Ancient Horse Dna From Canadian Yukon Sequenced

[rpn]

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/ancient-horses-genome-decoded-700-000-years-after-it-galloped-6C10459396

What does this research contribute, if anything, to the debate about horses in the Book of Mormon?

[cdowis]

Sigh.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.nbcnews.c...oped-6C10459396

What does this research contribute, if anything, to the debate about horses in the Book of Mormon?

No; It predates the horses mentioned in the BoM by a little less than 695,000 years.

[Stone holm]

http://www.nbcnews.c...oped-6C10459396

What does this research contribute, if anything, to the debate about horses in the Book of Mormon?

Uh basically nothing. Scientists have long said that the horse probably originated in the Americas and migrated in the opposite direction of humans back to Asia, and that the horses in the Americas were likely hunted into extinction. Finding a really ancient horse in Canada doesnt help or hinder the B of M debate, nor does it change the conclusions that science had already reached.

[williamsmith]

What I find interesting about the Horse story is that the couple of Spanish trips that brought horses couldn't have at all populated the shear # of horses reported with the Indian and roaming free within just 50-100 years after, frankly because most died or were eaten. Further, the "type" of horse was completely different from what the Spanish had, and the Indian were already strong experts in the horse at the time as well.

This is an informative video.

[Johnnie Cake]

Lets reason this out...

Horses originated in the America's and migrated westward to Asia where they were domesticated by humans. The American branch died off prior to the arrival of humans leaving the America's devoid of horses. The relevant point for mormons is that during the Book of Mormon timeline no horses existed in the America's. Spanish reintroduced the horse into the America's in the 16th century where they flourished

My question is to williamsmith is this...if none existed prior to the Spanish and they did exist after being reintroduced. How can u claim that the horses adapted by the native population obtained their horse population by some other mysterious method then through that Spanish reintroduction your claim is baseless and as the speaker in the video states speculation

It's probably important to note that everywhere that horses did exist through out the world during BoM timeline evidence of this existence is plentiful. Only in the America's none exists. Why would this be so if there were horses in the America's from 2200 bc to 400 ad? The answer is obvious ... Horses didnt exist in the America's during this time period...despite BoM claims to the contrary

Edited June 27, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[ERayR]

Lets reason this out...

Sigh! If only you could would.

[cinepro]

What I find interesting about the Horse story is that the couple of Spanish trips that brought horses couldn't have at all populated the shear # of horses reported with the Indian and roaming free within just 50-100 years after, frankly because most died or were eaten.

What year were horses introduced, and what, exactly, were the indians saying 50-100 years later?

Here's a study of a feral horse population in Montana:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3809357?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102482986217

Read the abstract, and then tell me what the horse population would be 100 years after the introduction and escape of some horses in the New World.

One important point to consider: this article estimates that a feral mare can produce up to 18 foals in her lifetime.

Edited June 27, 2013 by cinepro

[Ron Beron]

What year were horses introduced, and what, exactly, were the indians saying 50-100 years later?

Here's a study of a feral horse population in Montana:

http://www.jstor.org...=21102482986217

Read the abstract, and then tell me what the horse population would be 100 years after the introduction and escape of some horses in the New World.

One important point to consider: this articleestimates that a feral mare can produce up to 18 foals in her lifetime.

For a very interesting read on this... http://www.redoaktree.org/indianhorse/history1.htm

[cdowis]

Lets reason this out...

OK

Horses originated in the America's and migrated westward to Asia where they were domesticated by humans. The American branch died off prior to the arrival of humans leaving the America's devoid of horses.

You have made a bold statement. I assume that you can prove this statement beyond "consensus of opinion". Or are you going with the old fallacy "not found, not exist."

So, using reasoning and logic, let's see something besides unproven assertion.

The relevant point for mormons is that during the Book of Mormon timeline no horses existed in the America's. Spanish reintroduced the horse into the America's in the 16th century where they flourished

The revelant point for critics is that they make assertions without proof -- only opinion, assertion, speculation, baloney.

But let's see your proof

My question is to williamsmith is this...if none existed prior to the Spanish and they did exist after being reintroduced.

My question to you is == do you know anything at all about logical fallicies?

The answer is obvious ... Horses didnt exist in the America's during this time period...despite BoM claims to the contrary

It is indeed obvious ==>> just more antimormon garbage.

Edited June 28, 2013 by cdowis

[Johnnie Cake]

It is indeed obvious ==>> just more antimormon garbage.

So because I choose to believe in the evidence I'm an anti Mormon ... Interesting

[williamsmith]

So because I choose to believe in the evidence I'm an anti Mormon ... Interesting

If you believed in the "evidence" you would have watched the video and noticed that some of your questions were debunked by it by the FULL evidences.

[Darren10]

One important point to consider: this articleestimates that a feral mare can produce up to 18 foals in her lifetime.

She must be Mormon.

[Ron Beron]

If you believed in the "evidence" you would have watched the video and noticed that some of your questions were debunked by it by the FULL evidences.

I watched the entire presentation and while it was interesting it is not really hard evidence. When I was younger I participated in some digs and did, indeed, find some equine bones....all of which go back at least 10,000 years. To prove such an allegation we have to find the fossil remnants.

[Johnnie Cake]

It is indeed obvious ==>> just more antimormon garbage.

I'm not looking for a fight and will gladly withdraw my statements if shown that they are wrong.

But I do have a question for you. When has non existence of anything been considered evidence for it? I can only think of a few situations where this has been argued. Believers in space aliens, leprechauns oh and believers in precolumbian horses. Could each of these exist? I suppose anything is possible if your standard for existence is "lack of evidence" and since no one has yet produced evidence of their nonexistence other than no evidence, I guess we can all remain hopeful that in time that we'll find that pot o gold.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

She must be Mormon.

Or Catholic. Largest family I knew personally in Utah had 12 kids and they were Catholic, LDS I know only got up to 8 or 9 except for one that took in the kids of the mom's sister who was mentally handicapped and kept having kids thinking the govenment would finally let her keep one. It wouldn't have been such a difficult situation (from the range of kids I don't think her mental handicap was genetic), save she drank while pregnant and her kids all had fetal alcohol syndrome. Most of the boys had significant ADHD or so it appeared so, the daughter was a genius and as far as I was aware not ADHD, but may have had some attachment issues. But the healing that took place in that family was a miracle, especially considering the financial struggles they went through...though that might have helped as it made every member a necessary contributor to the family, the kids and mom doing paper routes early morning way before seminary and other things. Last I heard all the kids, adopted and full were doing well. Edited June 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[bu11fr0g]

The article does contribute:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12323.html

This provides more evidence of speciation within horses and provides timelines. This provides the most definitive evidence of genetic separation between domesticated horses and przewalski's wild horses.

The American wild mustang is a domesticated horse rather than the mixture of a domesticated horse and wild horse. This is consistent with Spanish origins. There are no extant BoM fossils for horses but these could be tested for origin if they existed.

The same techniques exclude a prominent contribution to Native American DNA from the middle east.

[cdowis]

I'm not looking for a fight and will gladly withdraw my statements if shown that they are wrong.

Your statement was unequivocal, that horses were extinct in BOM times. You have the burden to prove that statement, but good luck on proving a negative.

But I do have a question for you. When has non existence of anything been considered evidence for it?

Of itself, it is not proof. Of course the prudent principal applies -- purple elephants with red dots, for example. But that exception does not apply in this case.

I can only think of a few situations where this has been argued. Believers in space aliens, leprechauns oh and believers in precolumbian horses.

A prudent person does not believe in purple elephants, but pre-Columbian horses actually did exist. A basic search shows this as a scientific fact. It is simply a matter of *if* and *when* they went extinct.

You are using a very silly argument that leprechons and preClumbian horses is the same argument. You will have to do better than that.

Could each of these exist? I suppose anything is possible if your standard for existence is "lack of evidence" and since no one has yet produced evidence of their nonexistence other than no evidence, I guess we can all remain hopeful that in time that we'll find that pot o gold.

I guess we can only hope that you will stop the silly arguments. Do your homework -- preColumbian horses actually existed.

[Storm Rider]

So because I choose to believe in the evidence I'm an anti Mormon ... Interesting

No, it is because you selective believe science. You only seek that which supports your perception and are completely blind to anything to the contrary. This is not the position of an open-minded individual, but of something else entirely.

[bcuzbcuz]

What I find interesting about the Horse story is that the couple of Spanish trips that brought horses couldn't have at all populated the shear # of horses reported with the Indian and roaming free within just 50-100 years after, frankly because most died or were eaten. Further, the "type" of horse was completely different from what the Spanish had, and the Indian were already strong experts in the horse at the time as well.

This is an informative video.

He says it outright at the beginning, that he doesn't have a "smoking gun" or in other words, positive, confirmable evidence. So why do think this video is interesting? Maybe you're hearing him say something I didn't hear him bring to the table?

Edited June 28, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[Johnnie Cake]

On what exactly do you base your post Pleistocene/ precolumbian horse belief? I thought this subject was settled ground among Internet savvy LDS members...

[Stargazer]

I watched the entire presentation and while it was interesting it is not really hard evidence. When I was younger I participated in some digs and did, indeed, find some equine bones....all of which go back at least 10,000 years. To prove such an allegation we have to find the fossil remnants.

The guy himself said it was not hard evidence. I think it is sufficient to show that there were likely horses here, even if they didn't cover the land of Zarahemla.

[Ron Beron]

The guy himself said it was not hard evidence. I think it is sufficient to show that there were likely horses here, even if they didn't cover the land of Zarahemla.

Of course, there is a possibility of a group of horses that survived the kill off of major groups of North American mammals, but there simply isn't the evidence for it. Until then I will have to continue on with faith.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not looking for a fight and will gladly withdraw my statements if shown that they are wrong.

But I do have a question for you. When has non existence of anything been considered evidence for it? I can only think of a few situations where this has been argued. Believers in space aliens, leprechauns oh and believers in precolumbian horses. Could each of these exist? I suppose anything is possible if your standard for existence is "lack of evidence" and since no one has yet produced evidence of their nonexistence other than no evidence, I guess we can all remain hopeful that in time that we'll find that pot o gold.

Or ancient Troy.

[Stone holm]

Or ancient Troy.

PreColumbian horses existed, but the question is did they exist at the time referenced in the B of M.