" American Indian Ancestry Traced Back To Six Women"

[cdowis]

Katherine, not sure where to begin.

You post is full of words. If you really really think that scientists have proven these things, and my statement is outside the realm of possibility, I don't think anything I can say will sway you.

I just see someone who is very naive about the history of science, and how scientific consensus and assumptions can drive science into dark paths, which take decades to correct, if at all. You are not asking questions, but trying to teach me a thing or two ==> Consensus opinion of scientists is established, indisputable fact.

If one does dare to question the common consensus, they are branded as "dishonest". How immoral. I am a liar and a deceiver.

++++++++++++++++++++++

An example, everyone who came to the Americas crossed the Bering land bridge. End of discussion. Don't even excavate to pre-Clovis layers, because nothing is there. Pre-Clovis man does not exist.

Katherine, did you accept that consensus as fact? And as a believer of the consensus, were you a truth teller then, and now a liar since it was proven false.

Was I a liar (dishonest) when I did not accept the consensus, and suddenly became a truth teller now?

I am truly confused. Is it not possible to disagree with you, and actually be "honest"?

[katherine the great]

Katherine, not sure where to begin.

You post is full of words. If you really really think that scientists have proven these things, and my statement is outside the realm of possibility, I don't think anything I can say will sway you.

I just see someone who is very naive about the history of science, and how scientific consensus and assumptions can drive science into dark paths, which take decades to correct, if at all.

You are not asking questions, but trying to teach me a thing or two ==> Consensus opinion of scientists is established, indisputable fact.

No room for questions or exceptions.

An example, everyone who came to the Americas crossed the Bering land bridge. End of discussion. Don't even excavate to pre-Clovis layers, because nothing is there. Pre-Clovis man does not exist.

Katherine, did you accept that consensus as fact? Just curious.

I get the impression that you are not the least bit interested in the real history of human migration--only finding evidence that supports your own hypothesis. I don't think it is necessary to believe that all people who came to the Americas came by way of Beringia. Being LDS, I obviously do NOT believe that. Being a reasonable person with respect for good science, and seeing the dna supported by anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and other things, I believe that most likely, the NA haplogroups A, B, C and D probably did come from that route. X may or may not have. I find the method used to arrive at probable dates of divergence very reasonably point to 12,000 years bp at the very latest. You're right--you cannot sway me to believe that these dates are off by a minimum or 10,000 years. Sorry.

[The Dude]

Give it up, Katherine. This Greek-indian thing is perhaps cdowis' favorite talisman -- he'll never surrender it. He may pull it out of his breast pocket and wave it around on every other DNA thread with the belief it boggles his challengers, but that's just a little goofyness we have to put up with around here. They don't call it the MAD board for nothing.

[cdowis]

I get the impression that you are not the least bit interested in the real history of human migration--only finding evidence that supports your own hypothesis.

On the contrary, I am very interested in the real history of human migration, but I am also aware that we do not yet possess a time machine, and science is limited in its investigation of the past.

I am interested but I am not foolish enough to accept all of the fairy tales that scientists give us. I gave you one specific example (pre-Clovis), and it appears that you are the one not interested in the *real* history.

I don't think it is necessary to believe that all people who came to the Americas came by way of Beringia.

Sigh. It was necessary several decades to say that. Indeed, one of the points of the Smithsonian letter was that everyone who came to America came across the bridge. The idea of a tranoceanic migration has only recently, and very reluctently been considered by "serious" scientists.

You really ought to read up on these things if you pretend to be interested in such things, instead of throwing out invectives (e.g. "dishonest")

Being LDS, I obviously do NOT believe that. Being a reasonable person with respect for good science, and seeing the dna supported by anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and other things, I believe that most likely, the NA haplogroups A, B, C and D probably did come from that route. X may or may not have. I find the method used to arrive at probable dates of divergence very reasonably point to 12,000 years bp at the very latest. You're right--you cannot sway me to believe that these dates are off by a minimum or 10,000 years. Sorry.

Let's take the Dude's suggestion here. Instead of answering my questions and dealing with the issues, let's talk about my "talisman". Let's have a good laugh over my abysmal stupidity and ignorance to question such things.

I think we would agree that further conversation is not very useful on this matter. You and the Dude can have a great time rolling on the floor laughing.

[katherine the great]

<<I think we would agree that further conversation is not very useful on this matter. You and the Dude can have a great time rolling on the floor laughing.>>

As appealing as it sounds to roll on the floor laughing with the Dude, I assure you, I've never even met the man in person.

I don't think you are stupid--just very stubborn and closed minded--although so is my husband and I assure you, I adore him. I'm not sure what your question is about the Clovis people. I remember the Clovis first theory, but as long as it was not disproved, it tended to be generally accepted. That's how science works. Some scientists have thought for some time that there were other groups of people who settled in the Americas, but either died out or were integrated into existing populations. I don't see anything wrong with believing that the first Americans (the ones with modern day descendants) most likely came through Beringia. It makes perfect sense and is very well supported by the evidence. The only haplogroup that is really controversial is X. They could have been a completely separate people or they could have been part of the other migration. We just don't know yet. So far though, all the evidence shows that it separated from the European X a very long time ago.

[katherine the great]

Give it up, Katherine.

I'm trying to give it up, but it's addictive!

[cdowis]

The only haplogroup that is really controversial is X. They could have been a completely separate people or they could have been part of the other migration. We just don't know yet. So far though, all the evidence shows that it separated from the European X a very long time ago.

What about the Druze? They also have haplogroup x, they inhabit the Middle East, but I have not heard anyone doing a comparison but I don't keep up with such things.

BTW, it was Dr Brown, the author of the original article on the subject, who mentioned the Druze as one possibility (personal conversation). He also expressed some uncertainty over the dating of the haplogroup x divergence == when I tried to pin him down on the dating, including recent dating, he basically said that we would not know until we discovered the original source.

After getting considerable heat over this remark to me from the antimormons, he now adamently states that he is quite confident in the dating, but never has denied that he made this comment to me. He is obviously very embarrassed over this whole thing and now refuses to discuss it.

This has a familiar ring to it, does it not? (the Charles Anton affair).

Anyway, my "dishonesty" and my so-called talisman is based on more than wishful thinking. It is based on talking to "then man" himself, and some knowledge of the history of how scientists think (and don't think).

=========================================

Finally, I do find it fascinating that your non-friend Dude, as well as yourself, continue to refuse to engage in the issues that I have brought up, specifically, for example, the pre=Clovis debacle. Why are you all so confident in this one area, when scientists had proven so intransident on another related issue.

The Dude's silence is thunderous. He can laugh, and make a joke, but otherwise refuses to respond.

Who is really carrying the talisman, my dear fellow. I am willing to talk, you are silent.

I am standing across from you toe-to-toe, face to face, the playing field is science, not religion. You picked the place, now let's see what you got.

Let's start off with the first shot ==>> pre-Clovis man, and the scientific consensus. The refusal, until recently, to consider transoceanic migration. According to a PBS (Nova) documentary, archeologists refused to excavate past the clovis layers because "nothing was there". They also documented that it was very unheathy to one's professional career to question the scientist's consensus regarding pre-Clovis. It took a great act of courage for one of the archeologists to continue to dig past Clovis layers and he took a great deal of criticism for his findings.

And your response?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have reserved a space for your response. Just increase the area if you need it.

Let's see who is really carrying around a talisman.