Who Are Indians Really?

[_beastie]

Who is arguing with Charity about the feasability of a minimal Book of Mormon scenario? Anybody?

I think we should just let Charity argue with herself. She proposes a minimal Book of Mormon scenario while simultaneously suggesting the final Book of Mormon battle really could have taken place in NY.

I've long argued that the current trend in Book of Mormon apologia will soon have the setting of the Book of Mormon taking place in the some basement of a single Mesoamerican house, with a highly imaginative yet socially deprived Mesoamerican teenager spinning wild tales about his life... kind of like the ancient Mesoamerican version of myspace.

[_truth dancer]

Who is arguing with Charity about the feasability of a minimal Book of Mormon scenario? Anybody?

I think we should just let Charity argue with herself. She proposes a minimal Book of Mormon scenario while simultaneously suggesting the final Book of Mormon battle really could have taken place in NY.

This is why I asked Charity what she thought was the argument.

Charity, do you notice a pattern?

You keep thinking you win arguments that don't exist. You make up an argument, claim others are on the opposing side and then claim victory when you "win" the pretend argument only you are making.

It is all rather odd.

Maybe it would be helpful in the future for you to state what you think critics believe/assert BEFORE you state a response.

~dancer~

[_marg]

I took a rather quick look at this thread Charity and Dude is correct. The article it talking about individuals and how accurate a DNA test would be for an individual finding out specifics of whether they essentially were descendants of the groups who migrated here 10,000 years ago or so.

As the article points out not every descendant shows the marker, but statistics are factored into approximately what percentage of a Native American group should show particular markers. The article is not disputing that Am. Indians are descendants from at least 2 migratory groups out of Asia.

The article mentions some people who may believe they are descendants wouldn't show the particular identifying markers and that is consistent with the science. I believe they label these people non (Am. Indians.) No where does the article say these unidentified individuals are Middle Eastern descent.

The point I've been trying to get across to you is that there is no evidence of Am. Indians having any Middle Eastern ancestry from 600 B.C. It is a claim which has no reliability.

If a group from the Middle East came approx 600 B.C. and had some sort of significant impact on Am. Indians living here at the time...then how does that impact show up evidentially ? It doesn't show up linguistically, in their culture, in their genetics.

So the claim Am. Indians are decendants from a small group from the Middle East is an unreliable claim, it is made by those who don't use evidence but rely on religious faith, and the claim amounts to no better than wishful thinking by those who have a vested interest in promoting the idea.


What is obvious is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th Century fabrication. And there are many reasons why that is obvious, too numerous to get into this post. And you really are not the individual to discuss it with because as you've already explained, evidence is not relevantto you, you believe based on faith. So why bang one's head against the wall trying to arguing rationally with you when you admit what is rational is irrelevant.

[_charity]

If you sample thousands of people from dozens of regions, and they keep coming up as one of the main Asian markers, that must mean something about who the principal (*most numerous*) ancestors were.

Your father recognized the "most important" and not "most numerous" defintion of principal. Listen to your dad.

So Charity, what do you make of the part in the article that you highlighted:

As for the Y-chromosome, there are two primary lineages or “haplogroups” that are seen in modern Native American groups, called M3 and M45. As for the Y-chromosome, there are two primary lineages or “haplogroups” that are seen in modern Native American groups, called M3 and M45. Some scientists maintain that up to 95% of all Native American Y-chromosomes are from these two groups (with the rest being from either Asian lineages or non-native haplo-groups).

Non-native haplo groups? Sounds intriguing to me.

Again, I heard about these people on a Boy Scout camping trip, but I didn't know we were talking about LGT. The idea seemed to be that some Nephites survived the Lamanite purge, and so they remained white skinned by living in an isolated Peruvian rainforest.

I love the quality of this science. "Heard about it on a Boy Scout camping trip." You keep bringing up all these speculative ideas that some people play around with to prove that the Church teaches or most members believe. *Sigh.*

[quote="The Dude"]
You think I'm saying their ancestry is homogenous and we don't know that. They sure could have a Viking Nephite in their history, if you want to believe that. I'm not arguing about minimalist theories that don't actually have evidence to support them. Hypotheticals.[/quopte]

Did you just admit that Lamanites could be there? This is progress.

[_cksalmon]

You keep bringing up all these speculative ideas that some people play around with to prove [w]hat the Church teaches or most members believe. *Sigh.*

Wait a minute, there, Charity. I don't think you're being entirely fair with FAIR. I've read some solid stuff there from time to time.

(heh. *amuses himself*)

CKS

[_The Dude]

If you sample thousands of people from dozens of regions, and they keep coming up as one of the main Asian markers, that must mean something about who the principal (*most numerous*) ancestors were.

Your father recognized the "most important" and not "most numerous" defintion of principal. Listen to your dad.

Genetics tells us who the principal (*most numerous*) ancestors were. I am not saying anything about the introduction to the Book of Mormon here, so your comment sails past once again. Why can't I speak plain english with you?

You think I'm saying their ancestry is homogenous and we don't know that. They sure could have a Viking Nephite in their history, if you want to believe that. I'm not arguing about minimalist theories that don't actually have evidence to support them. Hypotheticals.[/quopte]

Did you just admit that Lamanites could be there? This is progress.

Did I just admit...!? Progress towards what? Progress away from what? I have never said the invisible Lamanites (or Vikings, or Romans) could not be there and neither is anyone else on this board. This is why they call you Mrs. Strawman, I guess -- a Mrs. Strawman who serves watered-down lemonade squeezed from the non-concessions of other posters.

[Guest]

Genetics tells us who the principal (*most numerous*) ancestors were. I am not saying anything about the introduction to the Book of Mormon here, so your comment sails past once again. Why can't I speak plain english with you?

You are the one who is not speaking plain English.

Here is the defihnition of "principal" from the dictionary I am using. The #1 defintion is: 1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost. Out of the 15 defintions listed, not one of them is "most numerous."

So who is having trouble speaking plain English? You just can't make up a definition and then chide others for not using your own personal dictionary. You are a scientist. You should be more precise than that.

You think I'm saying their ancestry is homogenous and we don't know that. They sure could have a Viking Nephite in their history, if you want to believe that. I'm not arguing about minimalist theories that don't actually have evidence to support them. Hypotheticals.[/quopte]

Did you just admit that Lamanites could be there? This is progress.[/quote]

Did I just admit...!? Progress towards what? Progress away from what? I have never said the invisible Lamanites (or Vikings, or Romans) could not be there and neither is anyone else on this board. This is why they call you Mrs. Strawman, I guess -- a Mrs. Strawman who serves watered-down lemonade squeezed from the non-concessions of other posters.

Sorry if I assumed you were in bed with the other geneticist who has been quoted ad nauseum that the Asian DNA "proves" that the Book of Mormon is false. You are saying that DNA studies aren't relevant to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon?

[_the road to hana]

Sorry if I assumed you were in bed with the other geneticist who has been quoted ad nauseum that the Asian DNA "proves" that the Book of Mormon is false. You are saying that DNA studies aren't relevant to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon?

Charity, what you have made abundantly clear, on this and other threads, is that nothing disproves the Book of Mormon to the person who is the ardent, faithful believer.

If you aren't open to it being something other than what it represents itself to be, or what the church represents it to be, no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary is going to persuade you. Discussing that with people who hold to the dictum, "Prove all things," can be problematic for that very reason.

[_The Dude]

Genetics tells us who the principal (*most numerous*) ancestors were. I am not saying anything about the introduction to the Book of Mormon here, so your comment sails past once again. Why can't I speak plain english with you?

You are the one who is not speaking plain English.

Here is the defihnition of "principal" from the dictionary I am using. The #1 defintion is: 1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost. Out of the 15 defintions listed, not one of them is "most numerous."

Genetics speaks in numbers. Therefore, when "principal" is used in a genetic context it can only mean "most numerous". For your benefit I clarified that definition in my original statement, but you, apparently, are a slave to the dictionary and a thorough pedant.

Sorry if I assumed you were in bed with the other geneticist who has been quoted ad nauseum that the Asian DNA "proves" that the Book of Mormon is false.

Mrs. Strawman is arguing with Dr. Nobody. Who is this other geneticist, this Dr. Nobody, who gets quoted so heavily? Show me the quote from a geneticist saying something equal to "Asian DNA 'proves' that the Book of Mormon is false".

You are saying that DNA studies aren't relevant to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon?

They are not relevant to minimalist interpretations of the Book of Mormon. (<-- this is not a concession)

[_charity]

Sorry if I assumed you were in bed with the other geneticist who has been quoted ad nauseum that the Asian DNA "proves" that the Book of Mormon is false. You are saying that DNA studies aren't relevant to the truth claims of the Book of Mormon?

Charity, what you have made abundantly clear, on this and other threads, is that nothing disproves the Book of Mormon to the person who is the ardent, faithful believer.

If you aren't open to it being something other than what it represents itself to be, or what the church represents it to be, no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary is going to persuade you. Discussing that with people who hold to the dictum, "Prove all things," can be problematic for that very reason.

Science never "proves" anything. It has been a long time since my grad course in stats, and I can't put my hand on my Bruning and Kintz Computational Handbook of Statistics, or else I could give you the little probabilty equation we always used on psych studies. But from my training, we could never state anything as proven. The language was always expressed as a probability, never attaining 1.00, that our results were not just chance.

And I am very sensitive to overblown claims. Murphy claimed that the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false. What a crackpot. Southern, who also holds similar views, still says that DNA could not disprove the existence of a group such as the Lehites.

And dancer, just for your information, you should note there is NO scientific evidence that the Book of Mormon isn't what it says it is. There is also no scientific "proof" that it is what it says it is either, but there are evidences. You shouldn't buy into the anti-Mormon lie that the Book of Mormon has been proven false.

Look at the the dude. While he insists on using the word "principal" in a way that no dictionary will support, he even says there is not proof that a small group wasn't here.