Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

DNA vs Book of Mormon (INCREDIBLE New Evidence)


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, salgare said:

Your silly example was a Bayesian intuition problem right?  Roberts Links supporting historicity where stating Bayesian analysis as a proof (however as I noted it seemed the inverse of what I've heard).

I've only started reading you on mdb, but so far they are all on the same concept ... proving a negative.  I'm beginning to see this whole Bayesian analysis is critical to New Mormonism.

So far in my reading I'm not going to be missing out much with your arrogant dismissal.  With all the references to Bayesian the last few pages, how could you not understand what my statement had to do with the quote and to the ongoing conversation?

Now I'm really interested to finish reading those old threads.  Perhaps there might be other reasons to your being done with me?

Best wishes.

Oh yeah please don't throw me in the briar patch.  Stak gave me a hard time but didn't know what he was talking about.

He is on this board under another name.  Bring it if you can.  What are you waiting for?

Honestly I think they deleted the good ones.  I tried to find them myself.

Of course board rules forbid board wars, maybe you will get yourself banned

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 1/25/2016 at 10:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Most "orthodox Mormons" (whatever that means) know nothing of either theology or philosophy, which are academic disciplines which must be learned.  Moreover, philosophy does not entail "fuzzy logic," but rather hard, mathematical, and precise forms of logic.  I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "black and white truth."  Perhaps you could enlighten me. 

I've recently become a tiny bit more versed and can can give you answer to what "orthodox Mormon" and "black and white truth" mean to me.

An orthodox Mormon is someone who believes in external objective Truth.  It is black and white because the external source is God. I would also suggest that this represents an overwhelming majority of the members of the Church today.

I can also now see why I could not find better words than "fuzzy logic", something just continued to seem off.  What is fuzzy here is that mfg/your? philosophical truth is in opposition to the Church's Truth and thus it requires a paradigm shift (for an orthodox Mormon) from capital T (external objective truth) to some personal mix of postmodernism/pragmatism lower case t truth.

When I asked questions about factions among apologists and even among the FP/Q12 I was referring to divisions of abrasive old guard apologetics and the softer new guard.  Now I wonder how far up the chain factional lines are being drawn between big T little t?

As to this historicity issue, I was assuming this postmodernism/pragmatism might be opening the door for accepted publicly shared views that one does not believe the BoM to be historical and I wondered if mfb would go there at this time.  I'm now assuming that when the likes of Bill Hamblin point the finger of scorn, crying apostate one can safely fall back on the fuzzy logic of Bayesian intuition concepts to avoid anyone having to actually move to the dark side.

Edited by salgare
Link to comment

Kennewick Man, who dates between 8000-9000 years ago, has the mitochondrial X2a lineage that Meldrum says comes from Israel.  This skeleton predates the Jaredites by 4000 years and shows this particular lineage likely goes back 15000 years among native Americans.  You can read the published results in the journal Nature published in 2015. 

Phaedrus

Link to comment
2 hours ago, salgare said:

I've recently become a tiny bit more versed and can can give you answer to what "orthodox Mormon" and "black and white truth" mean to me.

An orthodox Mormon is someone who believes in external objective Truth.  It is black and white because the external source is God. I would also suggest that this represents an overwhelming majority of the members of the Church today.

Very few Mormons know what "external objective truth" might be (with or without a capital T), and take no thought of it in their daily lives.  This is true of people generally. Moreover, most people realize full well that there are many shades of grey in pretended black/white distinctions.  Life teaches them that.  A so-called "orthodox Mormon" may be someone who hews to the narrow path of what he perceives to be righteousness with some consistency, but that does not  mean that his version of truth is always shared with other Mormons.  One has to ask whether, for example, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Bruce R. McConkie would agree on what is "orthodox" Mormon theology or doctrine.

From a philosophical/logical point of view, it may be true that God knows or is the source of truth, but humans can only perceive truth subjectively.

I can also now see why I could not find better words than "fuzzy logic", something just continued to seem off.  What is fuzzy here is that mfg/your? philosophical truth is in opposition to the Church's Truth and thus it requires a paradigm shift (for an orthodox Mormon) from capital T (external objective truth) to some personal mix of postmodernism/pragmatism lower case t truth.

I cannot understand what you are saying here, but "fuzzy logic" is bad logic and unacceptable among serious thinkers.  Philosophical truth is not in opposition to LDS Church truth.

When I asked questions about factions among apologists and even among the FP/Q12 I was referring to divisions of abrasive old guard apologetics and the softer new guard.  Now I wonder how far up the chain factional lines are being drawn between big T little t?

Again, this is nonsense.  There is no abrasive old guard apologetics versus a softer new guard.  Factions of all kinds do occur in all manner of societies.  However, if you want to portray some sort of pretended old guard versus new guard antics, you need to cite specific sources and quote them.  You are making claims which cannot be supported.

As to this historicity issue, I was assuming this postmodernism/pragmatism might be opening the door for accepted publicly shared views that one does not believe the BoM to be historical and I wondered if mfb would go there at this time.  I'm now assuming that when the likes of Bill Hamblin point the finger of scorn, crying apostate one can safely fall back on the fuzzy logic of Bayesian intuition concepts to avoid anyone having to actually move to the dark side.

Bayesian Theory does not support fuzzy logic, but is very applicable to probabilities which provide preponderance of evidence -- as in civil jury trials.  It has nothing to do with crying apostate at any one.  Why would it?

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Gervin said:

The point is, no one makes Biblical historicity a relevant part of faith.  The quote you provide is some 2004 article by a 1954 Harvard grad who also writes historic fiction.  He's hardly representative of any mainstream beliefs and ... he hardly seems dogmatic.

Biblical historicity provides a wealth of information when you're studying scriptures and gives a sense of authenticity to the context.  It isn't necessary for faith - or increased faith.  If, however, it provides a sense of reassurance for some, it's probably not a bad thing.

You are in denial here on this board, Gervin, but you would never get by with those claims on an evangelical board.  The entire basis of evangelical Christianity rests on claims to biblical historicity, and their critics regularly attack them on that basis.  Here are volumes from one author:

McDowell, Josh, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, 1st ed. (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972); 2nd ed. (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1979).
McDowell, Josh, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith 1st ed. (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1975); 2nd ed. (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1981).
McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Nelson, 1999); third revised version in one volume of his Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, 2 vols. (1972, 1975); 2nd ed. (1979, 1981).
McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense: The Best of Josh McDowell, ed. Bill Wilson (Nashville: Nelson, 1993).
McDowell, Josh, and Don Stewart Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics are Asking About the Christian Faith (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1980) = Answers to Tough Questions: What Skeptics Are Asking About the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1993).
McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell, The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses: A Complete Guide to Answering the Tough Questions (Harvest House Publ., 2013).

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What video is that?

ETA:  The Matt & Clay videos are not related to apologetics.  They are enhanced anti-Mormon propaganda.

The one from the OP.  It was even covered in "LDS Living" magazine:

 

http://www.ldsliving.com/DNA-Research-Provides-Evidence-for-the-Book-of-Mormon-Video/s/81099?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=social_button

 

 

 

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
16 hours ago, salgare said:

..................................................................................

Quote

"Sounds like you have bought into a lot of rumormongering here, without  any specific sources, quotes, or dates.  There was no Maxwell Institute "breakup."  Some people were purged by the Director, plain and simple.  This was done while they were out of the country.  An effort was made to embarrass those purged by making it public.  You seem to be completely unfamiliar with what in fact happened, or with the aftermath.  Who or what is the New Guard?"

Once again, I'm well aware of how Dan got fired, that's not of interest here, the leaked letters etc.  The rumormongering you are accusing me of comes from the following years of Bill Hamblin bashing BYU and MI.  Are you seriously telling me you and the regulars on this board did not follow Bill and Dan's public blogs slinging the mud I have already referred to?  It was Bill's same blogs that brought Jenkins into the picture in the first place.

Bill and Dan are not one and the same person, and Dan was always just defending himself against blatant lies and deception.  In doing so, Dan maintained excellent decorum, and did no "mud slinging."

I'm also surprised that the term "New Guard" is unknown to you and this board.  It's common terminology on at least three other boards referring to the expulsion of the "Old Guard" (Dan and Crew along with their style of apologetics)  Being replaced with a new guard of a softer gentler apologetic.  The pubic nastiness of two members of the old guard towards the new guard is well know everywhere, it seems but here?  Including accusations of apostasy over the very issues we are discussing here, namely the historicity of the BoM.

We don't use such absurd terms on this board.  Nor do we find any credence in the notion that some old style of apologetics has been replaced by a softer, gentler style.  Again, if you are going to make such claims, please support them with proper citations and quotes.

Quote

"Bad blood," "factions," etc., you are still talking nonsense, salgare.  Who are the members of these supposed factions?  what do they stand for?  Do you have some published sources?

Ok, lets use the simple case I have referred to a couple times of late; Scott Lloyd, Dan Peterson and Blair Hodges.  I assumed that this whole movement towards a Nuanced Mormonism verses old school orthodoxy was the bases of underlying friction between Dan and Blair.  Do I remember wrong that Blair was Life on a Plate here years back?  Along with the likes of David Bokovoy being accused right here of being wolfs in sheep's clothing.  Once again I assume (hope) the underlying friction is based on theological differences (factions), but well may still stem from hard feelings all the way back to Dan's firing.  And yet here and now, I'm seeing you and this board embracing David (you quoted him quite heavily as well).

Again, I think that the underlying friction you claim is a figment of your and some other imaginations -- mostly based on rumor and little else.  If you wish to show otherwise, cite your sources in detail.   Your claims of "old school orthodoxy' versus "a nuanced Mormonism" seems ridiculous to me.  Dan Peterson and David Bokovoy are not at loggerheads.

....................................

.........................................What is interesting is how blatantly ignorant Clay was, three months ago to all the issues.  My perfect definition of a TBM Chapel Mormon.  He is also my definition of an Orthodox Mormon and a man that represents 99% of my local wards Elders/High Priests.  The point of this in relation to this thread is how far off this New Mormonism is from the members I know and whom I presume prevail along the Wasatch Front.

The same applies to this so-called "New Mormonism."  What is it, and what does it consist of?  Can you name a representative sample of them?  And you say that Clay is a "blatantly ignorant . . . TBM Chapel Mormon" (your "definition of an Orthodox Mormon"), typical and prevailing along the Wasatch Front?  Are you certain of that?  Not being a native Utahn, perhaps I am just ignorant.

 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are in denial here on this board, Gervin, but you would never get by with those claims on an evangelical board.  The entire basis of evangelical Christianity rests on claims to biblical historicity, and their critics regularly attack them on that basis.  Here are volumes from one author:

McDowell, Josh, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, 1st ed. (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972); 2nd ed. (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1979).
McDowell, Josh, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith 1st ed. (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1975); 2nd ed. (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1981).
McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Nelson, 1999); third revised version in one volume of his Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, 2 vols. (1972, 1975); 2nd ed. (1979, 1981).
McDowell, Josh, A Ready Defense: The Best of Josh McDowell, ed. Bill Wilson (Nashville: Nelson, 1993).
McDowell, Josh, and Don Stewart Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics are Asking About the Christian Faith (San Bernardino: Here’s Life, 1980) = Answers to Tough Questions: What Skeptics Are Asking About the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1993).
McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell, The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses: A Complete Guide to Answering the Tough Questions (Harvest House Publ., 2013).

 MfB claimed that Christians endorse a belief that says, "Jerusalem as an authentic city from history, it follows that Christ was real and we should accept him as our savior."  While Josh McDowell likes to search for historical evidences, his home page makes clear that he does not align with this position. 

"God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justified them in His sight."  
 

He doesn't claim that his historic evidence should be the basis for faith, neither cities, pottery, or manuscripts.

Link to comment
On 1/25/2016 at 10:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said:
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The same applies to this so-called "New Mormonism."  

 

"What is it, and what does it consist of? "

I'm not sure, that is what I'm trying to figure out. It seems to me to be sourcing out of Mormon apologetics with Givens being the public figure championing it.

I assume this is what it is:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66765-philosophies-of-men/?page=1

I was somewhat shocked at concepts (again in my very limited knowledge) typically associated with atheism.  I asked Mark if Givens would agree with his philosophies presented in the paper.  He gave a couple quotes of Givens that supported this, indicating the answer was yes.  I don't know why I had it in my head that you were more (I used the word orthodox) ... what, traditional? conservative? Simply that you would not agree with that article. 

 Can you name a representative sample of them?

Givens, Mark, and it seems you.  Basically anyone that would hold to the concepts presented in Marks review of Givens book as their concepts of Mormonism. I assume Blair and others currently involved with MI?  Once again, this is what I'm trying to figure out.  No one seemed to want to touch that thread, including the OP.  I assumed at the time no one from here but Mark and possibly volgadon was into it.

Note my questions in trying to identify this group in this post from that thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66765-philosophies-of-men/?do=findComment&comment=1209576926

Salgare asked:

"I've bandied about the term "Nuanced Mormonism" that I'm heard elsewhere.  I know that labels are often disliked, but  they also tend to be as a picture telling a 1000 words to use them in the right context; Orthodox Mormon, New Order Mormon, Nuanced (Orthoprax?) Mormon (New for short).  Is there a term you would prefer I use in this context?  Based on this review I assume its fair for me to put that label on Givens?"

No one offered anything different, nor opposed the suggestion.  I'll gladly label it however those embracing it would prefer.

And you say that Clay is a "blatantly ignorant . . . TBM Chapel Mormon" (your "definition of an Orthodox Mormon"), typical and prevailing along the Wasatch Front?  Are you certain of that?

I am for the Stakes in Heber and Wallsberg. 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, salgare said:

As to this historicity issue, I was assuming this postmodernism/pragmatism might be opening the door for accepted publicly shared views that one does not believe the BoM to be historical and I wondered if mfb would go there at this time.  I'm now assuming that when the likes of Bill Hamblin point the finger of scorn, crying apostate one can safely fall back on the fuzzy logic of Bayesian intuition concepts to avoid anyone having to actually move to the dark side.

I have always believed the BOM to be "historical" and have never wavered from that position.

I am not sure it is IMPORTANT that it is historical, I would be fine if it could (impossibly) be "proven" NOT historical, and I believe that its historicity is a religious belief coupled with some objective evidence, but NEVER have I believed it is "not historical"

And I see no need for "Bayesian intuition concepts" whatever those might be

The "philosophies of men" have changed my life and shifted my entire perspective of the world without being "historical" so I am fine if the BOM would just be another "philosophy of men" which is inspired.  That was the purpose of that paper in Interpreter.  Poetry can be "inspired" and change lives without being "scripture".  The distinction is very blurry to the point of being invisible, as far as I am concerned.  In fact I do not believe the distinction can be defined

But I believe the BOM is more than that, I also have the religious belief for which I think there may be some evidence, that it is historical and "really happened" no matter how ridiculous that sounds.

Can you understand those distinctions?

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One has to ask whether, for example, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Bruce R. McConkie would agree on what is "orthodox" Mormon theology or doctrine.

Let's bring this a bit closer to home.  I will replace the undesirable adjective of orthodox with a better description of where Clay was (and I assume a majority of members are).  He is a correlated Mormon, with his only exposure being correlated Church supplied material.  Perhaps some wards are lucky enough to have the likes of Robert Smith and he has taught and given exposure out side of the correlated material. I'd suggest most don't with the majority of any quorum all being basically on the same page.  Most wards don't allow for getting off that page (via social and priesthood pressures).

My exposure is limited to a small town with a high Mormon density.  Are you suggesting what I have described here is atypical of most wards, even world wide? 

In my bit of expose of late to postmodernism/pragmatism  the correlation concept would no longer make any sense.  That would sure wake up some HP's on Sunday's eh?

Edited by salgare
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Yes Bob, agree with every word

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, salgare said:

Let's bring this a bit closer to home.  I will replace the undesirable adjective of orthodox with a better description of where Clay was (and I assume a majority of members are).  He is a correlated Mormon, with his only exposure being correlated Church supplied material.  Perhaps some wards are lucky enough to have the likes of Robert Smith and he has taught and given exposure out side of the correlated material. I'd suggest most don't with the majority of any quorum all being basically on the same page.  Most wards don't allow for getting off that page (via social and priesthood pressures).

My exposure is limited to a small town with a high Mormon density.  Are you suggesting what I have described here is atypical of most wards, even world wide? 

In my bit of expose of late to postmodernism/pragmatism  the correlation concept would no longer make any sense.  That would sure wake up some HP's on Sunday's eh?

Most people have no need for philosophy.  I kind of wish I did not.  Most people have common sense and do not question what reality is.  I do not have common sense and I question what reality is.

My wife is brilliant and I drive her crazy and she is right to be driven crazy.  You ask someone what happens when a tree falls in the forest and they roll their eyes and walk away.

I see a fixation on philosophy as more of an affliction than anything else.

If I brought this up in HP group meeting (and have) all I get is blank stares looking at me as if I was totally bonkers, and they are right to do so from their perspective.

We live in a world of black boxes and we don't really know how anything works.  I type here and push a button and you read my message and write back. How does this happen?  I have no clue except a general idea.  I turn the key to my car and the engine runs and takes me where I want.  I flush the toilet and most of the time it works.

Nobody cares about this stuff except a few weirdos like me.  I do not consider those who don't care anything but "reasonable people" who have no need for it.  I wish I was among them, but I am not.  I question EVERYTHING.  It is an affliction.

It would not wake anyone up.  This is cultural.  It is a question of changing common sense.  In a hundred years, no one will question the idea that truth is contextual because we are discussing it here, and so is everyone everywhere discussing it more and more.  It is in the media, it is everywhere.  Every human being on earth has a religion even if it secularism.  Secularism is the religious belief that there is no need for religious belief, while ignoring that that proposition is itself a religious belief that answers questions in everyone's life who believes it.

It is like ssm, frankly.  It has become part of the culture. 

The idea of nuanced truth has been around now for maybe 200 years starting with a few philosophers.  The fact that it is shocking to you is just because you have not had a need for it, just like the others.

A hundred years ago a cell phone with the internet would be a miracle.  The total wisdom of humanity in your pocket?  No need for maps on a trip?  Watch movies on the same device- when there weren't even "movies"?  Total miracle.  But who knows how it really works?

No need for that.  People have lives to live and they don't need to worry about how their cell phone works or what some philosopher means by "truth"

To those who are not obsessed with this, it has no importance whatsoever.  No need to put down anyone- we all have lives to live and we all have different areas of expertise.

That is why truth operates "in its sphere".  If you don't have a question, you don't need an answer.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have always believed the BOM to be "historical" and have never wavered from that position.

I am not sure it is IMPORTANT that it is historical, I would be fine if it could (impossibly) be "proven" NOT historical, and I believe that its historicity is a religious belief coupled with some objective evidence, but NEVER have I believed it is "not historical"

I do belief this of you.  It will be interesting to see if the current, I used the word taboos, will soften.

"And I see no need for "Bayesian intuition concepts" whatever those might be"

In some circles these mathematical calculations are used as a proof that negatives can be proven .. stack was pulling you down this path.

This is why I was surprised to see Robert refer to it in his thumbnails presentation in an inverse manner.

But I believe the BOM is more than that, I also have the religious belief for which I think there may be some evidence, that it is historical and "really happened" no matter how ridiculous that sounds.

Can you understand those distinctions?"

I believe I can Mark.  I don't have all the fancy math and logic and as you know especially the words ... I will butcher this;  the language and methodologies presented me by my society leave me a lot of options.  Now unlike you one of these methodologies "did not work for me".  However there is something that keeps prioritizing that horribly improbable method back up to the top as much as I would like to push it to the bottom.  I believe this is where it appeared your logic failed in yonder worlds  ... that dreaded external Truth influencing the priority.

fwiw, I was very impressed with you as well as the heathens.  I'm glad something pushed the priority to look up the list.  The beauty of being a novice to the logic that says its impossible, I can easily ignored it, it was personal revelation from God  (don't tell anyone I said that).

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Gervin said:

 MfB claimed that Christians endorse a belief that says, "Jerusalem as an authentic city from history, it follows that Christ was real and we should accept him as our savior."  While Josh McDowell likes to search for historical evidences, his home page makes clear that he does not align with this position. 

You might try reading one or more of Josh's books, and you will find that he does indeed make that type of case throughout.  I have heard him lecture, and I have read his books.  I have a whole collection of them in my library.  He and his associates defend again and again his "historical defenses  for the validity of the Christian faith."  Bill Wilson, ed., The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense (Thomas Nelson, 1993), 9.  The concern for the general reliability of the Bible as a measure of the historicity of faith in Christ is the main point.  Josh extrapolates from the apparent reliability of the Bible to say that "I believe we can say, 'The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus'."  p. 55.

"God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justified them in His sight."  
He doesn't claim that his historic evidence should be the basis for faith, neither cities, pottery, or manuscripts.
Yet that is exactly what he does, despite the theological quibbling.  Mark is quite correct.  That's what it boils down to.

 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, salgare said:

"And I see no need for "Bayesian intuition concepts" whatever those might be"

In some circles these mathematical calculations are used as a proof that negatives can be proven .. stack was pulling you down this path.

 

I understand the logic and the theorem, I was questioning the use of the word "intuition".

I was in logic mode, not common sense mode.  I know how inductive logic works.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, salgare said:

"And I see no need for "Bayesian intuition concepts" whatever those might be"

In some circles these mathematical calculations are used as a proof that negatives can be proven .. stack was pulling you down this path.

 

I understand the logic and the theorem, I was questioning the use of the word "intuition".

I was in logic mode, not common sense mode.  I know how inductive logic works.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I understand the logic and the theorem, I was questioning the use of the word "intuition".

I was in logic mode, not common sense mode.  I know how inductive logic works.

That's what struck me as well, the wiki seemed to distinguish somewhat with a couple postfix names as if they where specialization adjectives.  I was not sure if "probability" was somehow more hypothesis based (what ever that means) and I viewed the intuition (verbiage used by critics to prove a negative).  I think there are online calculators that demonstrated the latter (which may not be any different than the former?) which was simply a half a dozen or so disjoint variables of which the algorithms are applied to. 

We do this all the time in my work in software and refer to it as "fuzzy logic".  Typically "rules based" where the rules are sourced by a configuration outside the program which effect the programs algorithms calculations against the various disjoint variables. so as to tweak outcomes.  Smarter systems can modify these rules on the fly based on environmental conditions.  

http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/bayes/BayesCalc.htm

 

Edited by salgare
Link to comment
On 1/26/2016 at 8:49 PM, mfbukowski said:

As I have written before, the whole question of BOM historicity from a scientific perspective must be taken from an entirely different paradigm than the usual way of seeing archaeology.

Robert Smith agreed with me on a different thread that mutually agreed-upon standards were essential in examining archaeological data. Your cry for a "different paradigm" is best made to those who, to you, represent the "old paradigm." What say they?

On 1/26/2016 at 8:49 PM, mfbukowski said:

Bob is the expert on the evidence and has written about it extensively and I will leave that up to him.

So YES there IS historical evidence for the BOM ...

This pretty much sums it up for me:

Bob is the expert + leave it up to Bob = there IS historical evidence

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Bob is the expert + leave it up to Bob = there IS historical evidence

It seemed the one paper I read used the text of the book itself as evidence (i.e. weights and measures).

Based on the Hamblin/Jenkins debate I can see that one needs to be pretty specific about the category (lack of better word) of the evidence.

For example their debate was archaeological / linguistic.  How would your classify/categorize your evidence Robert?

Link to comment

Why I think Y-chromozomes are the answer to Israelite heritage

1. Y-chromozomes can spread much faster than MtDNA. Women can have, at most 20 children. Men can have thousands. Ghengis Khan is the ancestor of 0.5% of the global population.

2. In 1996, Peter Underhill PhD found that using observed mutation rates, most American Indians are descended from a guy who lived around 150 BC. The ancestry of this guy is part of the family history of most American Indians. So if this guy who lived 2,000 years ago had a maternal grandfather belonging to Y-haplogroup J, then all American Indians descend, in part, from a guy with a J Y chromosome.

source: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 93, pp. 196-200, January 1996 Genetics
A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history (DNA polymorphism/nucleotide diversity/comparative DNA sequencing/denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography/microsatellite) PETER A. UNDERHILL*t, Li JIN*, RACHEL ZEMANS*, PETER J. OEFNER4, AND L. LUCA CAVALLI_SFORZA

 

This is the latest from the naming convention. Note that European strains of Q are very close to ative American strains

  • Q1a2a1 (L54)
    • Q1a2a1a (CTS11969)
      • Q1a2a1a1 (M3): the main subclade of Native Americans
      • Q1a2a1a2 (L804): found in Germany, Scandinavia and Britain
        • Q1a2a1a2a (L807): observed in Britain
      • Q1a2a1b (Z780): found among Native Americans, notably in Mexico

 

  • Q1a (L472, MEH2) : found among the Koryaks of eastern Siberia
    • Q1a1 (F1096)
      • Q1a1a (F746)
        • Q1a1a1 (M120) : observed in Mongolia, Japan and India
      • Q1a1b (M25) : observed in Mongolia, Siberia, northern India, the Middle East, Italy and Ireland
        • Q1a1b1 (L712): found in Central & Eastern Europe
          • Q1a1b1a (L713)
    • Q1a2 (L56, M346): found in Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and Hungary
      • Q1a2a (L53): found among the Mongols
        • Q1a2a1 (L54)
          • Q1a2a1a (CTS11969)
            • Q1a2a1a1 (M3): the main subclade of Native Americans
            • Q1a2a1a2 (L804): found in Germany, Scandinavia and Britain
              • Q1a2a1a2a (L807): observed in Britain
            • Q1a2a1b (Z780): found among Native Americans, notably in Mexico
            • Q1a2a1c (L330): the main subclade of the Mongols, also found among the Kazakhs and Uzbeks, as well as in Ukraine, Turkey and Greece (probably Mongolian and Turkic)
      • Q1a2b (L940): found in Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Russia, Georgia, Hungary, Poland and Germany
        • Q1a2b1 (L527): found almost exclusively in Scandinavia and places settled by the Vikings
        • Q1a2b2 (L938): observed in Anatolia, Lithuania, Britain and Portugal
          • Q1a2b2a (L939): observed in Britain
      • Q1a2c (M323) Yemenite Jews
  • Q1b (L275): found among the Tatars of Russia, in Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan
    • Q1b1 (M378): observed in Kazakhstan, India and Germany
      • Q1b1a (L245): found in the Middle East, among the Jews, in Central Europe and in Sicily
        • Q1b1a1 (L272.1): found in Sicily (probably Phoenician)
Edited by dougtheavenger
Link to comment
8 hours ago, dougtheavenger said:

Ghengis Khan is the ancestor of 0.5% of the global population.

He is probably an ancestor of a lot more than just .5%.  That number is for his known direct line (father to son) genetic descendants and does not account for all of his genealogical or maybe even his genetic autosomal descendants.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.VqleW9YzLww

Quote

In 2003 a groundbreaking historical genetics paper reported results which indicated that a substantial proportion of men in the world are direct line descendants of Genghis Khan. By direct line, I mean that they carry Y chromosomes which seem to have come down from an individual who lived approximately 1,000 years ago. As Y chromosomes are only passed from father to son, that would mean that the Y is a record of one’s patrilineage. Genghis Khan died ~750 years ago, so assuming 25 years per generation, you get about 30 men between the present and that period. In more quantitative terms, ~10% of the men who reside within the borders of the Mongol Empire as it was at the death of Genghis Khan may carry his Y chromosome, and so ~0.5% of men in the world, about 16 million individuals alive today, do so.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...