DiscussMormonism.com

There is a extremely interesting thread on RFM for anyone interested in DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Simon posted some online conversations he has had with well known apologists such as John Tvetnes, Alan Wyatt, and others as he refuted many claims on the FAIR Book of Mormon DNA video.

It is a little long but seriously interesting and informative!


Book of Mormon DNA


~dancer~

I recommend looking through this thread while it is still there. It is a wonderful example of how much effort may be required to make an LDS partisan who has uttered a faith-supporting 'mis-speaking' retract it. But here is the result (note the pointless Parthian shot at the end, to which one can only respond "Yeah, right!")

John Tvedtnes

Sent: Monday, June 16
To: 'Scott Gordon'
Subject: DNA DVD

Like you (and others, I presume), I have gotten some complaints from Simon Southerton about the FAIR DNA video. I acknowledge that there are two parts of my interview that are problematic. The first is that, at the beginning, I said that haplogroup X is found in Mesoamerica, which is incorrect. Later on the DVD, I note that it is found in the eastern USA (and Canada, by the way), but “Mesoamerica” was incorrect. Also, the way I worded things made it sound like this was evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is, of course, not direct evidence, though it is true that the “brand” (as I put it) of X found in the New World is closer to that found in Europe and in the Middle East, where X is thought to have originated. Still, as I indicated in my later comments on the DVD, the likelihood is that the X of eastern North America came from Europe.

I also made an inadvertent mistake in assume that the haplogroup labeled “N” for remains of Great Basin Natives was also found in Europe. As it turns out, the Great Basin studies used “N” to denote samples of mitochondrial DNA that did not fall into the ABCD haplogroups and was intended to mean “none.” The real importance of these and X in general is that more haplogroups have been discovered since the original ABC (which expanded to ABCD, then added X, with others unclassified and usually labeled “other”). This suggests that one cannot close the door on more such discoveries, as some of the critics suggest.

I recommend editing out my early comments on X on the DVD and removing what I said about Great Basin N being also found in Europe. I watched the DVD again and everything else seems to be OK, though I wish I had been more clear about some things. (I also wish others on the DVD had been more clear and precise; alas, that is the nature of interviews.) It would have been better to have my comments about the Y-chromosome haplogroup 1C at the beginning in place of the brief comment I made about X, since 1C definitely is evidence that can be used to support the Book of Mormon.

If you can’t rework the DVD, could you at least include some kind of printed disclaimer (I could write one) or post something on the FAIR web site about my two mistakes? It is unfortunate that I (and I presume others) was not able to preview the product before it was released.

I should add that I have found many more errors in Southerton’s book than on the DVD, many of which I think were from incorrect information provided by the publisher rather than the author.

Chap wrote:Like you (and others, I presume), I have gotten some complaints from Simon Southerton about the FAIR DNA video. I acknowledge that there are two parts of my interview that are problematic. The first is that, at the beginning, I said that haplogroup X is found in Mesoamerica, which is incorrect. Later on the DVD, I note that it is found in the eastern USA (and Canada, by the way), but “Mesoamerica” was incorrect. Also, the way I worded things made it sound like this was evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is, of course, not direct evidence, [/b] though it is true that the “brand” (as I put it) of X found in the New World is closer to that found in Europe and in the Middle East, where X is thought to have originated. Still, as I indicated in my later comments on the DVD, the likelihood is that the X of eastern North America came from Europe.

I also made an inadvertent mistake in assume that the haplogroup labeled “N” for remains of Great Basin Natives was also found in Europe. [b]As it turns out, the Great Basin studies used “N” to denote samples of mitochondrial DNA that did not fall into the ABCD haplogroups and was intended to mean “none.” The real importance of these and X in general is that more haplogroups have been discovered since the original ABC (which expanded to ABCD, then added X, with others unclassified and usually labeled “other”). This suggests that one cannot close the door on more such discoveries, as some of the critics suggest.

I recommend editing out my early comments on X on the DVD and removing what I said about Great Basin N being also found in Europe. I watched the DVD again and everything else seems to be OK, though I wish I had been more clear about some things. (I also wish others on the DVD had been more clear and precise; alas, that is the nature of interviews.) It would have been better to have my comments about the Y-chromosome haplogroup 1C at the beginning in place of the brief comment I made about X, since 1C definitely is evidence that can be used to support the Book of Mormon.

Is this sort of like saying, "Everything I said that was noncontroversial seems okay, but when I started arguing for Book of Mormon historicity, I made mistake after embarrassing mistake?"

The guy didn't know that, in the study he referenced, "N" meant "none." He stated that X is found in Mesoamerica, which, he later admits, is just "incorrect."

Did all the purchasers of the DVD later receive a free copy of an edited version that left out his pro-LDS, but non-factual errors?

This is an expert?

That was fascinating. I think it's revealing in regards to how LDS apologia works. In the eagerness to find scientific data that could feasibly support the Book of Mormon claims, apologists make mistakes. If other apologists look at the work critically before production, obviously it is not critical enough. Some of the mistakes are laughable. I'm reminded of the portion about horses on the New World DVD in which an apologists mentioned that horses originated on this continent as if that were evidence supportive of the Book of Mormon... without mentioning that they went EXTINCT thousands of years prior to the Book of Mormon time period. This should be embarrassing, but the vast majority of the target audience simply do not have the background knowledge necessary to recognize the serious errors.

Book of Mormon apologia depends on a great deal of ignorance in its audience for its success.

Yeah, this is the problem with so much of the apologetic work, in my opinion.

Over and over and over we continue to hear "statements not supported by facts," presented as truth.

For me, more than the church issues, is the "mis-spoken" statements.

And apologists wonder why they are not trusted. :-(

I try to give the benefit of the doubt but it is getting harder and harder.

~dancer~

Thanks for the link, Truthdancer.

Simon Southerton also touched on this in his recent Signature article. It's a better read and covers more trends in recent DNA aplogetics.

How DNA Divides LDS Apologists

When I debated David Stewart in 2006 I felt that the scientific part of the DNA debate was pretty much settled between apologists and Southerton, and only cranks like Stewart were still trying to argue for detectable "Middle Eastern" signatures in this hemisphere. The FAIR production shows that my impression was wrong. Apologists are trying to move forward from the defensive line they established against Southerton's book, where no remnant of Lehi's DNA would ever be expected to survive from the tiny original colony. Now they are becoming as painfully misleading as David Stewart.

John Tvetnes relies on the same pseudoscientific canards as David Stewart, in order to reach a comfortable rejection of DNA dating methods. The approach it like a creationist regards radiometric dating. For example:

Tvetnes wrote:I reject the idea that there is a specific rate to genetic mutation...

Another potential problem is the arbitrary assignment of 20 years per generation on average, which may or may not be accurate.

This is not an arbitrary assignment. In debating Stewart I cited recent studies that support recalculating some key migration times based on increasing the average generation time beyond the standard 20 years. Although ancient mothers might have had their first child at a younger age than 20 years, most children were born to a few women who had very large families, and on average these children were born to mothers in their mid to late twenties. It's not the youngest births that matter, but the average births.

Being off by just a year or two in each generation can make a big difference when one is dealing with tens of thousands of years.

Well if the correct average generation time was 25 years instead of 20 years, then the migrations actually happened much earlier than currently estimated. Tvetnes shoots himself in the foot! Repeatedly, the apologists and lay members focus on geographical distributions as significant and helpful for Book of Mormon historicity, but the dates attached to these markers are a huge problem and there is simply no credible way to escape it except to reject DNA methods altogether.

Even guys with scientific training are straining to say there is DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. And the responses from LDS geneticists Ryan Parr and Keith Crandall... how embarassing! They plainly do not have the polish of a seasoned spin doctor like John Tvetnes.

And I love how Simon puts some perspective on Keith Crandall's specious claim that recent DNA research puts "Middle Eastern" DNA in Mesoamerica just where you would expect it if the Book of Mormon is true:

Simon Southerton wrote:Crandall bases this claim on a paper published in 2005 by Noah Rosenberg and co-workers....

You can replace “Middle Eastern” in Crandall’s statement with the name of any of 38 other Eurasian populations in Rosenberg’s study and the statement would be JUST as valid. You could replace it with “Orkney Islanders, Russians, Cambodians or Japanese” and Rosenberg’s data would support it! If the evidence doesn’t rule out competing theories then it tells us precisely nothing. The genetic makeup of the Maya doesn’t stand out from many other American Indian populations.

I corresponded briefly with Crandall, pointing all this out but he was unmoved, dismissive and I suspect embarrassed by his carelessness in front of the camera.

LOL I can understand how "livy111us" (FAIR's YouTube promoter) would call this evidence, but Crandall should know better from the beginning, and at the very least he should see his error and try to correct his sloppy mistatement. I used to think Crandall was something special among the scientists at BYU because of his Dialogue paper:
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/36-4.asp
,but he wrote that before he joined the faith. Now, it seems his judgment was polluted by the waters of baptism.

I was especially irritated by the reply of Ryan Parr

Hello Simon:
Thank you for your inquiry, I believe most of us have moved past this debate. If you no longer believe, then I sincerely suggest that you simply move on as well. In contrast you appear to allocate large amounts of effort and emotion towards something which you claim has no reality (i.e. your email exchange with my associate Keith Crandall). This is contrary to the mind of a scientist. There seems to be a large expenditure, on your part, to justify your position. Perhaps you should try some intellectual honesty and admit that in your seeming disbelief, there is still a measure of belief, or that this is really about generating book sales. The claim that your integrity as a scientist has been questioned by FAIRS comes with the territory. I am sure you have noticed that reviewers always question the science of a proposed publication. As to the interests of your family please relay to them that as a fully active and believing Mormon scientist, I see your criticisms as misplaced and as a tragic misinterpretation, for both you and your family, of what can and cannot be interpreted from the extant data. Sincerely, you should rethink and reconsider your efforts in this area.
Sincerely,
Ryan

What a donkey. If we have all moved past this debate, then why is FAIR recently putting out stuff like this shoddy video? He expects Simon to be silent now while they go on talking about it (and including faith promoting errors "accidently on purpose"?)