Simon Southerton De-Diddly-Bunked

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/578 ... 1209125776

Reason #1 why Simon Southerton doesn't know what he is talking about.

In 1996, a PhD from Stanford University named Peter Underhill calculated, by using an observed Y-chromosome mutation rate of 2.1/1000 (Weber & Wong) and a generation length of 27 years, that men with the M3 mutation, which is most Native Americans, have a common male ancestor who lived 2147 years prior to 1996 or 151 BC. This was the finding. Underhill concluded that this was not the age of the M3 mutation. There is a difference between the findings and conclusions of scientists and there may also be a difference between the age of M3 and the most recent common ancestor of men with the M3 mutation. Even if the M3 mutation is 10,000 years old, every living male with M3 could still descend from one man who lived in 151BC because other M3 lineages went extinct during the massive population decline that followed the introduction of European diseases. We know for certain that Native Americans (NA) today descend from people who had more resistance to European diseases than other NAs. We don't know for sure how they came by that resistence and partial descent from pre-Columbian settlers from the Near East is not an unreasonable theory. I any case, if most NAs descend from a guy who lived in 151 BC then that man's family history is part of the family history of most NAs. His maternal grandfather would not pass on his Y-chromosme, but he would still be an ancestor of the majority of Native Americans; or, as I prefer to call them, Lamanites.

[_Kevin Graham]

Context? Most of us here can't view that forum because we're blocked.

Simon responded to Parr's hit piece here: http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/201 ... -lost.html

Has Parr responded?

If not, then who is at MAD posting as a DNA specialist?

[Guest]

No one. They just keep re affirming how Parr debunked Simon, repeatedly pointing to the same tired claptrap.

Somehow, I think they believe if they repeat their mantra enough, no matter how bogus, some one who is not Mormon might buy in to their bad science.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Context? Most of us here can't view that forum because we're blocked.

Simon responded to Parr's hit piece here: http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/201 ... -lost.html

Has Parr responded?

If not, then who is at MAD posting as a DNA specialist?

No context, just a post in their "what a idiot Simon is" thread. Our expert is dourthec****yavenger and gives the following source: Underhill et al, 1996, A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 196-200.

[Guest]

His maternal grandfather would not pass on his Y-chromosme, but he would still be an ancestor of the majority of Native Americans; or, as I prefer to call them, Lamanites.

The majority of Native Americans would prefer that you didn't call them Lamanites because their ancestors came from Asia.

I'm not sure what you are saying about Y chromosome lineages. From mitochondrial DNA studies we know that Native Americans are essentially all descended from Asian ancestors. Most of the unofficial church apologists concede this point. An outdated Y chromosome study from 1996 is not going to turn the mtDNA work on its head. What is the point you are trying to make?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

His maternal grandfather would not pass on his Y-chromosme, but he would still be an ancestor of the majority of Native Americans; or, as I prefer to call them, Lamanites.

The majority of Native Americans would prefer that you didn't call them Lamanites because their ancestors came from Asia.

I'm not sure what you are saying about Y chromosome lineages. From mitochondrial DNA studies we know that Native Americans are essentially all descended from Asian ancestors. Most of the unofficial church apologists concede this point. An outdated Y chromosome study from 1996 is not going to turn the mtDNA work on its head. What is your point?

Don't shoot the messenger! I am a big fan of yours that is quoting a MADite.

[_Kevin Graham]

Now that I have been banned from MAD, and it appears the mods are back to hypersensitive mode with the board crossover posts, the old guard defenders at MAD (Pahoran, Schryver, Dan, Loran, Selek etc) can only be happy that their favorite echo chamber is back firmly in their control.

I'm sure Pahoran is especially excited. He's never been one who could handle an intellectual debate.

[_Buffalo]

1996, eh? That's practically the stone ages as far as genetic research goes.

[_Simon Southerton]

Don't shoot the messenger! I am a big fan of yours that is quoting a MADite.

Apologies for unloading like that! Please pass on my kindest regards to the MADites.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well, I would say you should post Simon's response over there, but then, what's the point? These folks are afraid to death of facts that disrupt their apologetic worldview.

If Simon does happen to be wrong on any of these minor points, he couldn't possibly be more wrong than say, John Gee, who has committed the more serious academic crimes of flat out dishonesty and willful manipulation of evidence. All they can claim about Simon here, or allege I should say, is that he wasn't up to speed on some questionably relevant point, found in some obscure publication.

Whoopty doo.

The fact is we're all pretty much idiots when it comes to DNA studies, except for a handful. Simon is an expert as is the Dude.

I don't think MAD can boast any of their forum members being experts on that subject. But it is fun to watch how they gleefully accept, uncritically, anything that comes from a NAMIR hit piece. Simon has already responded to it, so if Parr isn't the one responding to his rebuttal, then no one over there has any business pretending to be in a position to judge who is right on this subject. It does seem curious to me that the only DNA experts that FAIR can muster, are Mormon apologists.