Longest Thread Ever

[Dr. Jones]

Again, I don't feel the need to be overly focused on the DNA aspects of this debate, but I will just add that they're trying to confuse the picture by going off on a tangent. Here's a brief summary of how DNA is used:

1) We inherit our DNA from both our parents, roughly half from each.. BUT there are TWO major exceptions

2) Our Y-DNA (from father to son) is passed straight on, and is NOT diluted.

3) Our mt-DNA (from mother to BOTH sons and daughters) is also passed straight on and is NOT diluted eiher.

4) Both Y-DNA and mt-DNA are subject to occasional mutations which are passed on to descendants. These markers are used both to identify people descended from the same ancestor, and are also used to group people descended from a common ancestor. Based on the number of markers used you can go from the present (siblings) to tens of thousands of years ago (e.g back to mankind's common ancestors).

5) This is the basis of DNA genealogy. These sets of mutations are used to group sets of population that share them together. They are known as Haplogroups.

6) There's a set of Haplogroups for Y-DNA and another one for mt-DNA

7) Occasionally a new mutation will arise, on top of the ancestral ones, which will show that one group is descended from its parent group.

8) No matter how many thousands of years pass, or how many male descendants I have, they will ALL inherit my sets of Y-DNA markers (plus the occasional mutation), no matter where they live or who they marry and they will show as my descendants, just as my own Y-DNA can be traced back to my ancestors. Likewise with their mother's mt-DNA.

This is how scientists for instance determine the peopling of the Americas. Based on their Y-DNA and mt-DNA the various native populations can be placed in certain haplogroups, and their distant ancestry traced back.

THIS CAN BE DONE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL.

Either there is a conspiracy by nearly every DNA researcher, scientist, archeologist, paleo-linguist, most serious LDS academics, etc,, and they are ALL lying their teeth off, or else Mr Meldrum is wrong. I know which one is most likely.

 

[PearlWatson]

One thing you do well, Pearl, is pose starkly opposite images in context right next to each other...

After reading your current conversation, I'm rather ashamed of my lackluster effort. Come to think of it I wasn't even trying for starkoppositness. It kinda fits us in a way...me the black ship and you the beautiful mermaid with flowing golden hair and everything just flows right off your odd tail...figuratively speaking.

 

[babe]

After reading your current conversation, I'm rather ashamed of my lackluster effort. Come to think of it I wasn't even trying for starkoppositness. It kinda fits us in a way...me the black ship and you the beautiful mermaid with flowing golden hair and everything just flows right off your odd tail...figuratively speaking.

I tend to view it more like me with the clod-bustin' boots and you the princess. . . .

 

[babe]

Again, I don't feel the need to be overly focused on the DNA aspects of this debate, but I will just add that they're trying to confuse the picture by going off on a tangent. Here's a brief summary of how DNA is used:

1) We inherit our DNA from both our parents, roughly half from each.. BUT there are TWO major exceptions

2) Our Y-DNA (from father to son) is passed straight on, and is NOT diluted.

3) Our mt-DNA (from mother to BOTH sons and daughters) is also passed straight on and is NOT diluted eiher.

4) Both Y-DNA and mt-DNA are subject to occasional mutations which are passed on to descendants. These markers are used both to identify people descended from the same ancestor, and are also used to group people descended from a common ancestor. Based on the number of markers used you can go from the present (siblings) to tens of thousands of years ago (e.g back to mankind's common ancestors).

5) This is the basis of DNA genealogy. These sets of mutations are used to group sets of population that share them together. They are known as Haplogroups.

6) There's a set of Haplogroups for Y-DNA and another one for mt-DNA

7) Occasionally a new mutation will arise, on top of the ancestral ones, which will show that one group is descended from its parent group.

8) No matter how many thousands of years pass, or how many male descendants I have, they will ALL inherit my sets of Y-DNA markers (plus the occasional mutation), no matter where they live or who they marry and they will show as my descendants, just as my own Y-DNA can be traced back to my ancestors. Likewise with their mother's mt-DNA.

This is how scientists for instance determine the peopling of the Americas. Based on their Y-DNA and mt-DNA the various native populations can be placed in certain haplogroups, and their distant ancestry traced back.

THIS CAN BE DONE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL.

Either there is a conspiracy by nearly every DNA researcher, scientist, archeologist, paleo-linguist, most serious LDS academics, etc,, and they are ALL lying their teeth off, or else Mr Meldrum is wrong. I know which one is most likely.

I can't fault the basic outline of your understanding of mtDNA and the Y chromosome, but for this. I'm the youngest son of a youngest son and I think that's unusual. So how many of your male descendants say nine hundred years from now will have your Y chromosome?

At thirty years average per generation, you're talking, possibly, of a billion descendants in all. The chances of any male having your Y chromosome, however, is about zero. You'd have to be looking for thirty straight generations of male descendancy. Let's say you're a particularly robust male breed of man, so to speak, and that in each generation ninety percent of your male descendants will sire a male for the next generation. Can you calculate the chances of thirty straight male descendants? On this assumption, it's (0.9) exp 30 times the number of sons you have. My old science calculator is not handy at the moment, but it goes like this. . . .

0.9, 0.81, 0.729. and so on, nearing zero asymptotically in many generations.

Somewhere along the line, the male line may die out in the statistical crunch with a man who has only daughters, or who gets killed in a war, or turns gay. . . . The speculators who theorize about "Mother Eve" being a woman a few hundred thousand years ago who's mtDNA is in the line of every type of mtDNA among the current gene pool. . . . are postulating about a statistical zero. The statistics indicate that a "Mother Eve" would naturally be much closer to us than that. . . . well, maybe. . . . we humans have wandered around a lot, and some little bands have lived in isolation for a long long time. . . . tens of thousands of years. . . . so that changes the statistics. . . . you have to find an appropriate mathematical expression that takes all that into account. . . . how many little bands, and how widely scattered, and how cut off from other bands. . . .

most mutations are non-beneficial or perhaps deleterious. . . . . some women's kids won't be as healthy as others'. . . . . same thing with the Y chromosome. . . . so that fact would extend the statistical chance of survival beyond the simplistic math equation substantially. . . .for the mothers or the males with the "good stuff".

 

[PearlWatson]

asymptotically

nice word

Now you people have confused me on how the origins of a group of people are determined. I never cared before and now I sort of do. I enjoyed learning about the munk's bean experiments and all but the other details were kinda boring on that account.

Now they say Africa is everyone's origins because we evolved from the ape-like ancestor but I can't even buy into that...because then I should get to call myself an African-American too.

 

[babe]

nice word

Now you people have confused me on how the origins of a group of people are determined. I never cared before and now I sort of do. I enjoyed learning about the munk's bean experiments and all but the other details were kinda boring on that account.

Now they say Africa is everyone's origins because we evolved from the ape-like ancestor but I can't even buy into that...because then I should get to call myself an African-American too.

I worked in a tissue-typing lab for some years, on the research end of it. Back then we supplied lawyers with blood type groups to be used in paternity cases. . . . The rise of DNA polymerase technologies revolutionized all that. Back in those days researchers were compiling blood type maps of the populations around the world.

I was just browsing last night to see the current topics on the DNA haplotypes/population data/maps. Years ago when I looked at the blood type maps I realized it would not fit any simplistic migration model, such as the land-based migrations across the Bering Stratits on mythical "land bridges" bordering glaciers. People had to be using boats a lot fifteen thousand years ago, and there has got to be a much more complex migration/intermarriage pattern in our past. The DNA data does not change my opinion on that, which I deduced with only blood group data.

Think about it.

Every pile of rubble in the Holy Land, across six to eight thousand years, has been the result of one clan moving in on the territory, taking it over with violence. . . . killing the men, salvaging the women, or raping them in the war party. How the hell does anyone think after thirty or forty "revolutions" like that, that we have a chance to trace all the peoples of the earth through all our history????

The Vikings would be another example.

Professionally-indoctrinated absolutists, like our "Land Bridge" folks are proving to be, are simpletons who don't understand reality and are pridefully committed to their absolute notions. . . . . interpreting piles of rocks through an ideological set of colored glasses that imparts their prejudices on every scholarly work they churn out. . . .

Like in the field of religion, the simple drives out the complex. . . .

While I see Ocam's razor having some utility especially in the physical sciences, when you're studying people I think the reverse principle is the more probable. . . . .

people are incomprehensible generators of complexity.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I can't fault the basic outline of your understanding of mtDNA and the Y chromosome, but for this. I'm the youngest son of a youngest son and I think that's unusual. So how many of your male descendants say nine hundred years from now will have your Y chromosome?

At thirty years average per generation, you're talking, possibly, of a billion descendants in all. The chances of any male having your Y chromosome, however, is about zero. You'd have to be looking for thirty straight generations of male descendancy.

I thought, for a moment, you were saying me and my future generations would most likely lack decency.

Let's say you're a particularly robust male breed of man, so to speak, and that in each generation ninety percent of your male descendants will sire a male for the next generation. Can you calculate the chances of thirty straight male descendants? On this assumption, it's (0.9) exp 30 times the number of sons you have. My old science calculator is not handy at the moment, but it goes like this. . . .

0.9, 0.81, 0.729. and so on, nearing zero asymptotically in many generations.

and I'm fat..

Somewhere along the line, the male line may die out in the statistical crunch with a man who has only daughters, or who gets killed in a war, or turns gay. . . . The speculators who theorize about "Mother Eve" being a woman a few hundred thousand years ago who's mtDNA is in the line of every type of mtDNA among the current gene pool. . . . are postulating about a statistical zero. The statistics indicate that a "Mother Eve" would naturally be much closer to us than that. . . . well, maybe. . . . we humans have wandered around a lot, and some little bands have lived in isolation for a long long time. . . . tens of thousands of years. . . . so that changes the statistics. . . . you have to find an appropriate mathematical expression that takes all that into account. . . . how many little bands, and how widely scattered, and how cut off from other bands. . . .

most mutations are non-beneficial or perhaps deleterious. . . . . some women's kids won't be as healthy as others'. . . . . same thing with the Y chromosome. . . . so that fact would extend the statistical chance of survival beyond the simplistic math equation substantially. . . .for the mothers or the males with the "good stuff".

Good hypothesis and explanation how this may happen. Honestly, I feel it's weak as it relates to the 2,000+/- year old Hopewell culture, as a whole. The scales are not in balance with the evidence pro and fro.

Hope you're well and the holidays treated you well.

 

[LogGrad98]

nice word

Now you people have confused me on how the origins of a group of people are determined. I never cared before and now I sort of do. I enjoyed learning about the munk's bean experiments and all but the other details were kinda boring on that account.

Now they say Africa is everyone's origins because we evolved from the ape-like ancestor but I can't even buy into that...because then I should get to call myself an African-American too.

On the census you can claim to be whatever you want.

 

[babe]

I thought, for a moment, you were saying me and my future generations would most likely lack decency.



and I'm fat..



Good hypothesis and explanation how this may happen. Honestly, I feel it's weak as it relates to the 2,000+/- year old Hopewell culture, as a whole. The scales are not in balance with the evidence pro and fro.

Hope you're well and the holidays treated you well.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PKM again.

I guess I'll have to go looking for some other people to rep.....

I like it when humor shows up in a discussion like this. Anyone who is dead serious needs humor to be brought back into perspective. . . .

 

[babe]

On the census you can claim to be whatever you want.

what with her comment above about "black pearls" I was starting to think she is one. . . . .

 

[babe]

I decided to pull this out of PKM's comment for special treatment:

Honestly, I feel it's weak as it relates to the 2,000+/- year old Hopewell culture, as a whole. The scales are not in balance with the evidence pro and fro.

Hope you're well and the holidays treated you well.

As I clearly stated at the outset of my discussion of the Hopewell/Book of Mormon discussion, I realize that the reasonable evidence might bear more towards how the early nineteenth century frontier lore as settlers thrashed through the woods and found mounds and artifacts may have inspired some tales like Solomon Spaulding's "Manuscript Found". . . . .

I think you're not paying attention at some critical points of my thinking. . . . you seem to think it is important to me personally to prove the Book of Mormon to be what it has been purported to be from the outset. I think the LDS Church (mainstream) is moving away from that assertion much in the way it is moving away from the assertion that Joseph Smith actually found and translated a papyrus that was from Moses, and one from Abraham. . . . Their new headnotes to these "scriprtures" clearly allege now that these books may not have been translations at all, but rather inspired or revealed directly from God. . . .

For me, the LDS (mainstream) public relations polishing and history revisionisms was enough to pry me out of activity in the faith as it is being turned and twisted today. . . . I take it as offensive and an affront to God to place truth in the second seat to public prostrations.

 

[LogGrad98]

Thank you PKM, babe and PW for an interesting conversation. This all has me thinking, is there a smoking gun that would prove or disprove, without doubt, the Book of Mormon? It might be more than one thing, but as a missionary, and a member for 40+ years, I have heard all of the criticisms leveled at the BoM and wonder if there is one thing (or a couple) that would silence forever one side or the other.

On the hyperbolic side of the spectrum, I think if they found the cave that Joseph Smith returned the plates to in the hill Cumorah, maybe something along those lines, especially if it still contained plates or cave drawings or other real records. But that would be a huge "duh" moment. Anything along these lines that would be definitive?

 

[Dr. Jones]

I decided to pull this out of PKM's comment for special treatment:



As I clearly stated at the outset of my discussion of the Hopewell/Book of Mormon discussion, I realize that the reasonable evidence might bear more towards how the early nineteenth century frontier lore as settlers thrashed through the woods and found mounds and artifacts may have inspired some tales like Solomon Spaulding's "Manuscript Found". . . . .

I think you're not paying attention at some critical points of my thinking. . . . you seem to think it is important to me personally to prove the Book of Mormon to be what it has been purported to be from the outset. I think the LDS Church (mainstream) is moving away from that assertion much in the way it is moving away from the assertion that Joseph Smith actually found and translated a papyrus that was from Moses, and one from Abraham. . . . Their new headnotes to these "scriprtures" clearly allege now that these books may not have been translations at all, but rather inspired or revealed directly from God. . . .

For me, the LDS (mainstream) public relations polishing and history revisionisms was enough to pry me out of activity in the faith as it is being turned and twisted today. . . . I take it as offensive and an affront to God to place truth in the second seat to public prostrations.

Excellent.

And, no, I did not peg you as being needy to prove anything. Anything at all.
If I'm totally candid, I see you as a pure truth seeker. Someone that knows that sometimes truth is just outside our grasp, but the pursuit of truth, in of itself, finds us on a journey well worth traveling.

One day we may know, or we may not.. but some simply lack the ability of shrugging off the desire to search, regardless.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Thank you PKM, babe and PW for an interesting conversation. This all has me thinking, is there a smoking gun that would prove or disprove, without doubt, the Book of Mormon? It might be more than one thing, but as a missionary, and a member for 40+ years, I have heard all of the criticisms leveled at the BoM and wonder if there is one thing (or a couple) that would silence forever one side or the other.

On the hyperbolic side of the spectrum, I think if they found the cave that Joseph Smith returned the plates to in the hill Cumorah, maybe something along those lines, especially if it still contained plates or cave drawings or other real records. But that would be a huge "duh" moment. Anything along these lines that would be definitive?

In my opinion, no.

In your example the cave could be found, along with the plates, and it would do little to anyone's faith but strengthen the already-faithful Mormon.
Whether the artifacts were real or fake would immediately be called into question. They'd be labeled a hoax from day 1.

I also believe God has things like free will and faith for very important reasons. Narrow is the way.

I truly, truly believe that there are billions of people on this planet that would find a way not to believe Jesus is the Messiah if/when he were to return. I believe there are many millions that EVEN IF THEY WERE SURE it was Him, would deny Him.

Faith. My logic side tells me there are definitely smoking guns against Mormonism. But faith can mean that we are deceived, or evidence hasn't YET been over-turned.

I consider myself relatively open-minded. I believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh, died on the cross, rose again, died for me, atoned for my sins... etc. (respectfully)

Am I 100% sure that I'm right? No. But I do believe.

So the short answer to your question is I think evidence or lack thereof will have little to do with one's faith-based belief system.

 

[PearlWatson]

Thank you PKM, babe and PW for an interesting conversation. This all has me thinking, is there a smoking gun that would prove or disprove, without doubt, the Book of Mormon? It might be more than one thing, but as a missionary, and a member for 40+ years, I have heard all of the criticisms leveled at the BoM and wonder if there is one thing (or a couple) that would silence forever one side or the other.

On the hyperbolic side of the spectrum, I think if they found the cave that Joseph Smith returned the plates to in the hill Cumorah, maybe something along those lines, especially if it still contained plates or cave drawings or other real records. But that would be a huge "duh" moment. Anything along these lines that would be definitive?

Don't they have Hill Cumorah pageants every summer at the sight? What makes you think they haven't located the cave? Or you don't believe they could keep such a secret?

Wow, their pageants are pretty elaborate:

 

[babe]

Thank you PKM, babe and PW for an interesting conversation. This all has me thinking, is there a smoking gun that would prove or disprove, without doubt, the Book of Mormon? It might be more than one thing, but as a missionary, and a member for 40+ years, I have heard all of the criticisms leveled at the BoM and wonder if there is one thing (or a couple) that would silence forever one side or the other.

On the hyperbolic side of the spectrum, I think if they found the cave that Joseph Smith returned the plates to in the hill Cumorah, maybe something along those lines, especially if it still contained plates or cave drawings or other real records. But that would be a huge "duh" moment. Anything along these lines that would be definitive?

It looks like PKM and I might be in the same boat on this.

If Jesus comes again, and the Ten Tribes smite the ice and come down from the north. . . . if the City of Enoch makes a landing on Missouri. . . . and the Three Nephites go on TV with a special testimonial documentary. . . . and the Angel Moroni comes forth with the plates in hand. . . . it would all fall short of "definitive" proof in the positive for the Book of Mormon. It would only move the ball downfield a few yards, and the teams fer and agin would all line up once again to debate the validity of Mormonism and contest for credibility with the mind of mankind.

People would still have to use faith to make personal decisions.

 

[babe]

Don't they have Hill Cumorah pageants every summer at the sight? What makes you think they haven't located the cave? Or you don't believe they could keep such a secret?

Wow, their pageants are pretty elaborate:

The reason I would like the Hopewell/Book of Mormon "connection" to be true is because of the way LDS acceptance of it would change the Pageants in the city of Moroni down about a hundred miles from Salt Lake City. They could finally abandon all that hokey pyramid and rock backdrop and use a mound structure like the one in Missouri where a speaker could assemble all the people of Nephi, in their tents with their flaps open towards the speaker, and everyone could hear the voices of the players unaided by technologies like PA systems. . . .

Extremely curious to me how King Benjamin could do that in the Book of Mormon story. . . . and finding a mound structure today on the ground in the Hopewell structures...... mounds so arranged not for burials but for some kind of public assemblies. . . ranks right up there with the Three Nephites and Moroni stepping forth to document their roles in restoring faith and Mormonism. . . . .

see this link for a discourse on that speech:

https://www.jefflindsay.com/KBenjamin.html

just a fun personal note. . . . Jeff is my nephew. . . .

 

[cowhide]

In my opinion, no.

In your example the cave could be found, along with the plates, and it would do little to anyone's faith but strengthen the already-faithful Mormon.
Whether the artifacts were real or fake would immediately be called into question. They'd be labeled a hoax from day 1.

I also believe God has things like free will and faith for very important reasons. Narrow is the way.

I truly, truly believe that there are billions of people on this planet that would find a way not to believe Jesus is the Messiah if/when he were to return. I believe there are many millions that EVEN IF THEY WERE SURE it was Him, would deny Him.

Faith. My logic side tells me there are definitely smoking guns against Mormonism. But faith can mean that we are deceived, or evidence hasn't YET been over-turned.

I consider myself relatively open-minded. I believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh, died on the cross, rose again, died for me, atoned for my sins... etc. (respectfully)

Am I 100% sure that I'm right? No. But I do believe.

So the short answer to your question is I think evidence or lack thereof will have little to do with one's faith-based belief system.

Facts are not needed if you have faith in your belief. For some that is the comfort religion gives them and to others (non-believers) not having facts is the catalyst to support their non belief. You said that we just don't know if we are right or wrong but I believe death gives us either knowledge of what we don't know or it ends all speculation.

 

[babe]

So Jeff is a pretty smart guy. . . . a chemical engineer who has worked in the paper mill industry and who has come up with some management consulting theories. . . . and who lives and works in China helping to inspire the Chinese Capitalist elites who still profess to be "Communist Party elites" develop competitive technologies and management methods. . . .

But here is how King Benjamin elaborates the Book of Mormon version of Christianity as a communal idealism propounded by inspirational leaders, a sort of "conference" style. . . .

1 And it came to pass that after Mosiah had done as his father had commanded him, and had made a proclamation throughout all the land, that the people gathered themselves together throughout all the land, that they might go up to the temple to hear the words which king Benjamin should speak unto them.

2 And there were a great number, even so many that they did not number them; for they had multiplied exceedingly and waxed great in the land.

3 And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses;

4 And also that they might give thanks to the Lord their God, who had brought them out of the land of Jerusalem, and who had delivered them out of the hands of their enemies, and had appointed just men to be their teachers, and also a just man to be their king, who had established peace in the land of Zarahemla, and who had taught them to keep the commandments of God, that they might rejoice and be filled with love towards God and all men.

5 And it came to pass that when they came up to the temple, they pitched their tents round about, every man according to his family, consisting of his wife, and his sons, and his daughters, and their sons, and their daughters, from the eldest down to the youngest, every family being separate one from another.

6 And they pitched their tents round about the temple, every man having his tent with the door thereof towards the temple, that thereby they might remain in their tents and hear the words which king Benjamin should speak unto them;

7 For the multitude being so great that king Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple, therefore he caused a tower to be erected, that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them.

8 And it came to pass that he began to speak to his people from the tower; and they could not all hear his words because of the greatness of the multitude; therefore he caused that the words which he spake should be written and sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice, that they might also receive his words.

text taken from the Book of Mormon itself, though I pulled this from Jeff Lindsay's discourse on the speech. . . .

https://www.jefflindsay.com/KBenjamin.html

The very setting of the speech as described in the Book of Mormon has frankly always pushed the limits of credulity in my imagination. . . .

and raised issues in my mind about Rigdonite "Campbell" proto-Baptist gyrations of frontier Biblical debates. When Joseph Smith and Rigdon publicly pooled their faithful flocks in the Kirkland area in very early LDS history, Mormonism took on this idealism wholeheartedly, and for a decade thereafter Mormonism was dominated by socialist ideals of communal living, voluntarily pooling material resources for the common good much like some Christians believe the early Christians did right after the death and ressurection of Jesus, as evidenced in the Bible with the story of Ananias and his wife. . . .

Joseph Smith, after Rigdon left Mormonism, tired of the "United Order" efforts because of the endless fraud and hardships on the people who gave their all to such efforts, and returned pretty solidly to private stewardship of personal resources as the practicable, that is. . . workable. . . . financial plan. And that is when Nauvoo actually prospered for a while. . . .

A historical economic saga much like the Puritans who experimented with socialism upon their first arrival, achieving near starvation with their ideals and finally going back to free enterprise economic methods. . . .

 

[babe]

Facts are not needed if you have faith in your belief. For some that is the comfort religion gives them and to others (non-believers) not having facts is the catalyst to support their non belief. You said that we just don't know if we are right or wrong but I believe death gives us either knowledge of what we don't know or it ends all speculation.

I agree with this point, but I believe even the revelations associated with the death passage into the next life does not change the nature of mankind or the need for faith as a principle of personal decision-making. . . . .

yes, we would know, in terms of my theories on death and continued human existence beyond that event, some particular facts of our circumstances and our universe. . . . . but the way we will have to go on being intelligent and human. . . . and faithful. . . will not materially be transformed. . . .