Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[MG 2.0]

No one has to do it for me. And yes, the arguments do exist. You can also do your own research for yourself.

Don't do it for me. I did it for myself and came away knowing that I hadn't gotten the full scoop from you.

Let me ask you this. Wouldn't you encourage others to do their own research? My point earlier is that now where A.I. use is prohibited in any way shape or form we are severely limited on this board. You can say pretty much whatever you want to and get away with it.

As I said, I am...at this point...not going to feel obligated to answer all of your inquiries or offer 'proofs' for everything that I disagree with. I can, however, do it for myself and come back and suggest that others do a simple search to determine whether or not you're telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'm not going to spend all the time necessary to rebut every falsehood you put out there. I WAS able to do a MUCH better job of doing so with the help of A.I.

You could see that and so you fought tooth and nail to get rid of that option. And then you bellyache that I won't take the time to go in depth with you on any one topic. And the crazy thing is, you don't feel obligated to answer ANY of my questions. Why should I keep catering to yours?

What I can do is give reason to others to follow up on your posts and the jaundiced views you present. I've taken SO MUCH time with you. And you were going to set me to ignore and not engage me anymore.

What happened there? I wish you would follow through on your commitment. Essentially you are a waste of my time. But I feel as though I can't simply let you get away with some of your crap. So I found a shortcut that actually works. A.I. provided that shortcut. And then it was mixed.

Oh well.

Regards,
MG

All that effort to post all that, yet cannot bring yourself to find and post a quote from one of those geneticists you said have some rebuttals for Southerton’s points. Not. One. Quote. You’re too damn lazy to contribute.

Since you keep coming back to this I will reply once and then ask you to do some reading on your own.

Kevin Barney has always been a man that I respect within 'Mormon intelligencia'. He wrote:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/arc ... ileo-event

He is quoted also in this link:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blo ... art-26-dna

This is a good place to start. But don't stop there!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Since you keep coming back to this I will reply once and then ask you to do some reading on your own.

Kevin Barney has always been a man that I respect within 'Mormon intelligencia'. He wrote:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/arc ... ileo-event

He is quoted also in this link:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blo ... art-26-dna

This is a good place to start. But don't stop there!

Regards,
MG

This is more linking and running. I’ve reported it.

[huckelberry]

Since you keep coming back to this I will reply once and then ask you to do some reading on your own.

Kevin Barney has always been a man that I respect within 'Mormon intelligencia'. He wrote:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/arc ... ileo-event

He is quoted also in this link:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blo ... art-26-dna

This is a good place to start. But don't stop there!

Regards,
MG

I suppose MG could have introduced this link with more detail but MG does clearly suggest what it is about. In a way this threads opening post introduces it because it contains reply to Kevin Barney's observations. Well Kevin presents them with an air of finality. The Book of Mormon is a lineage history so doesn't discuss Mayans and we don't know where it happened.

[MG 2.0]

I suppose MG could have introduced this link with more detail but MG does clearly suggest what it is about.

Yes. Both the articles deal directly with the substance of this thread and Simon Southerton's work.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I suppose MG could have introduced this link with more detail but MG does clearly suggest what it is about. In a way this threads opening post introduces it because it contains reply to Kevin Barney's observations. Well Kevin presents them with an air of finality. The Book of Mormon is a lineage history so doesn't discuss Mayans and we don't know where it happened.

Based on your comment I looked at the second link and got to about the third paragraph.

Now, I’m not a geneticist, and I doubt many of you are, either. But here’s the thing: neither is Thomas Faulk, and neither is Jeremy Runnells, John Dehlin, or any of the other critics using this as an attack against our church. When I come up against a topic I’m not trained in, I dive into the research, and I turn to people who are trained. So, I’ll be doing both of those things throughout this section...

But Southerton is, and that's what this thread is about, Southerton's points. Linking to this 2 year old FAIR argument doesn't respond to the OP which was posted last month, and I don't consider it a discussion when he just posts huge links and says 'go learn.' He said he had specific points that refuted the op but he has failed to produce any at all. I predict he will continue to NOT post them, but he WILL post a lengthy complaint about the shortcomings of those who believe differently than he does, which is what a troll does.

[MG 2.0]

I suppose MG could have introduced this link with more detail but MG does clearly suggest what it is about. In a way this threads opening post introduces it because it contains reply to Kevin Barney's observations. Well Kevin presents them with an air of finality. The Book of Mormon is a lineage history so doesn't discuss Mayans and we don't know where it happened.

Based on your comment I looked at the second link and got to about the third paragraph.

Now, I’m not a geneticist, and I doubt many of you are, either. But here’s the thing: neither is Thomas Faulk, and neither is Jeremy Runnells, John Dehlin, or any of the other critics using this as an attack against our church. When I come up against a topic I’m not trained in, I dive into the research, and I turn to people who are trained. So, I’ll be doing both of those things throughout this section...

But Southerton is, and that's what this thread is about, Southerton's points. Linking to this 2 year old FAIR argument doesn't respond to the OP which was posted last month, and I don't consider it a discussion when he just posts huge links and says 'go learn.' He said he had specific points that refuted the op but he has failed to produce any at all. I predict he will continue to NOT post them, but he WILL post a lengthy complaint about the shortcomings of those who believe differently than he does, which is what a troll does.

I will leave it to you and others to read the links and take from them what you will.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

All that effort to post all that, yet cannot bring yourself to find and post a quote from one of those geneticists you said have some rebuttals for Southerton’s points. Not. One. Quote. You’re too damn lazy to contribute.

Still.

[MG 2.0]

All that effort to post all that, yet cannot bring yourself to find and post a quote from one of those geneticists you said have some rebuttals for Southerton’s points. Not. One. Quote. You’re too damn lazy to contribute.

Still.

In the second link I've provided for you we find this comment by Kevin Barney:

Murphy and Southerton appear to be nice guys. They are sincere, and they believe in what they are doing. Both seem to have had a similar experience. They apparently grew up with narrow, fundamentalist assumptions about the Book of Mormon, believing in and presumably knowing only of the hemispheric model. When they learned that the hemispheric model was scientifically untenable, each experienced unfulfilled (unrealistic) expectations and an ensuing crisis of faith, upon which each lost his belief in the antiquity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the Church with it. Now they desire to enlighten others under the banner of science.

The extant DNA evidence simply confirms what scientists already knew: that most Native Americans ultimately derive from Asia. This is inconsistent with the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To that extent, Murphy and Southerton are not arguing against a straw man; many contemporary Latter-day Saints (to the extent that they have thought of the issue at all) continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To the extent that the kind of DNA research publicized by Murphy and Southerton causes these people to reexamine their assumptions about the nature of the text, I think the effect will be a salutary one.

The problem is that Murphy and Southerton go beyond that. They recognize, as they must, that the extant DNA evidence is not inconsistent with a limited geography model of the Book of Mormon. When they reject a limited geography model, they must do so on other grounds. At this point, their argument stops being a scientific one and becomes a theological one. … Murphy’s and Southerton’s theological argument imposes the scientifically naïve assumption that Lehi and his family were the sole ancestors of all American Indians on their readers and argues that Latter-day Saints are not free to accept a limited geography model given various statements of past Church leaders. They also point, as in the article under review, to the statement in the introduction to the Book of Mormon that Lehi was the “principal” ancestor of the American Indians. I for one reject the adjective “principal” from that introduction, which was only added as a part of the 1981 edition and is not a canonical part of the scripture. I am perfectly free to reject that adjective, as well as the other similar statements Murphy and Southerton point to. Their inability to do so themselves simply reflects the fundamentalist character of the one-time faith they held in the Church…

In conclusion, for Murphy and Southerton to insist on holding the Book of Mormon only to a lowest common denominator, populist, folkloric reading would be like one judging contemporary anthropology by the opinions that average readers of Margaret Mead took from her columns in Redbook magazine.

Thomas Murphy, as you know, was more or less a compatriot of Simon Southerton. He created quite a stir at the time he came out with his stuff.

Marcus, could you give us a rundown of how Simon Southerton approaches the problem/issue of Genetic Drift? You know more about this than the average person.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I suppose MG could have introduced this link with more detail but MG does clearly suggest what it is about. In a way this threads opening post introduces it because it contains reply to Kevin Barney's observations. Well Kevin presents them with an air of finality. The Book of Mormon is a lineage history so doesn't discuss Mayans and we don't know where it happened.

Base on your comment i looked at the second link and got to about the third paragraph.

Now, I’m not a geneticist, and I doubt many of you are, either. But here’s the thing: neither is Thomas Faulk, and neither is Jeremy Runnells, John Dehlin, or any of the other critics using this as an attack against our church. When I come up against a topic I’m not trained in, I dive into the research, and I turn to people who are trained. So, I’ll be doing both of those things throughout this section...

But Southerton is, and that's what this thread is about, Southerton's points. Linking to this 2 year old FAIR argument doesn't respond to the OP which was posted last month, and I don't consider it a discussion when he just posts huge links and says 'go learn.' He said he had specific points that refuted the op but he has failed to produce any at all. I predict he will continue to NOT post them, but he WILL post a lengthy complaint about the shortcomings of those who believe differently than he does, which is what a troll does.

So when pushed to provide a quote from one of the geneticists he’s been suggesting have rebuttals for Southerton’s stuff, he links and runs to someone who is not a geneticist. You simply cannot make this up.

[MG 2.0]

You simply cannot make this up.

There we go again. As though this is any kind of a good argument about ANYTHING. Just posturing. Rinse and repeat. Hey! How about join in the conversation. Go back and answer some of the questions I've thrown your way. Sound like a plan?

Regards,
MG