A Very Limited Geography

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Runtu »

Kishkumen wrote:I just assume, for the sake of sparing the feelings of people that I otherwise like, that you guys just flip a switch and have your cheapo Mopologetic software post for you at certain points. I would hate to think that you guys actually believe the garbage you are spouting at those times. So really, it is all about how much I otherwise like you fellows.


I almost feel sorry for stem for trying to counter an actual DNA expert by quoting FARMS. Egads!
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Simon Southerton
_Emeritus
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Simon Southerton »

Simon Belmont wrote:
Simon Southerton wrote:Um no mate. This is where it ends.


Wait... you begin a thread, then chicken out when some valid points are brought up in opposition to yours?


Allow me to spell it out for you Simon B.

Stemelbow's argument (i.e. brick wall) totally conflicts with the position of a Mormon scientist with a PhD in human molecular anthropology.

You insist I should continue to argue with an apologist who rejects the position of the LDS expert (i.e. hit head against said brick wall)

Stemelbow's argument is with Ugo Perego.
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
_Morley
_Emeritus
Posts: 3542
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Morley »

Thank you, Dr. Southerton.
_Simon Belmont

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Simon Southerton wrote:Allow me to spell it out for you Simon B.

Stemelbow's argument (i.e. brick wall) totally conflicts with the position of a Mormon scientist with a PhD in human molecular anthropology.

You insist I should continue to argue with an apologist who rejects the position of the LDS expert (i.e. hit head against said brick wall)

Stemelbow's argument is with Ugo Perego.


Dr. Southerton,

Your position totally conflicts with an LDS scientist who holds a Ph.D. I am unsure what point you are attempting to make with that.
_Fifth Columnist
_Emeritus
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Fifth Columnist »

Simon Southerton wrote:Stemelbow's argument is with Ugo Perego.

Dr. Southerton, have you had a chance to review Ugo's latest FARMS piece from 2010? It can be found here: http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=796

Ugo reaches the following conclusions:
Ugo Perego wrote:The Book of Mormon is not a volume about the history and origins of all American Indians. A careful reading of the text clearly indicates that the people described in the Book of Mormon were limited in the recording of their history to events that had religious relevance and that occurred in relatively close proximity to the keepers of the annals.

The fact that the DNA of Lehi and his party has not been detected in modern Native American populations does not demonstrate that this group of people never existed, nor that the Book of Mormon cannot be historical in nature. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, the very idea of locating the genetic signature of Lehi's family in modern populations constitutes a truly untestable hypothesis since it is not possible to know the nature of their genetic profiles. Without our knowing the genetic signature to be located, any attempt at researching it will unavoidably result in further assumptions and untestable hypotheses. What were the characteristics of Lehi's DNA and the DNA of those who went along with him? What haplogroup(s) did they belong to? We will never know. Yet this key point seems lost on those who insist on using genetic evidence as a means to validate or reject the Book of Mormon as a historical narrative. Attempting to make such conclusions is a miscarriage of logic comparable to collecting and analyzing the DNA of thousands of people living in the area surrounding a hypothetical crime scene from which no DNA could be retrieved from the individual who committed the crime, thus creating a comprehensive database of all these people. Will the database include the DNA signature of the criminal? If so, how could the perpetrator be identified among the thousands of others? Similarly, would a database composed of thousands of Native American DNA samples provide the necessary evidence to validate the existence of a small group (perhaps as few as two mtDNA haplotypes) that migrated from the Old World and settled somewhere in the Americas? Conversely, could haplogroup X be undoubtedly inferred as the ultimate proof of the genetic legacy this group left, without ever knowing their actual original DNA signature? Mitochondrial DNA is a powerful tool in reconstructing the history of our race, as demonstrated by the numerous publications that have been produced over the past two and a half decades. However, as has been amply demonstrated, knowing a great deal about the genetic composition of modern-day Native American populations does not give conclusive evidence of the validity or the implausibility of the Book of Mormon's historicity.

An additional caveat is the lack of professional training in population genetics by those promoting a supposed discrepancy between the genetic evidence and the Book of Mormon account. Some of them claim that their conclusions are strongly supported by trained experts who have been consulted for unbiased opinions about this particular matter.67 This should raise some concerns, though, since it is fairly obvious that most people outside of the circle of Mormonism have very limited knowledge of the Book of Mormon and its contents. As a further counterpoint to the critics' arguments, these experts seem to be in agreement that DNA lineages from a small Old World group migrating to an already heavily populated American continent would disappear.68 Moreover, it is also noteworthy that what these scientists know about what "Mormons believe" has been provided mainly as one-sided background information from the critics themselves. To offer a personal anecdote, my scientist colleagues have asked me about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon on several occasions. I respond with a simple summary in which I explain that the DNA lineages of Lehi's colony could have been lost due to genetic drift since the number of people involved was probably fairly small compared to the size of the resident Amerindian population. I also explain that it is not possible to distinguish those lineages from post-Columbian admixture, simply because 2,600 years is not enough time for Book of Mormon mtDNA to differentiate Lehi's descendants from their Eurasian counterparts. My colleagues typically reply that they are not convinced that I have accurately represented what Latter-day Saints believe—namely, that Lehi's posterity comprises all Native Americans. These personal experiences give context for evaluating "genuine experts' opinions," based as they are on what the critics may have shared as background information regarding the Book of Mormon and Latter-day Saint beliefs. Ultimately, the critics' arguments hold up only when they prescribe what it is that Latter-day Saints believe. Since neither the Book of Mormon nor church doctrine indicates that all Native Americans descend from the Book of Mormon people, the critics' arguments are on a weak footing at the outset.

In light of the information provided in this essay, it should be evident that the work of reconstructing the history of Native American populations using molecular data is still under way. Some questions can be answered while many more remain, spurring further research. The genetic evidence of the peopling of the Americas is not fully understood, and it has evolved substantially over the past two decades. DNA research, and particularly mtDNA data, has been produced in great abundance during this time period and has provided an initial glimpse into the history and prehistory of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. This is truly an exciting time to study the genetic history of Native Americans, for there is much yet to be understood. For example, how is the high frequency of haplogroup B in Southeast Asia and western South America reconciled with its rarity in the native populations of north Siberia and Alaska? The scarcity of archaeological evidence for human settlements on either side of the Bering Strait provides a degree of intrigue, considering that mainstream scientists currently accept Beringia as the likely refugium for Paleo-Indians during the last ice age, leaving open the possibility for alternative routes into the Americas.69 Mitochondrial DNA is doubtless a powerful tool that can reveal details about the expansion processes leading to the colonization of the world, including America's double continent. However, it is not well suited as the ultimate tool to assess the historicity of religious documents like the Book of Mormon and the Bible. If the DNA of Lehi and his family cannot be confidently detected in the modern Amerindian population, does it mean that they never existed? The principles underlying this question can be further extrapolated to other religious scenarios. Can we use DNA to decisively prove that the great biblical patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—ever existed? What were their own and their descendants' mtDNA haplotypes? What about the other great Old Testament figures, such as Joseph of Egypt, Moses, and Isaiah? Can we use DNA analysis to prove that Jesus Christ lived? The New Testament mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 13:55–56; Mark 6:3) through whom Mary's mtDNA could have been transmitted to future generations (and if not through Mary, perhaps through some of her female relatives). Where is their DNA in today's population? Would it be acceptable to conclude that these are fictional historical figures and the biblical text a hoax because of the lack of genetic evidence? As I already commented on another occasion: "I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. The scientific method and the test of faith are two strongly connected dimensions of my existence, working synergistically in providing greater understanding, knowledge, and from time to time even a glimpse into God's eternal mysteries."70 Anyone using DNA to ascertain the accuracy of historical events of a religious nature—which require instead a component of faith—will be sorely disappointed. DNA studies will continue to assist in reconstructing the history of Native American and other populations, but it is through faith that we are asked to search for truth in holy writings (Moroni 10:3–5).71

Ugo Perego seems to make the following arguments:
1. We don't know, and can't know, the DNA profile of Lehi and his party or of the other groups that traveled to the Americas such as the Mulekites (presumably the Jaredites were all killed so they don't matter). Since we don't know what their DNA looked like, it is impossible for us to detect it.
2. The DNA profile of Lehi's colony was probably lost due to genetic drift since they were assimilated into a huge population of natives.
3. Searching for the DNA of Lehi's colony is similar in scope to searching for the DNA of the ancient patriarchs or Jesus.

I should note that Perego is only talking about mtDNA. I don't know if his conclusions hold for other types of DNA. Perhaps you could comment about that.

Here is my response to Perego's arguments. The third one is completely ridiculous. Looking for Abraham's or Jesus' DNA is not even close to being analogous to looking for the DNA of one population transplanted to another continent. Abraham and Jesus lived and died in the same general genetic population in which they were born. Lehi and his colony did not.

Perego's first argument also seems a real stretch. He seems to be saying that we cannot exclude the possibility that Lehi and his colony had the same genetic profile that is found in native Americans. That's a tough argument to buy since Lehi and his colony and the Mulekites both originated in the middle east where the genetic population had certain characteristics. It would be extremely unlikely for Lehi and his colony and the Mulekites to have the same genetic profile as a parallel population on a separate continent. Nice try, but no.

Perego's second argument may have some legs from what I can tell. However, it still suffers from the fact that it requires reinterpreting 150 years worth of prophetic statements that the Nephites were much more substantial than Perego's argument requires. Oh well, it's not like this is the first time an apologist has thrown past prophets under the bus for the greater good.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Inconceivable »

It is quite evident that Ugo has not studied the Book of Mormon. If he has, he does not understand it. There is no evidence or reference that there was any other population in the promised land - the land the Mormon god gave exclusively to those that worshipped the Mormon Jesus. A land hidden from all other peoples. If there were others, there would have been prophets among them that paralleled the teachings of the Lehites. Otherwise, the Mormon god is a liar (or non existant).

UGO: Yet this key point seems lost on those who insist on using genetic evidence as a means to validate or reject the Book of Mormon as a historical narrative.

Well, I suppose there may be some other method to validate/evidence linking a hebrew civilization in the Americas. No doubt they left metal artifacts of curious workmanship, maybe remnants of their animals like horses etc.

oh.

You haven't found any.

gee, that sucks.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Themis »

Fifth Columnist wrote:
Perego's second argument may have some legs from what I can tell. However, it still suffers from the fact that it requires reinterpreting 150 years worth of prophetic statements that the Nephites were much more substantial than Perego's argument requires. Oh well, it's not like this is the first time an apologist has thrown past prophets under the bus for the greater good.


Great post FC. Also it's not just the prophets of the last 150 years but the straight forward reading of the text of the Book of Mormon that does not support it. The Book of Mormon is very much written with a young earth and global flood beliefs, which Joseph and company had in those days. It fits perfectly as a 19th century production. Dna evidence is just one of many evidences that supports this. As the science progresses and the evidence mounts it will only get worse in my opinion, but if I am wrong great.
42
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _ludwigm »

Defender wrote:...
Prof. Hamblin wrote:The reason we can’t “identify” Nephite sites is because we lack sufficient texts giving the ancient pronunciation of proper names to allow us to do so. How can we possibly be expected to determine if a particular site is or is not Zarahemla if we do not know the ancient name of that site? It boggles the mind that Anti-Mormons are so thick-headed that they can’t seen this patently obvious fact
Indeed, each one of these sentences is spot on. ...


OK, we don't know the ancient pronunciation of the names.
Instead we do have the most correct 19th century style English transliteration of them, as Joseph Smith has dictated them, after the urim-thummim and/or the stone-in-the-hat had showed or whispered them to the prophet. To the translator***.

So, the ancient pronunciation of - for example - Zarahemla is Zarahemla, or something very close of it.
( ʒ ʌ ɹ ɶ ħ æ ɱ ʎ œ , as it was distorted through centuries. For more help, see International Phonetic Alphabet. )

_________________
***
Doctrine and Covenants
21:1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,
107:92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.
124:125 I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Simon Southerton
_Emeritus
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:09 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Simon Southerton »

Fifth Columnist wrote:Ugo Perego seems to make the following arguments:
1. We don't know, and can't know, the DNA profile of Lehi and his party or of the other groups that traveled to the Americas such as the Mulekites (presumably the Jaredites were all killed so they don't matter). Since we don't know what their DNA looked like, it is impossible for us to detect it.
2. The DNA profile of Lehi's colony was probably lost due to genetic drift since they were assimilated into a huge population of natives.
3. Searching for the DNA of Lehi's colony is similar in scope to searching for the DNA of the ancient patriarchs or Jesus.

I should note that Perego is only talking about mtDNA. I don't know if his conclusions hold for other types of DNA. Perhaps you could comment about that.

Here is my response to Perego's arguments. The third one is completely ridiculous. Looking for Abraham's or Jesus' DNA is not even close to being analogous to looking for the DNA of one population transplanted to another continent. Abraham and Jesus lived and died in the same general genetic population in which they were born. Lehi and his colony did not.

Perego's first argument also seems a real stretch. He seems to be saying that we cannot exclude the possibility that Lehi and his colony had the same genetic profile that is found in native Americans. That's a tough argument to buy since Lehi and his colony and the Mulekites both originated in the middle east where the genetic population had certain characteristics. It would be extremely unlikely for Lehi and his colony and the Mulekites to have the same genetic profile as a parallel population on a separate continent. Nice try, but no.

Perego's second argument may have some legs from what I can tell. However, it still suffers from the fact that it requires reinterpreting 150 years worth of prophetic statements that the Nephites were much more substantial than Perego's argument requires. Oh well, it's not like this is the first time an apologist has thrown past prophets under the bus for the greater good.


I wish Perego and all the other vanishing geography crowd had as much airplay as possible for their prophet-busting Book of Mormon reinterpretations. They are happy to present these ideas in apologetic forums safe from the eyes of ordinary Mormons. But they wouldn't dare have them discussed in the Ensign, general conference or Sunday School. I'm not talking about the Limited Geography, which was once briefly discussed in the Ensign. There is a mile of difference between the LGT and the VGT. It would be great to see the masses trying to come to terms with Lehi running smack bang into millions of Native Americans who had been in the Americas for 16,000 years. It takes a pretty "careful" and "serious" bit of apologetics to imagine that out of the Book of Mormon.

Perego has published scientific papers where he has confirmed that Native Americans have been in the Americas for over 16,000 years. Apparently oblivious to the Flood and the events in the Garden of Eden.

I discussed Perego's disappearing mtDNA lineages argument up front. With nuclear DNA it is virtually impossible for it to go extinct. Also discussed at beginning of thread.
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
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: A Very Limited Geography

Post by _Kishkumen »

Simon Southerton wrote:There is a mile of difference between the LGT and the VGT. It would be great to see the masses trying to come to terms with Lehi running smack bang into millions of Native Americans who had been in the Americas for 16,000 years. It takes a pretty "careful" and "serious" bit of apologetics to imagine that out of the Book of Mormon.


It beggars belief to think that civilizations like those described in the Book of Mormon could have transpired in the midst of ancient Mesoamerica without making any mention of them and vice versa. The current Book of Mormon in a Mesoamerican setting apologetic is absolutely absurd. One has to assume a set of circumstances so convoluted that the statistical probability of such a thing ever happening is most likely negligible in the extreme, and that is a generous assessment of the situation.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply