There is no absence of evidence DU, there is an abundance of evidence following those multiple (as well as other) lines of investigation.
Stop right there, what is DNA analysis?
DNA Analysis is the process of looking for markers that are known to be in a specific group you are looking for, in this case, a group of markers commonly found only in descendent's from a specific geographical area to indicate common ancestors. Period, that is what Population Genetics is all about.
You claim the markers are not found. (The Absence of evidence)
So again... I quote "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." and you guys claim it is.
I could go into more funny things I don't know about you and or any other Anti, but I think my point was made the first time.
From
When DNA Evidence is Ignored: Systematic Bias Against Non-Asian Origins of Ancient Americans. If you throw out any Jewish alleles claiming they are European corrupted samples then you will inevitably end up with "Gee, we can't find any of the evidence we threw out. It must not exist."
The rest of your long dissertation rests on this point, and without the Lack of evidence "Evidence" to support it, it falls of it's own weight. Occam's razor just cut you Godzilla, were you too numb to notice?
DU, you are the one who posted the whole DNA nonsense on this formerly caucus thread and the thread was started by a mormon, so at least get your short history correct.
The story line of the Book of Mormon includes other genetic races besides Lehi's and since we don't know the origins of those people it is impossible to prove the Book of Mormon wrong with DNA because you don't start with nor do you preserve Jewish DNA in a genetically conservative group.
Mormon, towards the end of the Book of Mormons makes a point of saying he is a pure descendant of Lehi, as if this was a rare thing. If Lehi's descendants were the only ones in the America's wouldn't everyone be able to say this? The Book of Mormon just does not tell the story of a group that is carefully guarding their genetic heritage and you'd know that if you had just finished reading it instead of getting superstitious about it.
The funny thing is anyone who wants to actually, look at my page
here, would know that because that is one of the points I make there. (See suppositions one and two...)
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a flat-earth argument when it is not supported by other avenues of evaluating the truth.
You know what
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is, right?
Here, let's look at the exposition on this fallacy:
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
Arguing that alack of genetic evidence even in a direct genetic descendant is
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, What I am saying that no only is this a flawed line of reasoning, direct genetic preservation is precluded by the Book of Mormon itself. Thus genetic disproof of the Book of Mormon is impossible.
As always it is a pleasure to observe your ivory towers of mormon proofs crumble into dust.
All your DNA "evidence" not with standing, the Book of Mormon, and Mormons for that matter claimed that the American Indians were pure genetic descendants of Lehi, we don't and never did, the Book of Mormon itself bears witness of that. Ignoring evidence that proves you wrong is a fallacy in and of itself.
The problem you have in making a good argument is that unless you can see your opponent's point you cannot accurately refute it. Anti's generally don't want to understand, just refute, thus they make tactically poor arguments such as yours here.
He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
The question anti's should be asking first is: "Does the Book of Mormon say the People in the Americas' preserved their genetics to the point where it could be proven wrong with DNA. The answer is no.
You waste your time with this, so please keep going! (LOL!)
There is no absence of evidence DU, there is an abundance of evidence following those multiple (as well as other) lines of investigation.
Stop right there, Not so fast weedhopper, there is an abundance of evidence – your problem is that the evidence does not support your position.
what is DNA analysis? DNA Analysis is the process of looking for markers that are known to be in a specific group you are looking for, in this case, a group of markers commonly found only in descendent's from a specific geographical area to indicate common ancestors. Period, that is what Population Genetics is all about.
Your oversimplification is noted. But there are other components of DNA that are evaluated or analyzed. Haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) , notice right off the bat there are two streams of data that must be evaluated and where that data leads. But DNA related studies are not limited to human DNA. DNA studies of intestinal bacteria globally have been conducted; DNA studies of dogs have too. The findings of those studies all have effectively shown that humans, the stomach bacteria they carried and dogs originated from Asia, not the middle east. This is also supported by archaeological findings that indicate a north to south migration across the Americas (this is counter to what the bom would predict).
You claim the markers are not found. (The Absence of evidence) So again... I quote "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." and you guys claim it is.
And I repeat you are misquoting me. Markers are found in great abundance, they only do do not support the bom mythology.
From When DNA Evidence is Ignored: Systematic Bias Against Non-Asian Origins of Ancient Americans. If you throw out any Jewish alleles claiming they are European corrupted samples then you will inevitably end up with "Gee, we can't find any of the evidence we threw out. It must not exist."
Wow, the great DNA scientist Lindsey.
Bonatto and Salzano (1997) The X haplotype issue has been looked at in greater detail over the past 10 years, and the issues raised were resolved. Too bad for Jeff and you, the data no longer supported the mormon position.
Salzano (2002) Did Jeff ignore post colombian contamination? Salzano openly admits his data is not complete enough to clarify the heterogenity and contamination. Hardly bias there.
Malhi et al. (2002) Jeff quotes the article, but it doesn’t say which groups that were outside the standards were detected. So he is making an assumption of bias against Malhi who supports his exclusion based on other detailed studies.
Kolman and Tuross (2000) again the haplotype is unstated. What they do say is compelling it has not been found - in New World indigenous populations. Then they are not talking about Haplogroup X which is the touchstone of mormon hope, because it as a whole group has been detected. Unfortunately again for mormons, the subgroup detected in indians is not the subgroup found in hebrews.
The rest of your long dissertation rests on this point, and without the Lack of evidence "Evidence" to support it, it falls of it's own weight. Occam's razor just cut you Godzilla, were you too numb to notice?
Science like you and Lindsey promote put the cart before the horse (or tapir/deer). You seek to find data to support your theory and ignore the vast amounts of data that show otherwise. Real science takes the data, evaluates it and develops a conceptual model with which to test the data and compare other data to. Mormon model is to identify the spiritual goal, then quote mine the studies to support the model. If the data is so conclusive in favor of mormon, why are there four different theories for the location of the bom lands? If it is so conclusive, why are there no publications in professional journals and societies supporting the argument of Hebrew dna in the early Americas.
The story line of the Book of Mormon includes other genetic races besides Lehi's and since we don't know the origins of those people it is impossible to prove the Book of Mormon wrong with DNA because you don't start with nor do you preserve Jewish DNA in a genetically conservative group.
They were all from the same geographic region – Israel and its immediate environs. That is your specific geographic region being studied.
Mormon, towards the end of the Book of Mormons makes a point of saying he is a pure descendant of Lehi, as if this was a rare thing.
Means simply he has no blood of the Lamanites, nothing surprising there.
The Book of Mormon just does not tell the story of a group that is carefully guarding their genetic heritage and you'd know that if you had just finished reading it instead of getting superstitious about it.
Simple truth again DU – a group of individuals from the environs of Israel populate the new world, but some how their dna is changed to resemble Asiatic peoples. I am not superstitious about it, I simply evaluate the mountain of evidence to the contrary and am not constrained question the foundations of science on the basis of theological assumptions.
You know what Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is, right?
Every time I read one of your posts.
So lets take a closer look at this fallacy’s definition as it applies here.
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. So in the mormonism argument for there being evidence of DNA (proposition), just that it hasn’t been found yet. What DU glosses over is the second part of the fallacy’s application If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. The website link give this example:
Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:
If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.
As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.
Mormon application:
If there was a civilization that numbered in the millions upon millions from sea to sea that originated from the environs of Israel, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We do not have undeniable evidence of an advanced Hebrew society in the Americas
Therefore, these peoples did not / do not exist.
Is that simple enough for you DU? All your DNA "evidence" not with standing, the Book of Mormon, and Mormons for that matter claimed that the American Indians were pure genetic descendants of Lehi, we don't and never did, the Book of Mormon itself bears witness of that. Ignoring evidence that proves you wrong is a fallacy in and of itself.
Dishonesty in the matter is unbecoming of you. Laman (Lehi's oldest son) were called Lamanites.
The problem you have in making a good argument is that unless you can see your opponent's point you cannot accurately refute it. Anti's generally don't want to understand, just refute, thus they make tactically poor arguments such as yours here.
No, I know what your argument is. Your only defense is to obfuscate the issue to confuse the lurker – as usual.
The question anti's should be asking first is: "Does the Book of Mormon say the People in the Americas' preserved their genetics to the point where it could be proven wrong with DNA. The answer is no.
Wrong, it has already been shown by the Lemba tribe that this can be done and over the same period of time covered by the bom. One of these days you’ll get over that selective memory.
