My First Encounters with Institutional Mormonism

[_DrW]

Until you come up with some evidence, it would probably be better for everyone concerned if you would simply remain silent on this issue.

I would suggest that the good DrW was almost correct here...

Perhaps this, instead:

"...it would probably be better for you if you would simply remain silent on this issue. Everyone else is having a blast watching you make a bumbling fool of yourself."

You have a point.

ldsfaqs posts very often have a sort of never-ending-train-wreck-in-slow-motion entertainment quality about them.

I am waiting for the day when ldsfaqs finally acknowledges that someone on this board may know more about something (anything) than he/she does.

[_SteelHead]

Well if he can't count to 1023 on his fingers then I know more about math. ;)

[_ludwigm]

Well if he can't count to 1023 on his fingers then I know more about math. ;)

The carpenter in the pub, with his mates:
- Ten beer, please!
Then shows up both fingers...

[_Drifting]

Had you read this thread you would have seen that I explained the data on which the strong scientific consensus on this issue is based. That consensus is that there is no pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contribution to the New World Amerindian genome. In other words, the Book of Mormon narrative is pure fiction and fantasy.

DrW, the Book of Mormon could still be true if we move it to an Italian setting...

[_Brackite]

That's standard DNA science...... A small group entering into a larger group simply would not show save maybe in rare cases. Surprised you don't know this very common DNA fact. Clearly you are reading too much anti-mormonism rather than the actual DNA sciences.

Further, you are aware that VERY FEW natives of the America's have even been tested?
I'm sure if everyone was tested much more so-called Hebrew DNA would be found.

ldsfaqs,

Do you never tire of making an fool of yourself on this board? Are you completely incapable of reading or understanding what is written here? How can you take advantage of the great learning opportunities afforded you here if you simply refuse to pay attention?

Had you read this thread you would have seen that I explained the data on which the strong scientific consensus on this issue is based. That consensus is that there is no pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contribution to the New World Amerindian genome. In other words, the Book of Mormon narrative is pure fiction and fantasy.

There are any number of recently published peer reviewed scientific papers that support this consensus. I recently came across a review paper that listed and described more than 50 studies of Native American DNA, all of which were were consistent with, or directly support, the "no hebrew DNA" findings described in Dr. Southerton's book.

In fact, one of the studies referenced below represents thousands of samples that were analyzed by an LDS supported genetics research institute, the results of which support a single population genetic source for pre-Columbian Amerindians.

Evidence that has accumulated since the publication of Dr. Southerton's book, some of which was obtained using next-gen high resolution mtDNA mapping, has been perfectly consistent with his findings.

Again, since you appear to have not been paying attention, please see the statement below concerning the scientific consensus regarding the origin of the pre-Columbian Amerindians.

"Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427228/?tool=pmcentrez

If you know of any recent and credible peer reviewed papers that find results that are contrary to this consensus, I would be glad to consider them. Until you come up with some evidence, it would probably be better for everyone concerned if you would simply remain silent on this issue.

Below are a few more easily accessed papers that support Dr. Southerton's position.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080313-AP-native-amer.html
http://www.plosone.org/article/information:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000829
http://www.plosone.org/article/information:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001764
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025160653.htm
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/information:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193

Great References. Thanks!

[_ludwigm]

ldsfaqs,

Do you never tire of making an fool of yourself on this board?

Please, leave him alone. I like harlequinades in every manifestation.

(Maurice Sand)

(Paul Cézanne)

One of the origins postulated for the modern Harlequin is Hellequin, a stock character in French passion plays. Hellequin, a black-faced emissary of the devil, is said to have roamed the countryside with a group of demons chasing the damned souls of evil people to Hell. The physical appearance of Hellequin offers an explanation for the traditional colours of Harlequin's mask (red and black)

Got it?
I love the emissaries of the devil, who chase me - the evil man - to Hell. (since 1978, black face is acceptable)

They are my neighbours and it was said: "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well"

[_DrW]

Great References. Thanks!

You are welcome.

I trust you noticed that the NatGeo article refers to work by none other than Ugo Perego, of the LDS-associated Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation research laboratories in Salt Lake City.

As described earlier in this thread, Ugo Perego participated in the DNA analysis of some 6,000 Native American biological samples, none of which, according to those who have seen the data, showed any hint of Hebrew DNA, or indeed any DNA whatsoever that could have been contributed to the pre-Columbian Native American genome by trans-oceanic migration. The fact that these very valuable data have not been published certainly lends credibility to this claim.

Not one to allow his credibility and scientific career ruined by the wishes of a few prominent Mormons, Dr. Perego went ahead and published his paper on the six founding females that was featured in the Nat Geo article. His findings are in agreement with the now rock-solid scientific consensus on this issue.

All Book of Mormon believers can hope for now is that somewhere in the jungles of Mesoamerica there is a lost tribe of Hebrews who used to number in the millions, and once had horses and steel and cattle and goats and silk, never interbred with pre-Columbian Amerindians, and are now nocturnal hunter-gatherers eking out a subsistence living and hiding during the day so as not to be discovered by mainstream anthropologists or archeologists.

Anyone who reads much over on the MADBoard gets the impression that many who post there believe that such a discovery is just around the corner.

[_DrW]

Bump for ldsfaqs.

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm well aware of the science..... You however ignore and are completely ignorant of everything I've stated, some of which is ALSO DNA science, as well as the other aspects of Mormonism itself that you misrepresent and I've debunked.

Again, I laughed when Murphy DNA came out.... Mormonism had already long debunked anti-mormon misrepresentations of Mormonism and how body typing study's do not actually debunk mormonisms claims. Likewise, DNA doesn't do anything to Mormonism.

Anti-mormons think their "fantasy" views of Mormonism and their cherry picking of the sciences is them debunking Mormonism. Sorry buddy, it's not.....

You all keep forgetting that I've been you..... An idiot anti-mormon who thinks he's "got" ONE UP on the stupid little Mormon children. FOOLS.

[_Chap]

I'm well aware of the science..... You however ignore and are completely ignorant of everything I've stated, some of which is ALSO DNA science, as well as the other aspects of Mormonism itself that you misrepresent and I've debunked.

Again, I laughed when Murphy DNA came out.... Mormonism had already long debunked anti-mormon misrepresentations of Mormonism and how body typing study's do not actually debunk mormonisms claims. Likewise, DNA doesn't do anything to Mormonism.

Anti-mormons think their "fantasy" views of Mormonism and their cherry picking of the sciences is them debunking Mormonism. Sorry buddy, it's not.....

You all keep forgetting that I've been you..... An idiot anti-mormon who thinks he's "got" ONE UP on the stupid little Mormon children. FOOLS.

Which, being interpreted, meaneth:

I can offer no meaningful criticism of the science you cited, so I shall just shout abuse.