addressing the original post in this thread.
Helmuth Posted February 21, 2007 Posted February 21, 2007 Thanks, Fortigurn for your kind words! Sorry they were misunderstood by some.As long as I'm posting a reply, let me correct what I wrote earlier a bit. I was in a hurry. This is the situation as I see it:It's a dating issue if you're trying to save the Whole-Hemisphere model. Possibly other issues, too. But Stewart's theory (that both NAs and Siberians/Mongolians have an Israelite or Israelite-ish orgin) seems to be the only one trying to save the Hemisphere model, and since the main hang-up it runs into is dating, that's why I say it seems to come down to dating issues.ORIt's a non-issue if you believe the Limited Geography (or limited genetic influence) model. It is basically impossible for DNA to disprove the Limited Geography Theory.Is this a fair summation of the situation?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.