Just out of curiosity AMPU, how do you reconcile the findings of Southerton w/ those of the experts & new findings as cited by Delphiuser? It would seem that Southerton is lacking in many very important areas.
Was your intent to really add to the discussion about DNA, or was it to find cause to throw out yet another anti-LDS link? Not sure this really added anything to the debate between Delphiuser & Godzilla et al. Do you really feel your motives aren't transparent?
Forgot to ping you on post 285.
It isn’t a shame that the link is from a site of former mormons. It is a great source of information for any mormon who wants to see the other side. As such, I consider it a privilege to pave a road and make it easy for them to see it. Many, many mormons escape each year and need support, so it is a valuable service. Many of those who escape become Christians too, once they hear and understand the Gospel.
As to DNA, Southerton can speak for himself. It wouldn’t surprise me if he updates his book, using the new data that Godzilla and others have posted, that refutes the wild claims of mormonism.
I hope my motives are crystal clear: to prevent anyone who may consider what the LDS says from getting ensnared in the cult & to let people trapped in mormonism know that they can get out and they will find lots of support when they are set free. No hidden motives there. Those are the only two reasons I post on the plethora of mormonite threads.
As such, I consider that the link I posted contributes to the discussion on how DNA refutes the claims of the book or macaroni.
Hope you are well. Are you enjoying reading the book of systematic theology? Do you have questions from your reading of the volume?
best,
ampu
In reality Reno, Southerton has access to the info Du continues to blather on about. If you want to read his response you can do so here, where he takes the results from an even more recent study that clarifies the issues discussed on the youtube series. Its about half way down.. You will see that Southerton is very up to date on the current status of DNA studies. The facts are that this more recent, larger and more detailed study he cites totally wipes away Crandall's arguement. Crandall makes an even more egregious error by looking for evidence to prove his theory, instead of letting the evidence lead to the theory. We'll see play out below.
Secondly, DNA studies have progressed to the point where the Mitochondrial haplogroups such as X which is the focus of the dispute have been further subcategorized. The subgroup of X found in native americans is not common to semitic peoples such as Jews, an it further indicates a separation that occured an estimated 10-20K years ago.
You see what Crandall doesn't tell you is the current synthesis of the data and distracts the observer in only focusing on the X haplogroup without providing the larger picture. Two types of data have been used as the basis for the molecular genetic evidence for the migration from Asia - mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA. This has expanded more recently into other DNA related studies such as Polymorphic Alu insertions; Retroviral DNA elements; Intestinal microbial flora and Domesticated animals. These studies all point to Asian migration as the source of native americans, but I'll just focus on the origional two. Based upon the DNA data both here in the americas and in Asia, three different migrations have been proposed. The first are hypothesized to have brought mtDNA haplogroups A-D and Y chromosome haplogroup P-M45a and Q-242/Q-M3 haplotypes. A second, slightly later migration is hypothesized to have entered the Americas somewhat later, bringing mtDNA haplogroup X and Y chromosome haplogroups P-M45b, C-M130, and R1a1-M17, possibly using an interior route. A third and final migration is hypothesized to have taken place after the last glacial maximum in northern North America. Now, is the Haplogroup X the same as that in Hebrews, the answer is no. The New World haplogroup X2a is as different from any of the Old World X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e and X2f lineages as they are from each other, indicating an early origin "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East. In fact Southerton goes into even greater detail on the X group issue in his answer.
So you see, by attempting to focus all the attention on a very generic (at the time) identification of a group Crandall causes the forest to be lost because of the trees. All of these lines of DNA evidence point to a Asian/Siberian lineage of the native americans:
Y-chromosome
mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA)
Polymorphic Alu insertions
Retroviral DNA elements
Intestinal microbial flora
Domesticated animals
Add other scientific specialities and discipline's results such as archeology, anthropology and linguistic development, all indicate an asian source. Interestingly, do a google search on Hebrew DNA and you will find an immense amount of data and studies. This would supply a huge wealth of direct comparative information that Crandall could have used to evaluate the study he spoke on in the youtube post. He doesn't even acknowledge it.
Finally, Crandall is using the DNA to defend one of four competing mormon theories for the bom lands. That leads itself to other issues regarding the viability of the testimony of the bom.
ROTFLM*O!!
And we have ALL come to know and expect such completely UNbiased, objective, and unshaded information from PRO mormon support sites?
Ppppppplllleeeease!!
New definition of an Eeevilll, hateful “Anti” site:
Any site which
1) does not implicitly or expressly, without reservation or equivocation, warmly, wholeheartedly, and enthusiastically with a burning in the bosom - endorse the church of “Jesus Christ”, LDS - AKA the Mormon church.
2) purports, alleges, or otherwise represents itself as possessing facts which when taken at face value, tend to contradict or disprove “prophets”, teachings, doctrines, scriptures, or printed accounts originating from past leaders of, or apologists for, the church of “Jesus Christ”, LDS
(including such divergent “internal” accounts as may be mistakenly interpreted by unsanctified and apostate gentiles as contradicting one another)
All the ungentle Gentiles clear?
do I need an “/s” ?
A.A.C.