It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:13 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:01 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:14 am
Posts: 688
Location: Sweden
Ludd wrote:
the "cutting edge" of the new scholarship emerging from the fields of archaeology and anthropology. You know, the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies by the "rising generation" of scholars who are revisiting the compelling evidence for pre-columbian cultural diffusion long-denied and long-avoided by the dying dinosaurs in the field


Oh, you mean the Viking village found in New Found Land. That's in Canada, if you didn't know.

"In the 1960s two Norwegian researchers, Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad, discovered and excavated the Viking base camp at L'Anse aux Meadows (map) on the northern tip of Newfoundland—the first confirmed Viking outpost in the Americas. Dated to between 989 and 1020, the camp boasted three Viking halls, as well as an assortment of huts for weaving, ironworking, and ship repair."

Sutherland has found evidence of a second Viking village established on Baffin Island (That's in Canada, if you didn't know) from around 1300 CE.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... utherland/

"Five hundred years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, a Native American woman may have voyaged to Europe with Vikings, according to a provocative new DNA study.

Analyzing a type of DNA passed only from mother to child, scientists found more than 80 living Icelanders with a genetic variation similar to one found mostly in Native Americans. (Get the basics on genetics.) (That's a quote from the article....not a dig from me.)

This signature probably entered Icelandic bloodlines around A.D. 1000, when the first Viking-American Indian child was born, the study authors theorize."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ce-europe/

While National Geographic is, in itself, not a scientific journal, they usually reference which journal and where the reader can turn to find the original research. You'll have to do that for yourself.

In case you haven't noticed it from other posters here, It's time for you to provide some actual references as to which research, and who the researchers were, and in which journals the research has been published, to back up your claims.

_________________
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:08 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13643
Location: On the imaginary axis
bcuzbcuz wrote:
Ludd wrote:
the "cutting edge" of the new scholarship emerging from the fields of archaeology and anthropology. You know, the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies by the "rising generation" of scholars who are revisiting the compelling evidence for pre-columbian cultural diffusion long-denied and long-avoided by the dying dinosaurs in the field


Oh, you mean the Viking village found in New Found Land. That's in Canada, if you didn't know.

...

In case you haven't noticed it from other posters here, It's time for you to provide some actual references as to which research, and who the researchers were, and in which journals the research has been published, to back up your claims.


Do you think that is all he has? Just the Vikings? That is hardly new stuff. Plus there are the signs of Japanese links to South America, again well known. That hardly amounts to 'lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier', which is what he has claimed.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:56 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 6237
Location: Arizona
Quote:
So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. You have my blessing when it comes to demonstrating the numerous evidences that cast doubt on Joseph Smith's story of where the Book of Mormon came from, but using DNA evidence as a way to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not historical is, in my opinion, a really stupid way to go about things.


DNA Evidence is Not a stupid way to argue against the authenticity and the historicity of the Book of Mormon, because the the Book of Mormon does not mention "others" who were there with the Lehites or the Mulekites within its text.
When the Lehites first arrived within the Promise land, Lehi's son Nephi does not mention any "others" who were already there.
Here is 1st Nephi Chapter 18, verse 25:

Quote:
1 Nephi 18:25:

[25] And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.


Let us now go to 2nd Nephi Chapter one, verses eight and nine.
Here is this passage:

Quote:
2 Nephi 1:8-9:

[8] And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
[9] Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.




The Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob describes the people of Nephi as "being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem" towards the end of his life. If there were "others" in the Promise land when Lehi, Nephi and their families arrived, and some of them joined with the people of Nephi, then it would Not make any sense that the Prophet Jacob would describe the people of Nephi as "being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem" towards the end of his life. The Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob then goes on describing that the people of Nephi, his people, were "hated of our brethren," which means that all of the Lamanites were their fellow Israelite brethren.
Here is Jacob Chapter seven, verse 26:

Quote:
Jacob 7:26:

[26] And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore, I conclude this record, declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge, by saying that the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days.

_________________
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:02 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13092
Bazooka wrote:
Ludd wrote:
You know, the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies by the "rising generation" of scholars who are revisiting the compelling evidence for pre-columbian cultural diffusion long-denied and long-avoided by the dying dinosaurs in the field...


Is there a reason you haven't provided a link or a specific reference to any of these 'rising generation of scholars'?


I find it funny that Ludd and many others trying to defend the church think simple assertions without citing any evidence to back them up is persuading anyone, including any lurkers.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:30 pm 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 499
bcuzbcuz wrote:
Ludd wrote:
the "cutting edge" of the new scholarship emerging from the fields of archaeology and anthropology. You know, the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies by the "rising generation" of scholars who are revisiting the compelling evidence for pre-columbian cultural diffusion long-denied and long-avoided by the dying dinosaurs in the field


Oh, you mean the Viking village found in New Found Land. That's in Canada, if you didn't know.

"In the 1960s two Norwegian researchers, Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad, discovered and excavated the Viking base camp at L'Anse aux Meadows (map) on the northern tip of Newfoundland—the first confirmed Viking outpost in the Americas. Dated to between 989 and 1020, the camp boasted three Viking halls, as well as an assortment of huts for weaving, ironworking, and ship repair."

Sutherland has found evidence of a second Viking village established on Baffin Island (That's in Canada, if you didn't know) from around 1300 CE.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... utherland/

"Five hundred years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, a Native American woman may have voyaged to Europe with Vikings, according to a provocative new DNA study.

Analyzing a type of DNA passed only from mother to child, scientists found more than 80 living Icelanders with a genetic variation similar to one found mostly in Native Americans. (Get the basics on genetics.) (That's a quote from the article....not a dig from me.)

This signature probably entered Icelandic bloodlines around A.D. 1000, when the first Viking-American Indian child was born, the study authors theorize."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ce-europe/

While National Geographic is, in itself, not a scientific journal, they usually reference which journal and where the reader can turn to find the original research. You'll have to do that for yourself.

In case you haven't noticed it from other posters here, It's time for you to provide some actual references as to which research, and who the researchers were, and in which journals the research has been published, to back up your claims.

First of all, let me restate what I said earlier: I am not active LDS. I haven't ever seen any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon as a historical record. I'm basically agnostic on all questions related to religion in general and Mormonism in particular. My interest in "cultural diffusionism" has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to support Mormonism, and as far as I can tell, very few of the scholars currently involved in diffusionism studies are Mormon, or have any interest in supporting the Book of Mormon as a historical record. In fact, the only scholars I know about that are related to diffusionism studies are John Sorenson from BYU and Martin Raish, who I think is at BYU-Idaho. They published what is widely considered the definitive source for diffusionism evidences: Pre-Columbian Contact With the Americas Across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography. It is a two-volume set (about 1100 pages, iirc).

I am very aware that the "old guard" in archaeology and anthropology pretty much closes their eyes and puts their hands over their ears whenever what they call "outlier" scholars try to present papers on diffusionism, because it goes against their long-established dogma. This is because diffusionism has been equated with racism, and so they've been shouting down diffusionists with allegations of racism for a long time now.

Anyway, I've read several fairly recent articles that present what I think is very compelling evidence that there was quite a lot of pre-Columbian contact in the Americas by European, East Asian, African, and Polynesian people. Contact that occurred via trans-oceanic travel, rather than via a Bering Straits land bridge. None of the articles I've read suggest that these contacts produced much, if anything, in the way of discernable impacts. Several of them argue that some of the best evidence for contact consists of things the "explorers" brought back with them after contact. Evidence like Egyptian mummies with traces of coca and tobacco in them, or representations of maize in India, or the kinds of sweet potatoes found in both South America and Polynesia. There have also been Roman coins found at or near mound-builder sites in the Mississippi drainage. I've been trying to find online versions of some of these articles, but haven't been able to do so yet. So I suppose if people here want to dismiss what I have claimed as a growing trend towards diffusionism among archaeologists and anthropologists, that's fine. Doesn't bother me at all. Your motivation appears to be to dismiss anything that you think could be twisted to supportthe Book of Mormon, whereas I'm not encumbered by that prerogrative. I've just always been interested in the topic, so I've tried to follow it as best I can. Is there some "crank science" out there that argues for diffusionism? Sure. Way too much, unfortunately. It's the crank science crap that has done as much as the racism charges to discredit diffusionism. But part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that a lot of the diffusionism research has been forced to the fringes by the irrational refusal of so-called "mainstream" archaeology/anthropology to even permit diffusionists to present papers at conferences. It's a lot like the anthropogenic global warming debates, where so-called "deniers" are systematically discredited by what we are told is "the consensus" of all respectable scientists. Anyway, my point is that the existence of bad scholarship in the study of diffusionism shouldn't automatically discredit ALL of the scholarship. The field is still very new, and it has the disadvantage of having to fight against an almost religious dogma of old-school scholars for whom (as I already wrote above) diffusionism is supposedly some kind of veiled racist attempt to deprive native Americans of the credit they deserve for all the things they produced.

At any rate, there are a couple good articles I did find online that discuss the growth of diffusionism as a more accurate description of pre-Columbian American history. One is just an article in The Atlantic magazine and is fairly old (2000), and just talks about some of the controversy. The other is a very entertaining, well-written article by a Sioux Indian scholar who isn't among those who think diffusionism is racist, per se, and instead is obviously persuaded that pre-Columbian contact explains many things that otherwise don't make sense in a scenario where the Americas were supposedly isolated from all contact after the Bering Straits land bridge was flooded.

I also recommend the Sorenson book as a great source for diffusionism scholarship, although I am sure that most of the people here will just automatically assume that anything from a Mormon is nothing but a bunch of lies or apologetic nonsense, etc. Even though the book in question is nothing but a comprehensive bibliography. Sorenson also collaborated with a non-Mormon University of Oregon professor on what I think is a very interesting book concerning biological evidence for pre-columbian contact across the oceans: World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492.

Here are the links to the two articles I mentioned above:

The Diffusionists Have Landed

Indians, Archaeologists, and the Future


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:36 pm 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 499
Themis wrote:
I find it funny that Ludd and many others trying to defend the church think simple assertions without citing any evidence to back them up is persuading anyone, including any lurkers.

I am not trying nor have I ever tried to "defend the church". I don't understand why you would say such a thing about me. To me, it looks like a severe case of knee-jerk prejudice. There's a lot of that around here, unfortuantely. That's why I don't visit this place much anymore.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:41 pm 
Bishop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:31 pm
Posts: 499
Brackite wrote:
DNA Evidence is Not a stupid way to argue against the authenticity and the historicity of the Book of Mormon, because the the Book of Mormon does not mention "others" who were there with the Lehites or the Mulekites within its text.

I have no argument with you about what the Book of Mormon says, although I do think your conclusion is subject to debate, as so many LDS apologists have already shown.

My only point is that, if it is ultimately shown beyond dispute (to me, it already has been) that there was quite a bit of pre-1492 contact in the Americas, then the DNA arguments, as I understand them, automatically become moot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:53 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13092
Ludd wrote:
Themis wrote:
I find it funny that Ludd and many others trying to defend the church think simple assertions without citing any evidence to back them up is persuading anyone, including any lurkers.

I am not trying nor have I ever tried to "defend the church".


Your posts say the exact opposite.

Quote:
I don't understand why you would say such a thing about me. To me, it looks like a severe case of knee-jerk prejudice.


What is so awful and prejudice in saying only that you don't want to back up your assertions with some evidence. How terrible of me. :rolleyes:

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:35 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 13092
Ludd wrote:
In fact, the only scholars I know about that are related to diffusionism studies are John Sorenson from BYU and Martin Raish, who I think is at BYU-Idaho. They published what is widely considered the definitive source for diffusionism evidences: Pre-Columbian Contact With the Americas Across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography. It is a two-volume set (about 1100 pages, iirc).


I don't have the book. Do you have something specific from it about other groups coming over. Some have already brought up vikings and some Japanese people arriving in the America's.

Quote:
I am very aware that the "old guard" in archaeology and anthropology pretty much closes their eyes and puts their hands over their ears whenever what they call "outlier" scholars try to present papers on diffusionism, because it goes against their long-established dogma. This is because diffusionism has been equated with racism, and so they've been shouting down diffusionists with allegations of racism for a long time now.


You would be wrong. They certainly have a high bar in accepting evidence to support any claim. This is good because there is a ____ load of crap over the last centuries of all kinds of claims. Is it really that bad of us to want good evidence before we accept certain hypothesis. Especially if they are not yet accepted by the scientific community. I notice some of your links are seem to be from pseudo scientific sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact

Quote:
So I suppose if people here want to dismiss what I have claimed as a growing trend towards diffusionism among archaeologists and anthropologists, that's fine. Doesn't bother me at all. Your motivation appears to be to dismiss anything that you think could be twisted to supportthe Book of Mormon, whereas I'm not encumbered by that prerogrative.


Sorry but you can't hide some of your agenda here. We don't dismiss it other then because we haven't seen your evidence. What you show so far doesn't help, since the experts are critical of it for some very reasonable reasons as can be read from the link I provide.

Quote:
Is there some "crank science" out there that argues for diffusionism? Sure. Way too much, unfortunately.


Yes way to much. Should it not be reasonable to be skeptical until sufficient evidence is provided? Evidence we have been asking for. That's all we really want.

Quote:
But part of the problem, at least as I see it, is that a lot of the diffusionism research has been forced to the fringes by the irrational refusal of so-called "mainstream" archaeology/anthropology to even permit diffusionists to present papers at conferences.


I would suggest you need to be more involved in how it really works. There is a reason for being skeptical and having a high bar before some hypothesis is accepted as likely accurate.

Quote:
The field is still very new, and it has the disadvantage of having to fight against an almost religious dogma of old-school scholars for whom (as I already wrote above) diffusionism is supposedly some kind of veiled racist attempt to deprive native Americans of the credit they deserve for all the things they produced.


This isn't true, and there is no new field. There is just evidence and research going on, and anyone can present what they think supports their hypothesis.

Quote:
I also recommend the Sorenson book as a great source for diffusionism scholarship, although I am sure that most of the people here will just automatically assume that anything from a Mormon is nothing but a bunch of lies or apologetic nonsense, etc.


Not really. We can view what they have and judge it on it's merits. One should be cautious though when we know of potential bias they may have. Especially if they are very involved in apologia.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:45 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am
Posts: 6237
Location: Arizona
Quote:
At any rate, there are a couple good articles I did find online that discuss the growth of diffusionism as a more accurate description of pre-Columbian American history. One is just an article in The Atlantic magazine and is fairly old (2000), and just talks about some of the controversy. The other is a very entertaining, well-written article by a Sioux Indian scholar who isn't among those who think diffusionism is racist, per se, and instead is obviously persuaded that pre-Columbian contact explains many things that otherwise don't make sense in a scenario where the Americas were supposedly isolated from all contact after the Bering Straits land bridge was flooded.

I also recommend the Sorenson book as a great source for diffusionism scholarship, although I am sure that most of the people here will just automatically assume that anything from a Mormon is nothing but a bunch of lies or apologetic nonsense, etc. Even though the book in question is nothing but a comprehensive bibliography. Sorenson also collaborated with a non-Mormon University of Oregon professor on what I think is a very interesting book concerning biological evidence for pre-columbian contact across the oceans: World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492.

Here are the links to the two articles I mentioned above:

The Diffusionists Have Landed

Indians, Archaeologists, and the Future


I did skim through two of these Articles that you linked to here, but I didn't find anything about DNA Testing in those two Articles. When I get a chance, I will read through those two Articles.

From Linguistic and maternal genetic diversity are not correlated in Native Mexicans:

Quote:
It is noteworthy that no traces of haplogroup X2a were observed in our native Mexican populations. In contrast with haplogroups A2 to D1, which have an East Asian origin (Torroni et al. 1993b), haplogroup X has its origins in West Eurasia, and its entrance into the Americas is more controversial. Haplogroup X2a is not present in Central and South Native American populations (Perego et al. 2009) and represents a clade that lacks close relatives in the Old Word, including Siberia (Reidla et al. 2003). Our results point to a geographical limit in Mesoamerica beyond which haplogroup X2a is not found. Fagundes et al. (2008) suggested that this haplogroup was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population and its low frequency is probably due to a failed expansion as a result of its geographic location in the expansion wave and/or its low initial frequency. The most recent study of Perego et al. (2009) suggested however that X2a could have moved from Beringia directly into the North American regions located East of the Rocky Mountains; the X2a expansion could have occurred in the Great Plains region, where the terminal part of the glacial corridor ended, and is in complete agreement with both the extent of diversity and distribution of X2a observed in modern Native American populations. The absence of X2a in our samples supports the idea that Mesoamerica played an important role during the colonization of the continent, restricting this haplogroup to the northernmost lands and shaping the diversity of the other founder haplogroups on their way down to Central and South America.

_________________
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dr Moore, Google [Bot] and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group