tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post116829798625549074..comments2023-10-11T07:14:55.196-07:00Comments on Cr@ig In The Middle: "Time is a Great Equalizer"Cr@ighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06004865527640808734noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-6352622286211564382007-08-21T06:52:00.000-07:002007-08-21T06:52:00.000-07:00Craig,I appreciate what you are trying to show her...Craig,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate what you are trying to show here. Would suggest that your points would be even more powerful if they were one: each backed up with specific footnotes and two: were not diminished by the certain angst you express when using profanity. I've been known to swear plenty to make a point...but somehow it just rings of anger. Whereas a truly wise man is not offended by the words or actions of others. Truth can be excavated, if we are willing to do the work, and keep it in a simple format that welcomes all minds to the table.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!<BR/><BR/>~ AAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-84944984365750647402007-08-11T03:57:00.000-07:002007-08-11T03:57:00.000-07:00I deleted my earlier comment which I felt didn't p...I deleted my earlier comment which I felt didn't provide adequate evidence to support the points I wanted to make and have replaced it with this one.<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1204788&blobtype=pdf" REL="nofollow">1991 paper</A> that talks about the origins of native Americans which they concluded was Asian and talks about how the Europeans don't have the same genetic markers.<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svfxSscxh8o" REL="nofollow">YouTube video</A> put out by <I>Living Hope Ministries</I> which features some ex-Mormons who left the church or are skeptical of the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon because genetic evidence doesn't support hebrew origins. This video was obviously made to discredit the LDS church, but it'd be interesting to follow-up on some of the points they make to see if they're valid.<BR/><BR/>Here's an article about <A HREF="http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/072001/DL_dnarevise.html" REL="nofollow">David Glen Smith</A> from UC Davis that talks about one of his research programs. Interestingly enough, some native American tribes object to these genetic studies because they conflict with their religious/spiritual beliefs. He's one of the genetic researchers featured in the <I>Living Hope Ministries</I> video.polarpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15054624826599495886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-6206000176983726002007-08-11T01:53:00.000-07:002007-08-11T01:53:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.polarpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15054624826599495886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-83684600188375198012007-05-19T09:50:00.000-07:002007-05-19T09:50:00.000-07:00I appreciate the work you are doing however!I appreciate the work you are doing however!Xpihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11327908292988726873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-84987876856509818622007-05-19T09:44:00.000-07:002007-05-19T09:44:00.000-07:00use of the 'f' word doesn't support your argument....use of the 'f' word doesn't support your argument.Xpihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11327908292988726873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-48252002975994115292007-04-12T07:43:00.000-07:002007-04-12T07:43:00.000-07:00Well, IMHO, the actual truth or falsity of the Chu...Well, IMHO, the actual truth or falsity of the Church's historical claims is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of Mormons. It's how the church works or doesn't work for them in their daily lives that matters. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are to the average Mormon what Chairman Mao is to the average Chinese--a figure who is revered in theory, but most of whose teachings are ignored in practice.Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14225554333698783398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1172017331073346252007-02-20T17:22:00.000-07:002007-02-20T17:22:00.000-07:00Dont think my link came out, the article is HEREDont think my link came out, the article is <A HREF="http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=311&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9kbmEucGhw" REL="nofollow"><B>HERE</B></A>Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13443881508604569847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1172017212341730632007-02-20T17:20:00.000-07:002007-02-20T17:20:00.000-07:00This guy's claims make me laugh. He believes that ...This guy's claims make me laugh. He believes that the BofM cannot be proved or disproved. Now the claims in the BofM are just theories. But the word of god is fact, not theory, right?!?<BR/><BR/>http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=311&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9kbmEucGhwStevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13443881508604569847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1171553700334604962007-02-15T08:35:00.000-07:002007-02-15T08:35:00.000-07:00MESSAGEMESSAGEAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1170631139540535132007-02-04T16:18:00.000-07:002007-02-04T16:18:00.000-07:00PS, I often wonder if the Church will just crumble...PS, I often wonder if the Church will just crumble under the weight of so much evidence that casts doubt on their claims?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1170631071055648302007-02-04T16:17:00.000-07:002007-02-04T16:17:00.000-07:00I find it interesting both sides of the DNA battle...I find it interesting both sides of the DNA battle point to their own "studies" that prove their point(s) and claim they disprove other DNA evidence. I think the DNA issue will be battled about for years to come, and not being a scientist and having to make a judgement on this issue. It seems to me that the LDS Church relies heavily upon the work of FARMS and allies of the church to support their claims. While there are "many" more independent voices without a religious ax to grind that find the American Indian does not share DNA with ancient Hebrews, and that indeed the American Indian came from Siberia or Mongolia.<BR/><BR/>Hmmmmmmm, believe the church who has the most to lose or independent scientific research? Let me sleep on this one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1170371290368707602007-02-01T16:08:00.000-07:002007-02-01T16:08:00.000-07:00Modern Jews and Native Americans share common DNA ...Modern Jews and Native Americans share common DNA lineages. For example, the Q-P36 Y-chromosome lineage is found in 31% of American Indians in the US, (Hammer 2005) 5% of Ashkenazi Jews (Behar 2004) and 5% of Iraqi Jews. (Shen 2004) Most scientists believe that Q-P36 entered America long before Book of Mormon (BoM) times. This, of course, does not mean that a strain of Q-P36 could not have made a late entry. However, mainstream science has a problem with this lineage they have not yet been able to resolve in a way that supports their theories.<BR/><BR/>In 1996 Dr. Peter Underhill, a PhD from Stanford University calculated that the most recent common male ancestor of most Native Americans lived 2147 prior or 151 BC. He determined this from the genetic diversity of Y-chromosomes in living Native Americans. Essentially he counted mutations and applied a rate of 2.1 per 1000 (Weber & Wong) and a generation length of 27 years. This date can, of course, be adjusted by altering variables like the generation length. For example with a generation length of 32.65 years, a date of 600 BC is obtained. <BR/><BR/>Even faster mutation rates of 2.8 per 1000 have been observed in father/son pairs (Kayser). However, Underhill has never believed that this date was true. He and a colleague named Zhivotovsky have spent a good deal of time developing what they call an ‘effective’ mutation rate. The theory is that even though rates of 2.1 per 1000 (Weber & Wong) and 2.8 per 1000 (Kayser) have been observed in living populations, that mutations don’t really accumulate that fast over thousands of years. Their effective rate is 6.9 per 10000 or 0.69 per 1000.[1]<BR/> <BR/>In 2006, a study by Pakendorf et al. used the mutation rate observed by Kayser (2.8 per 1000) and got a pretty accurate date for the migration of the Yakuts. Pakendorf states, “… it has recently been proposed that ‘effective’ mutation rates (Zhivotovsky et al. 2004), which are not based on pedigree studies but on archaeologically calibrated migrations, may reflect the true historical processes better than pedigree rates. Using the average ‘effective’ rate of 6.9 [per 1000] calculated by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) results in a much greater age of the Yakut male expansion of approximately 3800 years … However, these older dates are inconsistent with linguistic and archaeological evidence: … the split of Yakut from Common Turkic cannot be earlier than 1,500 years BP.” [2]<BR/><BR/>Applying these faster mutation rates to American Indians gives dates for the most recent common ancestor that range from 2147 to 2750; well within BoM times. <BR/><BR/>Footnotes<BR/><BR/>[1] Zhivotovsky LA, Underhill PA, Feldman MW (2006) “Difference between evolutionarily effective and germ line mutation rate due to stochastically varying haplogroup size”<BR/>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16956974&dopt=Abstract<BR/><BR/>[2] Brigitte Pakendorf et al (2006), “Investigating the effects of Prehistoric migrations in Siberia: genetic variation and the origins of Yakuts” | Hum Genet (2006) 120:334–353 | DOI 10.1007/s00439-006-0213-2<BR/>http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Yakut_article_2006.pdfDoug Forbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12672434922650800374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1169685430890404432007-01-24T17:37:00.000-07:002007-01-24T17:37:00.000-07:00Hi Craig,great to see you are posting again.I was ...Hi Craig,<BR/><BR/>great to see you are posting again.I was actually just thinking about this issue yesterday and wondering how they were going to respond to the DNA evidence. I guess the only way is the usual way...cover it up with another lie!<BR/>Welcome back!<BR/><BR/>WendyWendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11568684410592683738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1169600055903240562007-01-23T17:54:00.000-07:002007-01-23T17:54:00.000-07:00Yeh! Your back.Yeh! Your back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1169572192280132342007-01-23T10:09:00.000-07:002007-01-23T10:09:00.000-07:00I wish time was a Terminator instead of an Equaliz...I wish time was a Terminator instead of an Equalizer!! Good post!Just one of manyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16499357350979429777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1169054780828879892007-01-17T10:26:00.000-07:002007-01-17T10:26:00.000-07:00Craig, great post. Really great writing. I hope ...Craig, great post. Really great writing. I hope you post more often.Sister Mary Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00642154849765529070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1168642058428301162007-01-12T15:47:00.000-07:002007-01-12T15:47:00.000-07:00Boyd K. Packer (Senior Apostle over Lamanite affai...Boyd K. Packer (Senior Apostle over Lamanite affairs9)<BR/><BR/>There are more than 60 million people of Lamanite extraction. It is no accident that the Church now prospers among them in Mexico, Central and South America, in the islands of the sea, and among the Indian tribes of North America. (“President Spencer W. Kimball: No Ordinary Man,” Ensign, Mar. 1974, 3ff).<BR/><BR/>In contrast to the relatively few in North America who could claim Lamanite lineage (1.3 million), Packer pointed to the many millions in Mexico, Yucatan, Guatemala, and throughout South America: “In all … there are seventy-five million six hundred thousand who share in your [Native American Lamanite] birthright, of whom thrity-one million nine hundred ninety thousand are pure Indians.” (Address given during proceedings of the annual Indian Week at BYU, cited by Armand L. Mauss, All Abraham’s Children, p. 96).Cr@ighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06004865527640808734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1168581935995961632007-01-11T23:05:00.000-07:002007-01-11T23:05:00.000-07:00In one your points you state: "Mormon General Auth...In one your points you state: "Mormon General Authorities who formerly proudly proclaimed Native Americas as Lamanites, have completely retreated...some have even postulated in private that North American Indians are NOT descended from Lehi...in direct contrast to Mormon Scripture." Do you have a reference for this? I would be very interested in reading it.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05808470239607818781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23230416.post-1168575987750710102007-01-11T21:26:00.000-07:002007-01-11T21:26:00.000-07:00Craig,I love your writing and reasoning. I wonder...Craig,<BR/><BR/>I love your writing and reasoning. I wonder, have you ever thought or written about the comparisons between J. Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. It seems to me they are both men who wrote stories that they eventually believed to be TRUTH...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com