They are not intended to. That said, your arguments would not be persuasive to geneticists, especially the one about being a pure descendant of the father means you are only a descendant of one of his sons. (no you never are going to live that down, it's on FR, it'll be archived by Google by now...)
GZ: As I said in a previous post, your understanding of the types and variety of dna related research makes your example incredibly obtuse as each blood cell carries individual dna and mixing blood from different people is not what is occurring in these studies. Simple enough that I get it, but your example indicates you don’t.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I understand blood typing, but I learned long ago that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of an anti Mormon.
DU: All these studies assume a pure genetic sample to start with so their results are bogus, based on a faulty assumption which anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon would never make on accident.
GZ: Once again, the Lemba tribe has proven your statement wrong. They worked with the samples they had and followed the genetics to Israel. Similar group of people separated by the same length of time in conditions where there was more genetic mixing than indicated in the bom.
The Lemba tribe had a very strict rule about allowing males to marry into the group. Guess where they found the allele that tied them back to Israel... The Y Chromosome Which had been preserved, and then only in one of the tribes but it was enough and their oral tradition was accepted. Why is there oral tradition of the Lemba tribe enough for serious investigation, yet the Indians in Los Lunas's stories about the rock are not? (you seem to automatically accept any theory that seems to damage the Book of Mormon and oppose any that support it, it's not a very convincing position for you to take for anyone who watches you for even a short while.)
DU: There is lots of Jewish DNA in Europe. So once researchers have thrown out the very alleles they are looking for, they can't find them
GZ: Another flawed strawman DUh. You are assuming the science is so flawed that they cannot identify these? You need to get past the whole groups DU and realize technology and science is at a point where they have accurately categorized halogroup subtypes and sub sub types.
They can now, when was the data for the studies you are quoting collected? not within the last five years... (your comment is being filed in the appropriate receptacle, along with all the others.
GZ: Laman was the son of Lehi, the others that came later all came from the environs around Israel, therefore they would carry the same distinctive genes that would identify them from the region. Genetic mapping doesn’t trace individuals as you assume, but people groups from the same region
Ah, you finally perceive the point I have been beating you over the head with this whole thread. The Mulekites came over at the time of the tower of Babel, but we don't know their genetic makeup and there are several other groups mentioned and we don't know their genetic makeup either. Since the record was a spiritual one and the Nephites were not shy about marrying in anyone who would agree with them philosophically, there may be even more groups and there is the problem.
The Mulekites and the people of Zarahemla outnumbered the Nephites and the Lamanites. the Later groups could have come from Siberia, or Asia. There is no pure genetic trail back to Lehi that we can be sure of. This is why Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.
You just don't have a group of Nephites that take in small groups of people from the same region, you have a small group of Nephites who join a much larger group of unknown ancestry, then to make matters worse, the add several smaller groups also of unknown ancestry. Now that you know they were not from the same "area" what do you say about the "genetics"?
GZ: Apparently you cannot follow the sources of info that Lindsey cited that I followed up on to see if what he was claiming in his argument had basis to be correct. Fact was he was picking selective citations that were generic enough to obfuscate the issue rather than head on.
And you are not selective in your citations? Shame on you!
Sigh, as much as I hate to do this, what was it that confused you? Perhaps if you were more specific (like you are whining about Jeff Lindsay not being now... Pot -- Kettle...)
GZ: My science has evidence from multiple disciplines showing the earth is round. Mormon science says the earth is flat and with enough time evidence will appear to prove them correct.
LOL! The flat earthers were the "establishment, remember, as you still are today. We round earthers were the upstarts as we still are today. The flat earther's had "science" on their side initailly, as you do now. Science is the history of saying"We were wrong" and it still is today.
So when Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing, Did he or did he not as you said earlier mean that he had no ancestors who were Lamanites? I can link back to where you said that, if you are having memory problems...
GZ: Mind reading again, I’ve read the book in all its glorious boredom, repetition and ridiculousness. The bom model for new world settlement is not supported by the observations and data from multiple scientific disciplines.
Really, when? Let's just go with the first time, when?
GZ: Oh it is important to your salvation. . . . what is that funny little book you always want me to read and pray about. . . . . it is the entry level drug for mormonism. If false, then you’ve been following a false prophet (I know you are anyway from other sources besides bom DNA).
Yeah, really tricky of us to ask people to pray to God to find the truth about his word, huh. As if he would actually answer people, you have no idea how much we have to pay him to get him to tell people... (this is the line you are trying to get people to believe and it's fantastic that you even continue to spout it!)
DU: Um, why exactly would anyone care if not for the Book of Mormon? Keith Crandall et al can publish all they want and your side will dismiss them faster than Satan condemns righteousness. Why would anyone who didn't have to step into the cesspool anti Mormons always seem to make of discussions that could support Mormons.
GZ: So Asian migrationists are now the new anti-mormons LOL. He would have to defend his scientific reasoning with peers in the open world. If he is the sharp noodle you say he is, his paper should revolutionize the DNA studies of the world. His peers would judge the data and interpretation on the scientific merits. Crandall is smart enough to realize that his Mormon testimony is in adequate to meet the task of making up for the loss of scientific merit in such a work.
LOL! Can you prove any of that? No. I didn't say that everyone who was doing genetic reasearch on Indians was an anti Mormon, I said anti Mormons always make such discussions into a cesspool (reading comprehension, it's essential to a good argument.)
DU: and you know that how? (you don't) you want it to be so. The Book of Mormon (which you have not read) is clear about our lack of knowledge of the history the many of the people the Nephites met in the Americas.
GZ: 2 Nephi 1:8 strongly indicates the lands were empty. The bom makes no mention of any of the pre-colombian tribes that were present in the region – especially those that dominated central America (just for you limited geography fans). These pre-Colombian peoples were present in the millions and already had a developed culture, as well as being quite war like. Mormon history just ran aground on the reality of pre-colombian America.
OK, in your little argument here, you first argue that 2 Nephi says the land was empty, then argue that Pre columbian America was not empty (which is what I have been saying). So, lets start with your quote, 2 Nephi 1:8 is actually (suprise) being taken out of context by you, here lt me broaden the scope a bit:
2 Nephi 1:6-10
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.So instead of saying they are the only ones, Nephi is saying only men that God leads can come to the Americas, and that they will be safe as long as they are righteous. (A side political note this is why Mormons are so afraid of what will happen with a man so steeped in abortion in the white house!) Now, note all the Italicized words, every scripture except the one you quoted is talking about "them", others who will come to this land. Then there are the quotations from my page:
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him hom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for i>their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
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.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is cjust shall rest upon them.
Not even a particularly imaginative try, and I suspect you got it from a site, I do believe you would have read the scriptures surrounding it if you had researched it yourself.
- And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla
- Mulekites who came over to the americas separately married in with the Lamanites
- There were Descendants of Ishmael
- Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.
DU: Is that what it means? "Laman, Nephi's brother is also a descendent of Lehi, so being a "Pure descendant" of Lamanites would also make you a descendant of Lehi (Laman and Nephi's father). Then again if you actually read the book you might just know what you are talking about instead of making embarrassing statements like that.
GZ: The Lamanites were originally Nephites who broke off early and began their own race. As such, they too were descendants of Lehi, just like Ishmael’s descendants were also descendants of Abraham. Do you want to make more embarrassing statements DU? Use bright colors when you do.
What a delicious Idea, maybe I should colorize your "quote" next time I quote it back to you.
Actually, there were no Nephites until the group split and those that followed Laman called themselves Lamanites, those that followed Nephi, Nephites. As for beginning their own race... It was an ideological difference, ending up in a people who looked different I don't think you can prove they intended to start their own race.
GZ: God is not limited to heart burn when revealing His truth.
Straw man? please show anywhere on any post of mine that I said he was...
DU: The Mormon rebuttal to our "Position" as stated by someone who is not a Mormon, and has not even read the book he is critiquing:
GZ: Deliberate misrepresentation, but par for your course.
Speaking of misrepresentation, how about if I present your "position" do you have any hope that you would be happy with want I said? It is completely and totally inappropriate for you to present "our side" of anything. Lurkers take note of this Godzilla seems to think he should presnt both sides of a debate and that would be "fair" LOL!
GZ: : Terms such as "multitude," "numerous," "exceedingly great," "innumerable," and "as the sands of the sea" are present in abundance in the bom. 300,000 Lamanites were involved in just one battle IIRC. You would need a population base in the millions to support an army of that size. Alma 2:17-19 reports a total of 19,094 fatalities. On the basis of these figures John Sorenson, estimated the total Nephite-Lamanite population to be over 600,000 at that time (about 200,000 Nephites-Amlicites and over 400,000 Lamanites). Helman 3:8 covers the quote about the seas quite nicely, covering the face of the whole earth.
See how hard it is when people speak in imprecise terms? Multitude (exactly how many is that?) "Exceedingly great" again an imprecise term. As for 300,000 warriors, I did a search on the BOM, and as I remembered it, the largest number of "thousands" was "even to exceed the number of thirty thousand" so you are off by a couple of orders of magnitude. (which is par for the course) That said some of the "uncounted" numbers include to records og Genocide where a people were basically wiped out, men women and children so there really is no need to have a "population" to "support" them.
GZ: Well, you tweaked my interest, please document these earthquakes that destroyed entire civilizations in the Americas, as this geological history should be most enlightening.
I do not propose to "educate" you, nor do I expect to convince you since most of these anomalies are just that to archeologists who want everything to fit, so I'll mention the road to nowhere (A road that runs across the land, down the beach and into the ocean near Bimini Island. There is also a road in South America that runs up to one side of a chasm and continues on the other side with no signs of a bridge ever having been built. There are also many roads of ancient manufacture that just run off into the jungls and no-one knows where they go. Here is a site (yep just one) that lists a lot of these, if you really are interested, it should give you plenty to Google for. as for your ready argument of peer review, or this is not accepted by ... Well Duh, if it was accepted, they would have to have an explanation, they don't. Some day when they learn more, they will catch up, just like the flat earthers finally having to admit the world is round. (BTW just how long did it take for the "scientists" to admit that the Incas and the Mayans were not peaceful, but warlike?)
Your link
GZ: AFA your strawman supposition string goes Lehi, Nephi, Muelkites, Ishmael and Zoram were all from the immediate region around Israel...
You know because slaves are always from the population they serve, consider early America and the south... Wait no, thats a bad example, well then there's ... Egypt Joseph was a slave there, wait that's bad too...
You assume facts not in evidence to make your case... You lose. Zoram, Mulek, Ishmael; we don't know their genetic makeup. Plus hter are other groups we run into in the BOM, maybe even the descendants of your mummy friend. I for one do not say that I know, you haowever have to say that or your house of cards comes tumbling down around your ears as it should.
DU: Speaking of Selective memory, did you forget that Keith Crandall is one of the Leading Scientists in the team that proved the link for the Lemba tribe? (that was why he was asked to review Simon Southerton's work...) You can't even discuss a precedent without quoting Keith Crandall's work, how can you then say he's wrong on this? I suppose he's a "fallen Scientist" now that he joined the Church... LOL!
GZ: Too bad he couldn’t properly apply what he learned to the Lamanites.
And you know he didn't because... He didn't get the results you want him to.
Amazing, you have an eminently qualified scientist, one who's work you have to cite in order to make the case against us, who then joins the church after saying the findings against us are wrong and you want to cite his early work, dismiss the work that disagrees with you and besmirchg his reputation by saying that he is now compromised becasue of his (new) faith.
It's the old Occam's razor thing again, which is more likely, that you are a flat earther when it comes to Mormons, or that Keith Crandall suddenly lost his mind and joined a church that he could prove wrong scientifically? Occam's razor slices you pretty deep on that one.