[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2014, 03:19 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 10:41 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 09:06 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  It's also been suggested that the claims of intermarrying between Jews and American Indians, as claimed by Mormons, has been debunked by modern DNA studies.

Well, the evidence is not in the favor of the traditional reading of the Book of Mormon's demographic claims, but there are numerous ways to interpret its claims about the inhabitants of the Americas, and in addition to the fact that the story does not necessarily demand the presence of Near Eastern DNA in any given Native American specimen, and the DNA profile of Native Americans is constantly changing. Near Eastern links have been found, although not within a timeline relevant to the Book of Mormon. Just back in October, in fact, DNA analysis showed that the ancient Mal'ta people of Siberia, from which 1/3 of Native American's descend, contain genetic links to Europe. No one ever saw that coming. While there's currently no positive evidence linking Native Americans to Near Eastern populations from relevant time lines, to say that such connections are categorically ruled out misrepresents the data and the nature of population genetics as a whole.

(02-01-2014 10:45 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 09:09 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Not sure about the hat story (it is very murky) but the Genetic thing is 100% no middle eastern blood in the Natives. They are all of Asian descent.

This simply isn't true. Not only have they definitely found links to Near Eastern populations (from many thousands of years ago), but they discover new connections all the time, and are in no position at all to categorically deny any possible contribution at all from a given population.

See this is what is called Special Pleading the evidence is not there, the native American population shows Asian descent (by way of africa as do all humans) not a ANE origin. There is some European splashed in there but to try and force the conclusion that "Well they just haven't found the link" based on this evidence is not good science.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
03-01-2014, 05:50 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 03:19 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  See this is what is called Special Pleading the evidence is not there, the native American population shows Asian descent (by way of africa as do all humans) not a ANE origin. There is some European splashed in there but to try and force the conclusion that "Well they just haven't found the link" based on this evidence is not good science.

Well, I'm not saying we just haven't found the link. It may or may not be there, but that doesn't mean much. The historicity of the Book of Mormon (to which I'm not particularly committed anyway) is not particularly problematized by the absence of DNA markers. Only the traditional and conservative reading of the Book of Mormon's claims about the population of the Americas (which has had detractors since the beginning) is problematized by it. Next, there are indeed ancient Near Eastern markers. The Haplogroup X markers from some Native American samples is Near Eastern in origin. Finally, the evidence increasingly supports multiple immigration waves, and not necessarily entire from east Asia.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 05:57 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 11:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Scientific illiteracy qualifies as a gap.

You misunderstand what the god of the gaps fallacy is. It isn't an accusation one makes about another, it's a theological proposition one makes for their own position. It's when the religionists themselves retreat from their theology as science progresses and insist their deity is not undermined by science because of all the gaps in scientific knowledge where he could still be dwelling. One must be aware of what gaps are and are not there to insist their deity is hiding in them.

(02-01-2014 11:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If I thought that the moon always facing one side towards the Earth was too much of a coincidence and hence was proof of god.
Then this is a God of the Gaps argument.

No it isn't. I suggest you learn more about what the god of the gaps fallacy is.

(02-01-2014 11:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is beside the point if I am ignorant that scientists have worked out why the moon''s rotation is in sychronisation with its orbit around the Earth.

Do you have another example of a specific god that people believe in which is not "proven" using a GOTGs argument.

There are millions, but you don't seem to understand exactly what the god of the gaps fallacy is.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 06:38 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 06:52 AM by Chas.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 05:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 03:19 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  See this is what is called Special Pleading the evidence is not there, the native American population shows Asian descent (by way of africa as do all humans) not a ANE origin. There is some European splashed in there but to try and force the conclusion that "Well they just haven't found the link" based on this evidence is not good science.

Well, I'm not saying we just haven't found the link. It may or may not be there, but that doesn't mean much. The historicity of the Book of Mormon (to which I'm not particularly committed anyway) is not particularly problematized by the absence of DNA markers. Only the traditional and conservative reading of the Book of Mormon's claims about the population of the Americas (which has had detractors since the beginning) is problematized by it. Next, there are indeed ancient Near Eastern markers. The Haplogroup X markers from some Native American samples is Near Eastern in origin. Finally, the evidence increasingly supports multiple immigration waves, and not necessarily entire from east Asia.

No, you are either misunderstanding the data or making this up - it's impossible to know since you provided no references. The non-historicity of the Book of Mormon is all but certain to anyone not blinded by faith. You can squirm all you want, but the DNA evidence is utterly against your attempted interpretation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2014, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 07:41 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 05:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Well, I'm not saying we just haven't found the link. It may or may not be there, but that doesn't mean much. The historicity of the Book of Mormon (to which I'm not particularly committed anyway) is not particularly problematized by the absence of DNA markers. Only the traditional and conservative reading of the Book of Mormon's claims about the population of the Americas (which has had detractors since the beginning) is problematized by it. Next, there are indeed ancient Near Eastern markers. The Haplogroup X markers from some Native American samples is Near Eastern in origin. Finally, the evidence increasingly supports multiple immigration waves, and not necessarily entire from east Asia.

No, you are either misunderstanding the data or making this up - it's impossible to know since you provided no references. The non-historicity of the Book of Mormon is all but certain to anyone not blinded by faith. You can squirm all you want, but the DNA evidence is utterly against your attempted interpretation.








Just how in the fucking hell did those people manage to loose all trace of the industry required to make silk fabric (silkworms not seen outside of China until 300CE, the knowledge of making it into textile remaining a trade secret until the 6th century)?


A steel industry capable of producing swords, chains, and chariots (no iron working, no iron or coal mines, no steel mills)? Seriously, it's one thing to lose a steel sword, but how in the hell do you lose a whole steel mill?


A complete lack of claimed non-native animals and plants (such as cattle, oxen, horses, sheep, swine, elephants, wheat, figs, and barley)?




I mean, really. There are so many blatantly stupid anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, this feels less like internet sport and more like shooting fish in a barrel with a Minigun...




[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-01-2014, 07:26 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 07:50 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
^^ Ah, yes, I had forgotten about the claims of iron tools, not to mention the other claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 07:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you are either misunderstanding the data or making this up - it's impossible to know since you provided no references. The non-historicity of the Book of Mormon is all but certain to anyone not blinded by faith. You can squirm all you want, but the DNA evidence is utterly against your attempted interpretation.








Just how in the fucking hell did those people manage to loose all trace of the industry required to make silk fabric (silkworms not seen outside of China until 300CE)?


A steel industry capable of producing swords, chains, and chariots (no iron working, no iron or coal mines, no steel mills)? Seriously, it's one thing to lose a steel sword, but how in the hell do you lose a whole steel mill?


A complete lack of claimed non-native animals and plants (such as cattle, oxen, horses, sheep, swine, elephants, wheat, figs, and barley)?




I mean, really. There are so many blatantly stupid anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, this feels less like internet sport and more like shooting fish in a barrel with a Minigun...



Oh my, the responses from Mormon apologists to these points of criticism are textbook examples of fringe science.

[Image: IPvaorj.jpg]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
03-01-2014, 08:06 AM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2014 08:10 AM by maklelan.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you are either misunderstanding the data or making this up

No, you're just not very up on the currents in population genetics or Book of Mormon scholarship. I think you're also imposing presuppositions about what you think I mean on what I'm saying, which is leading to misunderstanding. Most significantly, you are assuming that I am arguing for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, which I am explicitly not. I'd appreciate it if you could take that into consideration before you blow up this thread with reasons you think the Book of Mormon is not historical. I will not be responding to any such concerns. My point here is only to show that Rev's characterization of the state of the DNA question is incomplete and reductive, and misconstrues the data. The biggest factor in applying DNA data to the Book of Mormon is what inferences and assumptions you bring to, and draw from, the Book of Mormon about Native American populations, and those inferences and assumptions are vastly varied, making it rather silly to pretend it can all be reduced to completely objective and definitive statements. Again, this is not to argue for Book of Mormon historicity, but just to show that it's much more complex than you appear to be aware. You're just buying into fundie Christian rhetoric without understanding the issues because it happens to confirm your presuppositions. Try to be a little more judicious and objective and you won't run into those problems.

(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  it's impossible to know since you provided no references.

Yeah, that article's over six years old. This article, from 2013, shows that even a three-wave model is too simplistic. This article shows that the X2a clade found in North American DNA came from the Near East roughly 18-20,000 years BP. This could go on and on, but I'm not interested in wasting my time. As I pointed out, the Near Eastern elements in American DNA are not evidence of anything related to the Book of Mormon. Rather, this just shows that the claim REv made that there are no Near Eastern markers whatsoever in Native American DNA is demonstrably untrue. I'm not arguing for Book of Mormon historicity, I'm just showing that making definitive and absolute claims about what the DNA supports in the interest of attacking the Book of Mormon leads to inaccurate statements. Save the rhetoric and please try to understand what I'm saying instead of just automatically contradicting what I'm saying because I'm a knuckle-dragging Mormon.

(03-01-2014 06:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  The non-historicity of the Book of Mormon is all but certain to anyone not blinded by faith. You can squirm all you want, but the DNA evidence is utterly against your attempted interpretation.

I am not squirming at all, and you don't even appear to know what "interpretation" I've "attempted." I'm not arguing for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I'm just showing that your (pl.) rhetorical zeal to combat the Book of Mormon has caused you (pl.) to misunderstand and misrepresent the DNA data. In the future, please refrain from making assumptions about my claims and just respond to what I actually say. You'll save us all a lot of trouble.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 07:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Oh my, the responses from Mormon apologists to these points of criticism are textbook examples of fringe science.

And this is really not the topic right now. Instead of just pulling out the strawman to start belligerently brutalizing because you assume that's where I must be headed, can we just stick to what I'm actually saying?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:08 AM)maklelan Wrote:  And this is really not the topic right now. Instead of just pulling out the strawman to start belligerently brutalizing because you assume that's where I must be headed, can we just stick to what I'm actually saying?
I don't even know how to make sense of this incoherent response. I suggest you to take your own advice and stick to what I actually said. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: