[when] Will Europe wake up? (Round 2)

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Thanks for sharing/clarifying Robert. Are you asserting that based on Johannes' initial DNA study, that it is thereby more reasonable & faithful to conclude that Nephites never set foot in Europe? If so, I respectfully object. 

1. Johannes spoke of generalities drawn from a DNA sampling of only 100 ancient remains. For me and my house, a sampling that small, in a region that large, in a span of time that long, isn't anywhere near as conclusive as some might prefer (or assume). 

2. Johannes said very little about DNA outliers, and nothing of early DNA findings beyond the scope of his 100 samples.

3. As to the Indo-European language family, a surprisingly large portion of the vocabulary of the Germanic languages (including English) is not of Indo-European origin, even though the Germanic languages were categorized as Indo-European. (Linguists are still scratching their heads as to where much of that vocabulary originated.) And the groupings of such supposedly-orphan words fall into categories such as nautical technology, agriculture, warfare, government, and family....things that ancient Nephites just happened to have been quite adept at, which aligns with the repeated assertion in north-European origin accounts (and mythology) that attest to a cultural infusion into ancient northern Europe from a seafaring people across the ocean. And their origin accounts/chronologies place that arrival during the century before Christ, aligning precisely with eyewitness testimony from ancient contemporaries such as Julius Caesar and Cicero. 

For such reasons and more, I'm respectfully not buying what you seem to be selling...that an initial absence of supporting DNA evidence (from a surprisingly small sampling) from a lone, nascent research discipline is somehow supposed to be accepted as conclusive evidence of Nephite absence.

Given the long period of time (thousands of years) that Johannes' ancient DNA samples claim to represent, a chronological distribution suggests that less than 10% of his small sampling relates to the specific period in question (after 60 BC).  If that's sufficiently accurate for purposes of initial discussion, by buying into your apparent assertion, you and others would be drawing sweeping conclusions from fewer than ten samples, not even a full quorum. Meanwhile, with reams of all the other available evidence, including Nephite & latter-day prophecy, which is the more reasonable / faithful conclusion? That Nephites died out in the Americas centuries ago? Or that a remnant was initially scattered to the four corners of the earth?

Or have I misunderstood your meaning/intent?

Among other things, you claimed that

Quote

Germanic peoples surfaced in northern Europe in precisely 58 BC, having just migrated northeast. (Not south.) If Germanic peoples originated in Europe prior to that, why no earlier mention of them? Especially when peoples descended from Scandinavia a couple of generations earlier and threatened Rome itself, why was there no mention of any of them being Germanic? 

Also, consider that the Germanic peoples since 58 BC have multiplied and spread throughout the world. In fulfillment of Israel's promise to his son Joseph.

White it  is true that European peoples have spread all over the world in modern times, that is also true of non-European peoples, and it tells us nothing of their original status.  That is the value of ancient DNA, which by its nature does not have numerous examples.  In discussing mass migrations of peoples, it is simply not true that the Germanic peoples showed up in northern Europe in precisely 58 BC -- having just migrated there.  No DNA evidence supports that.  Nor does it support the notion that Germanic peoples were related in any way to Nephites.  We not only have ancient DNA to examine, but we also have modern DNA with which to compare it, and we know (as Dr Krause pointed out) what these various people looked like.  The Early Farmers coming into Europe from the Near East during the Late Neolithic (about 7,000 years ago) looked like the typical European of today.  Even the 5,300 year old Ice Man, Oetzi, whose Late Neolithic data I studied for a project in my paleoethonobotany class at UCLA, has DNA matching modern Corsicans or Sardinians, and not the typical Tyrolean man of today -- even though he was found frozen in the Tyrol, and even though he has 19 modern genetic relatives in the Tyrol.  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131016-otzi-ice-man-mummy-five-facts/ .

Modern DNA tells us what the general composition of modern Europeans is, and does not suggest some late incursion or mass migration around 58 BC.  Why?  Because we can immediately compare it with ancient DNA, which provides us with the same composition as modern Europe.

Does this mean that no small group of outsiders could show up in times past?  Of course not, but that was not the claim you were making.  A small group of the sort you are discussing would have no material effect on either the culture or the DNA of Europe.  And in fact we see none.

On the other hand, we do see a linguistic effect along the coast of California, and then inland, as pointed out by Brian Stubbs.  That is more likely to be evidence for Hagoth's enterprise.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[probablyHagoth7]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While it  is true that European peoples have spread all over the world in modern times, that is also true of non-European peoples, and it tells us nothing of their original status.  That is the value of ancient DNA, which by its nature does not have numerous examples.

How reasonable is it to accept an assertion that is based on extremely limited data, when there is a very sizeable amount of evidence (from a broad array of other disciplines) supporting a competing conclusion?

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In discussing mass migrations of peoples, it is simply not true that the Germanic peoples showed up in northern Europe in precisely 58 BC -- having just migrated there.  No DNA evidence supports that.

Yet it is true. And lack of DNA evidence for that reality is irrelevant, just as lack of DNA evidence that people actually signed the Declaration of Independence has zero bearing on the matter. Germans showed up for the first time in the historical record precisely in that year. And in that same account were said to have recently arrived. Prior to that: zero mention of "Germans" in northern Europe. Peoples of other names? Sure. But zero mention of Germans.

Our key difference derives from what we each mean when we say Germanic peoples. To be more crystal clear, I'm referring specifically to newcomers first encountered by Julius Caesar in 58 BC....and their descendants. Meanwhile, you're likely referring to a much broader set of people who lived before and after 58 BC in what we now happen to call Germanic regions. While there is some overlap, they are not one and the same. (Living in Utah obviously does not make someone a Ute Indian. Yet when it comes to ancient Germanic issues, most people assume the exact opposite, and make a conflation error.) Hence our [temporary?] disconnect.

More on DNA in a moment.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does this mean that no small group of outsiders could show up in times past?  Of course not, but that was not the claim you were making.  A small group of the sort you are discussing would have no material effect on either the culture or the DNA of Europe.  And in fact we see none.

Then I will reiterate your "of course not." :0)  ...and your assertion that such a small group would have had no material effect on the DNA of Europe.

That being the case, why defer earlier to *the lack* of supportive DNA evidence as supposed cause to wave away such an immigration, when we needn't expect material evidence from such a relatively small influx? (Seems atypically inconsistent of you,.) 

As to your claim that relatively small numbers of people somehow can't/don't make dramatic cultural waves, I invite you to reconsider. It only took a handful of legions starting in 58 BC to dramatically change the culture in northwestern Europe. Ditto with other regions of Rome's expanding borders. They were vastly outnumbered. Ditto with the relatively few Jews who migrated south from Palestine almost 2,000 years ago and quickly dominated the region culturally. Ditto with numerous other influxes.

People that create a distinct impression, including those with innovative cultures/technologies, can and often do leave a lasting impact upon the peoples/cultures they interact with. Fair enough?

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

...and we know (as Dr Krause pointed out) what these various people looked like....looked like the typical European of today.  

Brings to mind what Nephi said about the people from Europe who would take possession of a Nephite land of promise. ....like unto my people before they were destroyed...

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, we do see a linguistic effect along the coast of California, and then inland, as pointed out by Brian Stubbs.  That is more likely to be evidence for Hagoth's enterprise.

You appear to be asserting an either/or.

I'm not. 

Alma 63 (and Helaman) allow for voyages into different seas, sailing in different directions. Lehi's descendants scattered to the four corners of the world. Jesus had yet other sheep to visit. Grafted olive branches. etc.

So I'm AOK if you opt to reject what I offer here. So far, I simply find what you offer in its place to be both inconsistent and lacking sufficient substance. If I've somehow misunderstood your assertions, please let me know.

As to linguistic evidence for such an influx into Europe, it's actually there too. However I don't speak a linguist's jargon, and would be dismissed by such for attempting, so generally comment very little about what I've found in that specialized field. (Awkwardness of words and such.) ;0) 

Edited April 27, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

How reasonable is it to accept an assertion that is based on extremely limited data, when there is a very sizeable amount of evidence (from a broad array of other disciplines) supporting a competing conclusion?

As I pointed out, and you continue to ignore, we have not only ancient DNA, but we have corroboration from modern DNA.  They both tell the same story, which does not accord with your fanciful notions.  I know of no historians who agree with you.

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Yet it is true. And lack of DNA evidence for that reality is irrelevant, just as lack of DNA evidence that people actually signed the Declaration of Independence has zero bearing on the matter. Germans showed up for the first time in the historical record precisely in that year. And in that same account were said to have recently arrived. Prior to that: zero mention of "Germans" in northern Europe. Peoples of other names? Sure. But zero mention of Germans.

Our key difference derives from what we each mean when we say Germanic peoples. To be more crystal clear, I'm referring specifically to newcomers first encountered by Julius Caesar in 58 BC....and their descendants. Meanwhile, you're likely referring to a much broader set of people who lived before and after 58 BC in what we now happen to call Germanic regions. While there is some overlap, they are not one and the same. (Living in Utah obviously does not make someone a Ute Indian. Yet when it comes to ancient Germanic issues, most people assume the exact opposite, and make a conflation error.) Hence our [temporary?] disconnect.

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

Then I will reiterate your "of course not." :0)  ...and your assertion that such a small group would have had no material effect on the DNA of Europe.

That being the case, why defer earlier to *the lack* of supportive DNA evidence as supposed cause to wave away such an immigration, when we needn't expect material evidence from such a relatively small influx? (Seems atypically inconsistent of you,.) 

Again, why invent a fanciful story which has no historical or genetic backing?  What is the point?

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

As to your claim that relatively small numbers of people somehow can't/don't make dramatic cultural waves, I invite you to reconsider. It only took a handful of legions starting in 58 BC to dramatically change the culture in northwestern Europe. Ditto with other regions of Rome's expanding borders. They were vastly outnumbered. Ditto with the relatively few Jews who migrated south from Palestine almost 2,000 years ago and quickly dominated the region culturally. Ditto with numerous other influxes.

People that create a distinct impression, including those with innovative cultures/technologies, can and often do leave a lasting impact upon the peoples/cultures they interact with. Fair enough?

Brings to mind what Nephi said about the people from Europe who would take possession of a Nephite land of promise. ....like unto my people before they were destroyed...

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

Alma 63 (and Helaman) allow for voyages into different seas, sailing in different directions. Lehi's descendants scattered to the four corners of the world. Jesus had yet other sheep to visit. Grafted olive branches. etc.

I  have no problem with theoretical ideas about all the possible places to which the Hagoth tradition may have taken some Nephites, but I think that we do need more than offhand evidence to support any claims that are made.  You present no compelling evidence.

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

So I'm AOK if you opt to reject what I offer here. So far, I simply find what you offer in its place to be both inconsistent and lacking sufficient substance. If I've somehow misunderstood your assertions, please let me know.

As to linguistic evidence for such an influx into Europe, it's actually there too. However I don't speak a linguist's jargon, and would be dismissed by such for attempting, so generally comment very little about what I've found in that specialized field. (Awkwardness of words and such.) ;0) 

If there is actual evidence, then by all means present it.  But all claims have to be submitted to the same searching inquiry which is the basis of modern historiography.  Assertion is not evidence, and it is not the same as fact.

[probablyHagoth7]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I pointed out, and you continue to ignore, we have not only ancient DNA, but we have corroboration from modern DNA....

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning, with your assessment of the data, and with your apparent unwillingness to either address or reconcile the contradiction in what you've previously asserted about such DNA.

There are also gaps in standard DNA reasoning/assumptions, revealed by outliers in the data. Might publish some of that in the near future.

Gonna consider this thread done. (Had I anticipated this becoming a debate thread, rather than a collaborative thread, I would have launched it elsewhere.) 

Edited April 27, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning, with your assessment of the data, and with your apparent unwillingness to either address or reconcile the contradiction in what you've previously asserted about such DNA.

There are also gaps in standard DNA reasoning/assumptions, revealed by outliers in the data. Might publish some of that in the near future.

Gonna consider this thread done. (Had I anticipated this becoming a debate thread, rather than a collaborative thread, I would have launched it elsewhere.) 

The nature of honest debate, in which a variety of facts and points of view are exchanged, is a good collaborative endeavor, and always helps to hone theories or suggestions.  Debate is not an enemy, but a friend.  It is not about us personally, but rather about the theories which are proposed.  They sink or swim on their own account.

[probablyHagoth7]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The nature of honest debate, in which a variety of facts and points of view are exchanged, is a good collaborative endeavor, and always helps to hone theories or suggestions.  Debate is not an enemy, but a friend....

Yep. Which is largely why I have engaged in good faith for the last 20 years.

Edited April 27, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[poptart]

See, thing is a lot of people who go with Asatru are those who have been marginalised by society, let down by liberalism and sold out by the mainstream.  In the nordic countries its the sons of Odin who have been forming neighborhood patrols and doing the job the police won't.    Here in the states they've been appealing to marginalized men who feel sold out, betrayed and forgotten.     Where is Christianity enforcing the strong family values this county used to have?  Where has the moral fiber of people gone?  Families nowadays think nothing of tossing their own out on the street and treating their vets like garbage.  Asatru is many things but one thing they do offer the marginalized,  a sense of well being and an ethno centric sense of community traditional Christianity used to.  They are gaining ground fast and in a way i kind of welcome it.  If Christianity wont grow a pair and become more anti degeneracy than perhaps its time for something else to stand up and say enough is enough.  

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, poptart said:

See, thing is a lot of people who go with Asatru are those who have been marginalised by society, let down by liberalism and sold out by the mainstream.  In the nordic countries its the sons of Odin who have been forming neighborhood patrols and doing the job the police won't.    Here in the states they've been appealing to marginalized men who feel sold out, betrayed and forgotten.     Where is Christianity enforcing the strong family values this county used to have?  Where has the moral fiber of people gone?  Families nowadays think nothing of tossing their own out on the street and treating their vets like garbage.  Asatru is many things but one thing they do offer the marginalized,  a sense of well being and an ethno centric sense of community traditional Christianity used to....

Understood. 

My intent is not to belittle the good that people of any faith are doing. Let them keep on keeping on.

A sense of tribe is currently what some men seek, as you pointed out.

That said, the day will come when boundaries and nationalities and all sense of "-ites" and "-isms" will fade away, just as the Berlin wall came down.

As part of that, I hope you can appreciate the long-term value of setting the record straight as to who and what Odin/Wodin was (Roman-imposed ruler/dynastic worship). If any of the early Germanic chieftains should be respected, it should be Flavus' brother (Arminius the freedom fighter). That said, Wednes-day is still typically an awesome day. 

Thanks for contributing to the thread.

Thoughts?

Edited April 28, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, poptart said:

See, thing is a lot of people who go with Asatru are those who have been marginalised by society, let down by liberalism and sold out by the mainstream.  In the nordic countries its the sons of Odin who have been forming neighborhood patrols and doing the job the police won't.    Here in the states they've been appealing to marginalized men who feel sold out, betrayed and forgotten.     Where is Christianity enforcing the strong family values this county used to have?  Where has the moral fiber of people gone?  Families nowadays think nothing of tossing their own out on the street and treating their vets like garbage.  Asatru is many things but one thing they do offer the marginalized,  a sense of well being and an ethno centric sense of community traditional Christianity used to.  They are gaining ground fast and in a way i kind of welcome it.  If Christianity wont grow a pair and become more anti degeneracy than perhaps its time for something else to stand up and say enough is enough.  

Now if only it was not usually tied to white supremacy and neo-nazism.

[poptart]

21 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Understood. 

My intent is not to belittle the good that people of any faith are doing. Let them keep on keeping on.

A sense of tribe is currently what some men seek, as you pointed out.

That said, the day will come when boundaries and nationalities and all sense of "-ites" and "-isms" will fade away, just as the Berlin wall came down.

As part of that, I hope you can appreciate the long-term value of setting the record straight as to who and what Odin/Wodin was (Roman-imposed ruler/dynastic worship). If any of the early Germanic chieftains should be respected, it should be Flavus' brother (Arminius the freedom fighter). That said, Wednes-day is still typically an awesome day. 

Thanks for contributing to the thread.

Thoughts?

Think it will be a while before a lot of those boundaries are dropped,  people nowadays are so divided and i really don't feel sorry for them, this is the society they deserve.   Guarantee you if churches did their jobs, people valued family again and people made a push to limit degeneracy and take care of society beliefs like that would go away.  People forget that was one of the things that made Christianity a power house, they took care of society.

Sadly Asatru lacks a safety net, closest thing i can think of as far as Asatru welfare goes is even distribution of stolen goods from raids way back when.

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now if only it was not usually tied to white supremacy and neo-nazism.

Whelp, the SS did make runeolgy a bit more popular and kinda put hugo boss on the map.