Neanderthal DNA in modern non-Africans

[semlogo]

Then why are you here?

Because I'm LDS and this is a forum full of interesting topics relevant to my interests.

Why are you here?

[Pahoran]

I think that if you always assume the worst about people, it will negatively color all your relationships.

For instance, you seem to be assuming the worst about me when you assume that I am assuming the worst about Abulafia.

In reality, I did the following:

1. I read the OP.
   
2. I asked myself: what relevance does, or could, this possibly have to LDS life, teaching or discourse?
   
3. Recognising that there is no direct connection, but several possible indirect ones, I looked at the OP again to see if the thread originator had telegraphed any intentions.
   
4. And not surprisingly, she had.
   

Not content to let the discussion develop around the research itself, Abulafia made sure to nudge it in the direction she wanted it to go, thus:

Personally, I find that if this research is correct then the implications are profound both in terms of 19th Century attitudes to race and in the resulting theological discourse and belief that came out of that.

Now Semlogo, why don't you tell us: what "19th Century attitudes to race" do you think she might be talking about? What "theological discourse and belief" might be seen as "resulting" from said attitudes?

Keep in mind that this is a Mormon dialogue forum.

Take all the time you need; I'm in no hurry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Because I'm LDS and this is a forum full of interesting topics relevant to my interests.

Why are you here?

Thank you for illustrating the double standard with which you post.

[semlogo]

For instance, you seem to be assuming the worst about me when you assume that I am assuming the worst about Abulafia.

I didn't assume anything about you - you flat out said some bad things about her motivations that you couldn't possibly know. I only went by what you actually said. I didn't pretend to read your mind, as you pretended to read hers.

I think posts like yours only serve to reinforce a tribalistic, "us vs them" attitude that gives people a bad impression of Latter-day Saints.

[semlogo]

Thank you for illustrating the double standard with which you post.

That's as clear as mud. What double standard? I'm not the one pretending to know some anonymous person's inner thoughts.

[Pahoran]

I didn't assume anything about you - you flat out said some bad things about her motivations that you couldn't possibly know. I only went by what you actually said. I didn't pretend to read your mind, as you pretended to read hers.

You are making an accusation that you can have no good faith basis to believe to be true. I have explained, in detail, how I arrived at my conclusions. You may take issue with my reasoning, if indeed you can, but to accuse me of having "pretended to read" her mind is a falsehood, and you have no excuse for making it.

I think posts like yours only serve to reinforce a tribalistic, "us vs them" attitude that gives people a bad impression of Latter-day Saints.

And I think that your pontifical pronouncements might actually carry some weight, if only you were to actually engage my arguments.

Regards,

Pahoran

[semlogo]

You are making an accusation that you can have no good faith basis to believe to be true. I have explained, in detail, how I arrived at my conclusions. You may take issue with my reasoning, if indeed you can, but to accuse me of having "pretended to read" her mind is a falsehood, and you have no excuse for making it.

And I think that your pontifical pronouncements might actually carry some weight, if only you were to actually engage my arguments.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is what you said:

It's so nice to be patronised by an anonymous opiner. Tell us, Mary, just so we can know: what have you accomplished in your entire lifetime that might compare with what Brigham Young accomplished in any one year of his adult life?

I'd just like to know how it is that you manage to look down upon him from such a magnificently great height.

Regards,

Pahoran

But no where in the text you quoted was anything resembling your harsh accusations. Indeed, what she said is essentially in line with modern LDS apologetic thoughts about Brigham Young. You assume that she is patronizing and thinks herself superior, but she never said that. So where are you getting it from, if not by reading her mind?

[Jeff K.]

The church never has been and never will be destroyed by non members...

[semlogo]

The church never has been and never will be destroyed by non members...

or anyone else for that matter! But certainly when members launch unwarranted, paranoid attacks on the characters of people they suspect of thoughtcrime, it certainly doesn't help the mission or image of the church.

[Pahoran]

This is what you said:

But no where in the text you quoted was anything resembling your harsh accusations. Indeed, what she said is essentially in line with modern LDS apologetic thoughts about Brigham Young. You assume that she is patronizing and thinks herself superior, but she never said that. So where are you getting it from, if not by reading her mind?

I'm getting it from what she wrote; both in the post to which I was immediately replying, and in the OP.

Your double standards are exceeded only by your double standards. You accuse me of "mind-reading." Where did Abulafia get all that claptrap about "guilt" and "sub-humans" except by "mind-reading?"

If you are going to be even-handed, you must therefore scold Abulafia for her attempts at "mind-reading." I await your forthcoming demonstration of impartiality.

But I won't be holding my breath.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm getting it from what she wrote; both in the post to which I was immediately replying, and in the OP.

Your double standards are exceeded only by your double standards. You accuse me of "mind-reading." Where did Abulafia get all that claptrap about "guilt" and "sub-humans" except by "mind-reading?"

If you are going to be even-handed, you must therefore scold Abulafia for her attempts at "mind-reading." I await your forthcoming demonstration of impartiality.

But I won't be holding my breath.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran, a friendly piece of advice. The only person I have found tougher to have a serious debate with than Hughes is Semlogo.

I hope this helps.

[semlogo]

I'm getting it from what she wrote; both in the post to which I was immediately replying, and in the OP.

Your double standards are exceeded only by your double standards. You accuse me of "mind-reading." Where did Abulafia get all that claptrap about "guilt" and "sub-humans" except by "mind-reading?"

If you are going to be even-handed, you must therefore scold Abulafia for her attempts at "mind-reading." I await your forthcoming demonstration of impartiality.

But I won't be holding my breath.

Regards,

Pahoran

"Guilt" and "sub-human" are in reference to the racist culture of the 19th century. To infer mind reading of a culture doesn't even make sense. A culture doesn't have a mind.

Don't be so defensive about the faith that you react in knee jerk fashion to everything. Show some confidence.

[semlogo]

Pahoran, a friendly piece of advice. The only person I have found tougher to have a serious debate with than Hughes is Semlogo.

I hope this helps.

I'm going to interpret that to mean that I am a tough debater.

[Pahoran]

"Guilt" and "sub-human" are in reference to the racist culture of the 19th century. To infer mind reading of a culture doesn't even make sense. A culture doesn't have a mind.

He asserted, confidently. You're right about one thing: a culture doesn't have a mind, which means it can't feel guilt.

Abulafia's assertion means nothing unless she is describing the thought processes of a person. Look closely, Semlogo: can you see a person mentioned in the paragraph in question? I can, and I'll give you a hint: his name starts with B and ends with righam.

The reality, of course, is that she was carrying out the purpose of this thread, namely to find a way -- however far-fetched -- to relitigate the old "race" argument. I was pointing out how lame are her attempts to do so.

Luckily for her, she has you to run interference for her, so that fewer people will notice what a contrived and absurd argument she's making. I hope she will show suitable gratitude.

Likewise, your magnanimous refusal to notice the OP and allow it to be part of the context of the thread has been very serviceable to her.

Don't be so defensive about the faith that you react in knee jerk fashion to everything. Show some confidence.

Perhaps you'd prefer I defend the anti-Mormons in a knee jerk fashion. Like you do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

I'm going to interpret that to mean that I am a tough debater.

Yeah, like the guy on "Slingblade".

[semlogo]

He asserted, confidently. You're right about one thing: a culture doesn't have a mind, which means it can't feel guilt.

Abulafia's assertion means nothing unless she is describing the thought processes of a person. Look closely, Semlogo: can you see a person mentioned in the paragraph in question? I can, and I'll give you a hint: his name starts with B and ends with righam.

The reality, of course, is that she was carrying out the purpose of this thread, namely to find a way -- however far-fetched -- to relitigate the old "race" argument. I was pointing out how lame are her attempts to do so.

Luckily for her, she has you to run interference for her, so that fewer people will notice what a contrived and absurd argument she's making. I hope she will show suitable gratitude.

Likewise, your magnanimous refusal to notice the OP and allow it to be part of the context of the thread has been very serviceable to her.

Perhaps you'd prefer I defend the anti-Mormons in a knee jerk fashion. Like you do.

Regards,

Pahoran

Merely mentioning Brigham in the same paragraph is not the same as accusing him of those things. I think that if you slow down, read it more carefully you'll find that her statement was quite benign. I have no idea if she is an anti-Mormon or not, since this is the only time I've ever noticed her. There is nothing in her posts in this thread to indicate what you are accusing her of. I only know that you are making us Latter-day Saints look bad by exhibiting this hostile, knee-jerk stance.

Cultures do indeed experience guilt. See: Germany's residual guilt over its actions in WWII.

Gordon B. Hinckley warned members against cliquishness. It behooves us as representatives of Christ not to viciously attack people's character merely because they do not share our faith.

[Calm]

I have no idea if she is an anti-Mormon or not, since this is the only time I've ever noticed her.

So you would not be aware of any pattern of her behaviours in contrast to someone else who has paid attention to her other posts and her overall posting style.

[Pahoran]

So you would not be aware of any pattern of her behaviours in contrast to someone else who has paid attention to her other posts and her overall posting style.

Actually Cal, it is apparent that Semlogo has got hold of this bone, and is not about to let it go. Thus, I think the best thing we can do here is to concede his point. Then maybe the thread can get back to the actual topic, which is how Neanderthal DNA can be exploited for race-baiting purposes.

You'll notice that I have invited Semlogo several times to engage the OP. You'll also notice that he has discreetly ignored my invitations.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stargazer]

Actually Cal, it is apparent that Semlogo has got hold of this bone, and is not about to let it go. Thus, I think the best thing we can do here is to concede his point. Then maybe the thread can get back to the actual topic, which is how Neanderthal DNA can be exploited for race-baiting purposes.

You'll notice that I have invited Semlogo several times to engage the OP. You'll also notice that he has discreetly ignored my invitations.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't know about this, whether he's avoiding the engagement with you or not. I am under the impression that Semlogo is trying to say that he objects to the tone of voice that you sometimes use to address people whom you disagree with. I appreciate the frequent trenchantness of your arguments, and sometimes I enjoy it, especially when directed against some of the real Bozos that come in here posting idiocies. But sometimes you do not seem to appreciate that, like sharpness expressed betimes, it needs to be termpered with love in order to have the best effect, especially when it comes to those who are not the egregious jerks we sometimes get. In other words, assail the logic and the presented evidence, but leave off with the critical personal confrontation.

Abulafia has serious doubts about the Church, she's not been shy about expressing them, everyone knows where she stands, except possibly some of the newer-bies, like Semlogo. I understand how you might get hot under the collar at what you perceive to be loaded language, but the fact remains that Brother Brigham has come across as a racist at times (and like she says, a lot like many of his contemporaries). I will not take second place to anyone in my conviction that Brigham Young was a true prophet, and the Lord's instrument in saving the Church after the death of Joseph. But I do not doubt that, despite some of his language to the effect that our black brothers and sisters were worthy of respect and were children of God, that he held race prejudices that we find very uncomfortable in this day and time. This is a matter of public record, not mind-reading.

Enough of that. Back to the OP.

I find it interesting that non-black-Africans share some Neanderthal DNA. I wonder how this could have occurred, and it seems reasonable that interbreeding is the cause. How does this affect my faith in the Creation story? Not much at all. As I said, I think a lot of the story is allegory, even if I am sure that some of it is literal. I find, too, that the order of Creation as described in Genesis seems to follow in some ways how paleontology imagines that it did.

• "Let there be light" -- first, the nebula that became this solar system collapsed under gravitational attraction, with the Sun igniting once core temperature and pressure reached the necessary level.
• "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters" -- the planets coalesce around local centers of mass and eventually each of them grow to the point of being able to clear their orbits of mass and debris;
• "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so" -- the igniting sun's new solar wind drives lighter elements, especially hydrogen (remember that the nebula consists primarily of hydrogen) outwards, some of which is captured by the rocky planets and in the Earth's case eventually forms the oceans, using oxygen bound up with many of the metals.
• "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" -- before land animals there must be land plants for them to feed on.
• "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" -- well, these were probably there long before the plants, for one thing the moon is likely responsible for the first leaps of life onto the land, by way of tides, which in earlier days were much larger than today, the moon being then much closer to the earth. But it is also possible that there was still a lot of nebulosity, tending to obscure the stars.

Anyway, it goes on in the same rough order as paleontology says that it must have done. My father, an agnostic, told me that this was because Moses was a very smart man and figured it out apriori. Now there's a leap, at least with respect to the scientic precociousness of Moses, but I digress.

The thing is, nothing science has said about the Creation or even the Descent of Man, has deconvinced me that God was the root cause of it. It appears quite plain to me that however He arrived at Homo Sapiens Sapiens, allegorical Garden of Eden or not, He arrived at him. Argue all one wishes with the literal Bible, which does not in any fashion claim to be the Ur-text of Geology and Anthropology, none of what man-science has discovered (or thinks it has discovered) contradicts the claim that God created this world (and this Universe). In fact, it appears to me to confirm it.

But that's me.

Now, Pahoran, can we please, please, with sugar on top, argue civilly with Mary's premises and conclusions, instead of arguing with supposed intentions? I know there's a temptation to try to read her mind, but I don't think she's here to try to destroy the Church. In my own humble attempt at mind-reading, I suspect she keeps coming back here because she's hoping some one of us might one of these days give her good reason to want to believe again, even if she doesn't conciously think so. Shouting at her won't help.

[Jeff K.]

Civility is often a two way street and one cannot help but address the motivations as one is being bludgeoned.

Given the neandertal valley is in Europe and Homo Sapien Sapiens and Neandertals co-existed in the are it is most definately not surprising that the DNA mixes and matches. Neandertals have nothing to do with Cain in my opinion, since the question is never addressed in either scripture or doctrine, it is irrelevant beyond the normal curiosities of science, one day we will know the meaning, just not know.

[Stargazer]

Civility is often a two way street and one cannot help but address the motivations as one is being bludgeoned.

It may be that your blugeon detection system is more refined than mine, but I didn't feel blows in this case.

Given the neandertal valley is in Europe and Homo Sapien Sapiens and Neandertals co-existed in the are it is most definately not surprising that the DNA mixes and matches. Neandertals have nothing to do with Cain in my opinion, since the question is never addressed in either scripture or doctrine, it is irrelevant beyond the normal curiosities of science, one day we will know the meaning, just not know.

Neanderthals were first found in the Neander Valley, and while they may have been endemic to Europe, they were not exclusive to Europe, and were known to inhabit both western and central Asia. I suppose it is possible they were even more widely distributed than that. No, I do not see them as associated with Cain, either, and I agree that full understanding must wait for the future. The subject makes for wonderful speculation, but that's about it. And of course some will draw conclusions that may not be in fact true. Including ourselves.

[Abulafia]

Pahoran, Jeff,

I asked the questions, because I wanted to know what other people think. Genuinely. It helps me develop my own ideas and opinions and I actually do take note of thoughtful answers. There was a time when I was appalled by Brigham's views on race (and polygamy!), even as an active member.... so if my attitudes have gone from judgement to attempts at understanding within the context of the times, then maybe that's a step in the right direction for me, even if it comes off as patronising?

Mary