Post MAD DNA arguments here

[_Simon Southerton]

Hi Folks,

If there are arguments that apologists (e.g in the MAD house) are making that you would like me to respond to could you please add them to this thread? I don't have the desire or energy to address these on apologetic boards. At some stage soon I'll respond to them as best I can.

Here is an example from "Hamilton Porter" on the MAD board.
..........
Look dude, I'll show you right now why Southerton's reasoning is circular.
Check out this study on Mesoamerican DNA:
http://www.pnas.org/...5/6759.full.pdf
If any Hebrew DNA is ever detected among Native Americans, geneticists will chuck it out because they assume it's due to non-natives mixing with natives after Columbus came. Hope that helps.
.........
Slam dunk. The foolish scientists discard Israelite DNA because they assume it came after Columbus. Southerton is consequently a fool for following the foolish scientists.

The title of the research study gives a big clue as to why only the Asian derived (A,B,C,D,X) lineages were studied and other DNA lineages excluded.

"Evaluating the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis with genetic variation exhibited by populations in the Southwest and Mesoamerica"

The scientists were not studying the origins of Native Americans. They were looking to see if DNA could help answer some questions about how farming dispersed throughout Central America. Since many of the authors of the paper had previously examined Native American origins, they chose to exclude DNA lineages that their earlier research had shown was almost certainly post-Columbian admixture. In studies of Native American origins scientists typically do not exclude individuals based on their DNA lineage. They excluded them if in pre-study interviews they found out that they had African or European ancestors. When they did that very thoroughly they rarely found other lineages.

[_Mercury]

The most coherent argument I heard so far is "Simon Southerton is a doodoo head", at least that's what it sounded like. Its the best synopsis I could interpret from the whining claptrap coming from the MI.

[_Simon Southerton]

The most coherent argument I heard so far is "Simon Southerton is a doodoo head", at least that's what it sounded like. Its the best synopsis I could interpret from the whining claptrap coming from the MI.

Now that's a slam dunk.

[_aussieguy55]

I hope John Dehlin does not mind but i thought this letter in response to his podcast with Simon is important as it mentions an attack in a fireside on both Simon and Thomas Murphy.
"Mj on May 25, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Years ago I attended a fireside at the Monument Park singles ward here in Salt Lake City where Dr. Scott Woodward presented on science based support for the Book of Mormon. As I recall, he didn’t really deliver any hard evidences rather he spoke of theories that explain why, in today’s modern world, science doesn’t yield any hard evidence to support the book. It was a rather intriguing presentation that I wish I could have recorded.
I remember his explanation of the small geography theory, complete with visuals, and his fervent, testimony promoting teaching that the foot print of the Nephites and Lamanites was so small and their genetic contribution to the gene pool so isolated that any DNA traces of them are simply lost in today’s human populations. He then went on a bit about his own genographic projects and other genetic research to sort of substantiate and lend credence to what he was teaching us.
The other thing I remember vividly is his pulpit pounding lashing of Simon and Tom Murphy. And yes, he literally pounded his fist on the pulpit as he aired his frustration at Simon’s book and Tom’s dissertation. I don’t know if many of the folks at the fireside had been exposed to either of these two sources of information. Further, I don’t know if many of those folks even knew of Simon or Tom. I think this emotional outbreak caused some uneasiness in the room because folks couldn’t really understand what he was getting at. But then again, a few of us did. It was rather entertaining there for a bit. At the same time it was public slander against two members of the scientific community who had published honest and straightforward research. My guess is that these two publications possibly have caused Scott to question his own testimony. Perhaps he was using us in the audience as group therapy to vent his personal dilemmas and come to peace with himself.
Overall, I think if anything, most people came away from the presentation with more questions in their minds. Not that Scott is a bad speaker it’s just that his material was somewhat confusing and full of apologetic mumbo jumbo. There were no amazing revelations. No reports of data from any field of science to lend support for the Book of Mormon. He closed with a rather teary eyed testimony and that was that. Since then I haven’t heard of any firesides that address topics like this. I think this was a rare one for sure."

The bolded section is interesting.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My god this has to be frustrating for SS.

SS?

He's a Nazi!

God wins again.

- VRDRC

[_NorthboundZax]

This isn't from MAD, but I would be interested in your answer all the same. A friend in the ward maintains that X2 is 'semitic'. When I mentioned that I thought the timing precluded that possibility, he chastised me for not knowing how mutations are dated while he did.

Now, he is an analytical chemist that does research on proteins, so he is definitely a big step closer to the field than I am. To him, this is a reasonable case of bottleneck or founder effect (I forget which) - so dates of 10-15,000 years are overestimates. In going back to take a look at what people have written about it, it still looks to me like those closest to the work have accounted for that and still come up with 10-15,000 years. Could you explain the uncertainty in the dating to me and how recent the dates could be when considering a bottle neck/founder effect? Much appreciated.

[_Joe Geisner]

Hi Folks,

If there are arguments that apologists (e.g in the MAD house) are making that you would like me to respond to could you please add them to this thread? I don't have the desire or energy to address these on apologetic boards. At some stage soon I'll respond to them as best I can.

Hi Simon,

You were excellent in your MS interview and John did a great job at asking questions. Thanks for doing this.

I think the only convincing argument by the apologist is "that through faith is one to know if the Book of Mormon is true."

It seems to me that religion is based on faith and belief. Science is based on evidence and facts. There is neither evidence nor facts for religion. From the resurrection of Jesus to Smith's first vision, there is no evidence found, one has to take these on faith.

As for the Book of Mormon, I think Fence Sitter has zeroed in on the only reasonable argument left for the apologists when he wrote:

"The LDS response to all this is to reduce the scope of the Book of Mormon inhabitants. .... Soon the internal discussion on where the Book of Mormon occurred will be limited to 40 acres in Panama [and] the west face of the Hill Cummorah."

When a scientist is unable to be honest in a review such as Dr. Ryan Parr's, and not discuss the dating of when the Asian people started migrating to the Americas; and is unable to deal with the evidence found by scientist in archeology that you describe in your book, then any reasonable person realizes the apologist have nothing to support the Book of Mormon.

[_Fence Sitter]

I have been following the thread over there. The difference between the apologist and the critic,in this thread, is that the former uses the scriptures to determine a very limited Nephite footprint and the latter uses science.

[_Drifting]

I have been following the thread over there. The difference between the apologist and the critic,in this thread, is that the former uses the scriptures to determine a very limited Nephite footprint and the latter uses science.

It always amuses me that Gods chosen people who settled the Americas have been reduced by the apologists to the equivalent of a small and insignificant scouting party.

[_lulu]

I have been following the thread over there. The difference between the apologist and the critic,in this thread, is that the former uses the scriptures to determine a very limited Nephite footprint and the latter uses science.

It always amuses me that Gods chosen people who settled the Americas have been reduced by the apologists to the equivalent of a small and insignificant scouting party.

It does cut against the "this land is choice" theme in Mormon history. Adam had to be here, the Garden of Eden had to be here, a land reserved for the special, Jesus just had to visit.

If America was so special, who were all these other people?

Supose America was a cupcake. Supose a whole lot of not-Israelites got to lick all the frosting off of the cupcake.

Would the cupcake still be special?