Tobin wrote:Not really. That isn't a scientific journal or anything a real scientist would take seriously. If Keith wishes to engage or not engage Simon, that is up to him. It is ok for Simon to make Keith aware of the issue, but he should then leave Keith alone. Otherwise, Simon is the one that is acting creepy.
That's right Tobin lying and misrepresentation and selling one's personal integrity isn't lying and misrepresentation and selling one's personal integrity unless it's in a scientific journal.
Why if we didn't accept this to be true, Mormonism would be true, which it isn't!
Simon wrote:He should be very concerned if he has misrepresented the research of his fellow scientists.
Simon, do you know whether the scientists whose views Crandall is misrepresenting are (a) aware of the misrepresentations; (b) care; or (c) have contacted or intend to contact Crandall directly to ask him to correct the misrepresentations?
Several of them know because I have emailed them. I doubt very much that they will want to get involved. I am certain it annoys them but they typically steer clear of religious controversies. You never know who is going to review your next research paper or grant application.
I've corresponded a few times with Hellenthal and he's been very helpful. Most of them see Mormon beliefs as just whacky.
Apologies for the double post earlier. For some reason when I click submit it looks like it didn't submit when it has.
LDS apologetics --> "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, which creates the scandal." "Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So let's all help keep Bigfoot possibly alive for future generations to enjoy, unless he doesn't exist." - Futurama
Simon Southerton wrote: You never know who is going to review your next research paper or grant application.
Seems to me that this is something the good Dr. Crandall should keep in mind as he decides whether to allow his misstatements to stand in the public record.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
It is noteworthy that no traces of haplogroup X2a were observed in our native Mexican populations. In contrast with haplogroups A2 to D1, which have an East Asian origin (Torroni et al. 1993b), haplogroup X has its origins in West Eurasia, and its entrance into the Americas is more controversial. Haplogroup X2a is not present in Central and South Native American populations (Perego et al. 2009) and represents a clade that lacks close relatives in the Old Word, including Siberia (Reidla et al. 2003). Our results point to a geographical limit in Mesoamerica beyond which haplogroup X2a is not found. Fagundes et al. (2008) suggested that this haplogroup was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population and its low frequency is probably due to a failed expansion as a result of its geographic location in the expansion wave and/or its low initial frequency. The most recent study of Perego et al. (2009) suggested however that X2a could have moved from Beringia directly into the North American regions located East of the Rocky Mountains; the X2a expansion could have occurred in the Great Plains region, where the terminal part of the glacial corridor ended, and is in complete agreement with both the extent of diversity and distribution of X2a observed in modern Native American populations. The absence of X2a in our samples supports the idea that Mesoamerica played an important role during the colonization of the continent, restricting this haplogroup to the northernmost lands and shaping the diversity of the other founder haplogroups on their way down to Central and South America.
On the other hand, no hgX2 haplogroup was detected because its distribution is confined to northernmost areas [20], [21].
Tobin wrote:It is ok for Simon to make Keith aware of the issue, but he should then leave Keith alone. Otherwise, Simon is the one that is acting creepy.
Yeah, because giving up at the first attempt to influence change is the right thing to do. Where would we be had Martin Luther King adopted that "Oh well, I mentioned it once so now I'll shut up" approach.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Thank you very much Simon for all the great work you have done and continue to do. Stuff like this would pass by most folks like myself, since we have found the people at FAIR have no use for truth. Crandall should be embarrassed; really, all these FAIR people should be embarrassed. I was taught from a little boy that Mormonism was the truth. TRUTH was a virtue to be integrated in our lives; to hold as an ideal. But, these guys stomp all over the truth.
Joe Geisner wrote:Thank you very much Simon for all the great work you have done and continue to do. Stuff like this would pass by most folks like myself, since we have found the people at FAIR have no use for truth. Crandall should be embarrassed; really, all these FAIR people should be embarrassed. I was taught from a little boy that Mormonism was the truth. TRUTH was a virtue to be integrated in our lives; to hold as an ideal. But, these guys stomp all over the truth.
I think you are giving critics like Simon too much credit and still using your immature boyish view of the world when assessing the truth. No-one knows the complete truth actually. Certainly not Simon, not FAIR, nor me, and so on. The people at FAIR have a very narrow view of reality and from that perspective, they may feel they are telling the truth. And you may disagree with that. It doesn't mean they are intentionally lying. And Simon, with his very narrow view of reality, is doing something very similar. What Simon is saying may be accurate to a degree. But, the reality of the situation may be different than he assumes and so in general he may also be very mistaken. Simon's world revolves around the assumption that there are no god-like beings interacting with our world. And if so, he's likely correct in his positions. However, if not, he could be vastly mistaken about a great many things.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
I am not a scientist and don't really think that non-scientist apologists ought to weigh in on the issue, but I do note that the wiki article I link below shows some connections between Amerinds and the Levant. So it appears.
Tobin wrote:I think you are giving critics like Simon too much credit and still using your immature boyish view of the world when assessing the truth. No-one knows the complete truth actually. Certainly not Simon, not FAIR, nor me, and so on. The people at FAIR have a very narrow view of reality and from that perspective, they may feel they are telling the truth. And you may disagree with that. It doesn't mean they are intentionally lying. And Simon, with his very narrow view of reality, is doing something very similar. What Simon is saying may be accurate to a degree. But, the reality of the situation may be different than he assumes and so in general he may also be very mistaken. Simon's world revolves around the assumption that there are no god-like beings interacting with our world. And if so, he's likely correct in his positions. However, if not, he could be vastly mistaken about a great many things.
Bad science is bad science, whether god-like beings interact with our world or not. Your ad hominem attack on Simon has nothing to do with the OP, Simon's article, or Dr. Crandall's strange response.