Sorry for taking so long to reply to you Dude, but I had to reconstruct the sequence of our discussion in order to try to figure out your point, which I didn’t get. In addition I don’t like arguing with people if I feel that they may be arguing for the sake of it, and I’ve found on this particular board that when critics engage another critic over an issue, which they should be on the same page about, it seems to boil down to arguing for the sake of it, or other times because they hold hostility towards a critic. I won’t name names when it comes to that, but let’s just say I have experienced it. So I’m not highly motivated to put much time into a response.
The point I was making Dude was that I was addressing Shades comment about Dan’s talk in which Shades said he thought he DCP brought up a point that it was difficult to trace genetic lines back to a specific family. My point was that this sort of DNA point is not relevant. And it confuses people further who don’t appreciate the issues.
It’s really quite simple, the only thing the positive scientific DNA evidence tells us is that American Indians are of Asian descent, I believe there might have been 3 migrations and scientists have estimated of when those migrations occurred. The key point here is there is positive evidence for the ancestry of modern day American indians.
The Book of Mormon claims that middle eastern people migrated to America. If that genetic evidence has been diluted out of existence, there is no positive evidence for that. It’s a possibility. If there were large groups in the Americas at the time of the migration, the Book of Mormon doesn’t say, it’s a possibility.
I’ll repeat my last comment which you didn’t address and following that I’ll recreate the exchange. Like I said I really don’t understand what your point was. If you thought I was saying that science disproves the Book of Mormon you misread me. As far as your suggesting to use the text instead of DNA, I’m not using DNA to disprove anything.
My last comment to you, which you did not address: It boils down to science doesn't disprove Book of Mormon or Church based faith claims, but that's mainly because the claims made can not be disproven. One can not prove..evidence of X disappeared if there never was evidence of any X to begin with. One can not prove red swans existed but died out, if there is no evidence of red swans ever existing to begin with. One can only prove by positive evidence. We know positively American Indians are of Asian ancestry. Any other ancestry from elsewhere without objective evidence is speculative or faith based religious assertions and as such lack reliability.
Shades: ith that in mind, it's vastly more difficult to trace genetic lines back to a specific family that lived many centuries earlier than that, especially A) due to the fact that we know nothing about Ishmael's wife, and B) due to the Native Americans' genetic bottleneck that occurred post-1492.
Marg: What difference does it make if genetic information doesn't trace back to a specific family. The genetic information with regards to American Indians is positive evidence indicating their ancestry is Asian. There is negative evidence or absence of evidence for Middle Eastern ancestry. Even if somehow some small group came over from the Middle East and their genetic data was diluted out of existence in current American Indians, that would indicate they would have been a relatively insignificant group, however it would be speculative that such a small group ever existed.
2)Dude: It is speculative for you. The situation is not speculative if one already believes in the Book of Mormon.
3) Marg: Surely even a religious individual can appreciate a faith based book can not be used as objective evidence. So of course the Book of Mormon or the Church can say or claim whatever they wish, but absent objective evidence to warrant claims..they are mere faith based assertions.
4 Dude: If you know of a specific case where a religious person (especially one with a PhD in genetics or biology) says that a faith-based book counts as objective evidence, then I would be very interested in discussing it. Otherwise, it sounds like you are putting words into somebody's mouth. "Mere faith based" is what religion is all about
------------------------
2) Dude:As long as you are leaving the door open for a small group of Middle Eastern people to have entered the existing Asian population, DNA is no trouble for Mormons who read the Book of Mormon as a limited history.
3) marg: Granted but if the Book of Mormon is about important people, then evidence indicates they weren't significant in numbers enough to even show up in genetic data.
4Dude: Yep. I guess they were important but not numerous. If you want to argue about DNA and the Book of Mormon, I suggest a better approach would be to examine the text of the Book of Mormon and see if the "important but not numerous" scenario fits what the Book of Mormon says. As well, there should be evidence of vastly overwhelming numbers of "others". Such evidence is thin and, upon close examination of apologetic writings compared to the full Book of Mormon text, quite laughable. Don't argue about the DNA, argue about the text. This is the only way forward on this issue.
1- marg: Ok let me rephrase this, It makes little difference that genetic information of American indians doesn't trace back to a particular family. Statistically genetic markers indicate ancestry of American Indians is Asian, from I believe approx 10,000 years ago. Genetic markers can be approx dated as to when they occurred. It is because of this that scientists can theorize migration route moderan man from about 100,000 years ago around the world. When groups separated and where migratory groups went.
2- The Dude: All true, but the genetic record cannot document every family that ever came to live among the American Indians. That leaves a glimmer of hope that is more than enough for many Book of Mormon believers (who read it as a limited history).
3- marg: It still reduces to the Book of Mormon being extraordinary claims unsupported with any objective DNA evidence, hence they are faith based assertions which lack reliablity.. Of course people can believe whatever they wish. All too often though religious apologists like to piggyback their religious claims onto science, in order to make their beliefs/claims seen credible and I suspect in DCP's talk he attempted to do just that.
4: Dude: So? This is religion! Lower your standards on this point or risk looking like you don't get it. You are kind of swinging at thin air.
3 – marg: It boils down to science doesn't disprove Book of Mormon or Church based faith claims, but that's mainly because the claims made can not be disproven. One can not prove..evidence of X disappeared if there never was evidence of any X to begin with. One can not prove red swans existed but died out, if there is no evidence of red swans ever existing to begin with. One can only prove by positive evidence. We know positively American Indians are of Asian ancestry. Any other ancestry from elsewhere without objective evidence is speculative or faith based religious assertions and as such lack reliability.