Friday, May 11, 2018

Adult Sabbath School: Spitting Out Truth

It's in our spit

Awhile back I participated in the National Geographic Genome Project. I did a simple cheek swab for DNA and sent it to the project. My Y chromosome results identify me as a member of halo group R1b, a lineage defined by a genetic marker called M343. This halo group is the final destination of a genetic journey that began some 60,000 years ago with the ancient y chromosome marker called 168 originating in Eastern Africa. Women can be traced back further, up to 200,000 years via their mitochorial DNA.
It seems my personal DNA, the stuff that makes me who and what I am today managed to cross the southern Red Sea about 60,000 years ago in the area of Yemen. This was a tad easier than today as an ice age was locking up much of the water on the planet and the crossing was much easier than today. Spreading north, as Marker 89 through the Arabian Peninsula, "I" migrated across Iran and Iraq into Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and on into the area of Pamir Knot, a four mountain confluence on the Eastern Himalaya. dragging Marker 9 along with me.
It was here someone said go south into India but my ancestors said, "no we shall go north" into the Asian Steppes about 40,000 years ago. After another 5000 years, my DNA had to make a choice. Someone said on the steppes said "we're heading east," and became the Siberians who crossed the Bering Straits and became the first Americans. The Navajo are the direct descendents of these ice savvy Siberians. That was my one chance to become one of the True People.
My DNA, however, headed West as Marker 173 across modern Russia and slid into Europe as Marker 343 35,000-30,000 years ago as Cro-Magnon heading into what today is Western Europe. It was here my DNA routed the Neanderthals who had been surviving nicely as not quite us in Europe for the previous 200,000 years. They walked out of Africa long before I did in the form of Homo Erectus and adapted in Europe to the harsh Ice Age environment. They had little self consciousness and aren't our direct descendants. All non African Europeans have 2 to 4% Neanderthal DNA in their genome.. In 200,000 years they never changed their stone tools and living seemed to be in the moment without vision, insight or the consciousness we have today. My DNA was smarter in the form of Cro-Magnon, the people responsible for the intriguing cave paintings in Lascaux Cave in southern France. My DNA drove their DNA into southern Spain where they died out in, perhaps, as little as 18,000 years ago
Finally, with Europe warming and glacial ice withdrawing north, my DNA ancestors moved into Britain and Ireland. They evidently hung out there for most of what we know as civilized history, and finally made the jump across the Atlantic at the end of the 19th Century, settled in Rochester, NY. It was here I learned that I had no DNA trail but rather was a direct descendent of the long lost tribe of Zebulon, being one of the truly true people, Dutch. After all, if you ain't Dutch, you ain't much... :)
Naw, just kidding. Yes I am Dutch, but my DNA never took the trip north out of Africa into Israel. When my DNA got to Iraq, it never looked back and went east not west with our dear father Abraham. It seems my DNA insisted on a much more difficult way to get to Europe over a period of 35,000 years completely bypassing Israel. I guess we might conclude if "I" was never there, and I am Dutch, then I am going to have give up the idea I am one of the descendents of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Actually I did long ago.
DNA testing spells the death nell of such nonsense as the Book of Mormon and British Israelism.
In fact, my DNA tells me I am a black African Saudi Iraqi Iranian Eurasian who made a choice to head north from the Himalayas into the steppes of Asia, and then West bypassing the Middle East and sliding into Europe 30,000 years ago after a 30,000 year trek to become me 68years ago.
Ya gotta love science Goodbye bad theology and mythologies taken too literally. . Goodbye exclusivism and false prophecies. Goodbye  Adam and Eve of literalism and the idea that Shem, Ham and Japheth brought us the White, Black and Yellow races. Our skin changed color as we moved north where we no longer needed the massive darkening protection of melanin and did need to literally lighten up so we could receive enough sunlight to produce vitamin D for our bones. Someone tell the KLAN they all started as a small, incredibly tough tribe of "black" men and women who needed to move out of Africa on the worlds most amazing journey, over 60,000 years ago. And goodbye to a mere 6000 years since a literal Adam and Eve weren't our literal first parents. The implications are both stunning and troubling for fundamentalists.
We are all one after all and every cell in your body contains the truth of your own origins and journey out of Africa

Article Source:


Anonymous said...

I watched this program on YouTube, found it quite interesting. I would think that it should remove any objections to interracial marriages since we all have African blood in us anyway. I'm beginning to think that the part in the old testament that talks about placing man in different places on earth to give them their own portion is referring to Pre Adamic man, since they have found several different classifications all with differences, I think would explain it. DNA doesn't lie.

Anonymous said...

"We are all one after all and every cell in your body contains the truth of your own origins and journey out of Africa."

DNA is only part of the story. You have more DNA in common with a male chimp than with a female human.

Anonymous said...

The Klan started when a girl was raped, the culprit convicted in court, then pardoned by the governor because of his wealth and political connections. The Klan rounded up the convicted rapist and hung him. Justice was done.

Anonymous said...

I have done the DNA thing too, and the fantasy that I was part Jewish, even a tiny bit is finally put to death. I did find a few long lost relatives, but they're all British thru and thru just like me.

Not sure how exactly the still believing splinters explain this away, but they do, they still believe Britain and America represent the lost 10 tribes. Some of them think that modern day Jews are not really Jews (although they do turn out to be brothers to the Arabs as in the Bible). Then do they also think that the men were put to death and only the women used for breeding? (typical Bible custom).

Anonymous said...

"The implications are both stunning and troubling for fundamentalists."

Go to, type in "out of africa" in the search box, and there seems to be quite a few articles about new theories that question the "out of africa" theory.

Things are rarely as simple as they at first appear.

Ronco said...

I guess this means the entire USA is African American...

Anonymous said...

It's a near law that if someone is very knowledgeable about a topic, and the other party is not, it is very easy for former to deceive or mislead the latter.
Meaning, all this DNA talk is gobbledygook in terms of proof.
Yes, kiss good bye to Dennis's 'proofs' as well.

Gerald Bronkar said...

The history and evolution of early man is a fascinating study. Can't really blame ancient Israelis for making up wild stories to explain their origins, but recent scientific discoveries render belief in these old myths a little silly and superstitious.

For many of us, it is easier to believe in a myth than accept scientific fact that challenges our current views. Change is hard for us old "believers". Evolution is a good thing, but very gradual. Living in the 21st Century is an amazing opportunity if we can see it.

RSK said...

When a parent dies, people often tell you "a part of him/her will always be with you". They're right, in the sense that you carry parts of their genetic code.

Anonymous said...

My ancestors originally came from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, and about half a million years ago they migrated first to Pluto and then to the moons of Jupiter. After 250,000 years on Ganymede, they made their way to Mars, from which a small group of them arrived on Earth about 6,000 years ago. One was named Adam and one was named Eve. We assimilated quite nicely into the prevailing culture on Earth. My documentation proving all this is from Trump Gnome.

Anonymous said...

It's a near law that if someone is very knowledgeable about a topic, and the other party is not, it is very easy for former to deceive or mislead the latter.

That is absolutely true, and I've seen scientists use that to deceive, intimidate, and confuse other scientists. It is sad because science, if done properly, would be the key to all attainable material knowledge, but often we can't even be sure what is good science and what is not because people are so deceitful. So both religion and science are contaminated, and perhaps always will be unless people become more honest.

Anonymous said...

Another rerun?

Allen Dexter said...

7;36. Science is self-correcting. Religion never allows correction.

nck said...

As if the Dutch would walk all that way Dennis!

Even at the the technology fair in San Francisco recently they sailed.

I did visit the 2 "Gaps" over at Turkmenistan - Iran and Uzbekistan through which modern man spilt into Asia. I am a bit disappointed that you do not acknowledge that the African rift and the Jordan Valley are one and the same system of another route.


Byker Bob said...

Oh, 7:36? We all know the key players in the Armstrong realm, who they are, and how they deceive. That is what is documented here on a daily basis using their own words and writings.

What specific cases of deceit can you cite from the world of science, using names of these scientists you have personally seen and worked with that we would know and recognize?

The problem in Armstrongism is that its promoters are not knowledgeable. They are familiar with the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, and can authoritatively present a barrage of his eisegesis, not allowing real hardball questions or challenges as they do this. They falsely co-opt peoples’ lives and exploit them.

Science and scientists put us on the moon. Rocketry and space travel are somewhat commonplace today, not even always newsworthy. During the same space in time, Armstrongism couldn’t even bring on the Germans or get us all to Petra.

A hypothetical deceitful scientist would be abusing or defying the professional disciplines of his field. Peer review elliminates, and corrects his “work”, and discredits him. Once repudiation has taken place, there are no second acts for the fraudsters. The teachers of Armstrongism can be aware that much of what they teach has been factually obliterated, yet without so much as a blink, they continue to excuse it from the normal verification process, and to teach it as fact. You see, the difference is that in the field of science, there is no such thing as revealed truth from “God’s Apostle”, and “Mr. Armstrong said” is not considered to be the highest level of proof.


Anonymous said...

"7;36. Science is self-correcting. Religion never allows correction."

Junk science and fake science do not correct themselves. What is passed off as science is often not science at all.

You are stuck in the false dichotomy fallacy, i.e. religion is bad so science is good. Actually, both can be bad because so-called science is often junk science or fake science.

Anonymous said...

"Junk Science" doesn't get very far with peer review and the scientific method. Junk Religion lives forever with no review and no repeatable and consistent results.

Anonymous said...

When my family did our DNA test it showed, as we already knew, that our genealogy dates back to the Anglo-Saxon all the back to Germany, but no trace of any DNA link into African origins. As someone told us when we were having our DNA tested he said "it isn't an exact science".

Byker Bob said...

Ok Anonymous 9:54. How about citing specific examples to support your premise. What are you thinking of as you write your nebulous accusations? Are you thinking that dna science is “junk” because it obliterates British Israelism? Do you think that the measurements and photos which support global climate change are junk science? Or that Satan falsified the geologic records which support God’s use of evolutionary processes in creation?

Nobody would argue with you if you cited a few bad apples from the scientific community spread out over the past 200 years. However, you are presenting from the standpoint of one who believes that fraud is so pervasive in science, that the entire field must be distrusted and rejected. 1) It is not possible to make that case. 2) Science in some form is the basis for all secular knowledge. 3) Total distrust for science would take humanity to a place worse than the Stone Age, because at least during the Stone Age, there was hope for discovery and a better future.

What is your agenda? What are you advocating? Where are you going with this? You can’t just make blanket, nebulous statements, with no examples or other types of support and expect people to accept or even discuss your ideas. You wouldn’t by chance be an ACOG minister, would you? I see similarity in mindset.


RSK said...

If you didnt go through 23andMe, you can probably download the raw data and transfer it to other companies for free analysis. There are a few markers of disputed provenance, especially in the popular companies that try to provide general, regional labels for the markers, especially with autosomal DNA.

Anonymous said...

Heres a good one for ya, Dennis. DNA identified an uncle we'd never known.
Yet because he was given up for adoption, he did not go into the COGs like his mother and siblings.
Now how do I explain that aspect of his birth family to him?

Dennis Diehl said...

Anon 1130. There are two different tests. One is for ancestors and one that goes back much much further based on mutations in the genome. Yours was andcestral..Anglo, German, Dutch Etc.It is not designed to show your African origins and route

Anonymous said...

Please read the following online article about fraud in science which you claim doesn't exist:

"Catastrophic Global Warming: Debate is Only Settled For Fanatics
Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades because they are not based on science but on government sponsored “research.”

James said...

Anon May 12, 2018 at 1:59 PM

Love Walter Williams. Tells it like it is.

Byker Bob said...

Why should I read an article by Walter Williams? Don’t you know that he’s one of Rush Limbaugh’s dittoheads, and guest hosts?

Seriously, there has been much broad-based climate research, and conducted by various entities which work independently from one another. While some are indeed bought and paid for, the truth comes out through the vast majority of peer-reviewed climatology scientists around the world who agree that global climate change exists. The only remaining debate is whether the climate change is due to natural periodic weather cycles, or is part of the ongoing Holocene Extinction, which encompasses much broader an array of phenomena and data than just climate statistics.

And of course, you will encounter all manner of talking heads on either extreme side of this debate who, rather than looking at the data, the time lapse photographs, the actual weather patterns, and the glaciers, will apply conspiracy theories to the opposing side as a weak method of countering the actual data. And the problem for one side of the argument is that nobody has photos documenting the regrowth of the glaciers, the cooling of the ice caps, renewed growth of coral where bleaching has occurred due to warmer ocean temps, and renewed health of the polar ice caps. (The hard right pointed to seasonal growth of salt water ice on the South Pole, but it has now been shown that the fresh water ice is melting from below). We’re just not seeing the permafrost whose thawing has unleashed even greater amounts of carbon into the atmosphere refreezing into its permanent state.

The disingenuousness and obfuscation which we see is not being caused by true research scientists. Science is being co-opted by politicians and political agendas. The “industry” and agenda-based scientists have whored themselves out for a price, and have postured themselves above the peer-review process.

Nonetheless, the scientific process works. The agenda-based science will soon disappear. I suspect that the partisan public will begin to understand when certain “miner’s canaries” suddenly die. As the naval bases in Norfolk become permanently flooded, and hence useless, and as coffee which requires some very specific climate constants in order to survive and thrive begins to disappear, and as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in the Norwegian Arctic suffers more floods and actual permanent damage, it will attract everyone’s immediate attention, as the truth will become obvious.

By the way, a number of scientists believe that we’ve already passed the point of no return.

I’ve got no dog in this fight. I’ll be gone when the really bad stuff kicks in. But, you younger guys (and gals) might want to read up on the Holocene Extinction, and also to take a detailed look into how man has pretty much killed the oceans starting with the highly efficient fishing factory ships that began decimating the oceans of their living creatures back in the mid-1970s.

Radical change, or “the end” is on the way. It’s just that it’s not Armstrongian. It’s Holocene!


Anonymous said...

This is ridiculous. You badger 9.54 AM with your 'where's you proof' plus attempt to smear his point of view by casting doubt on his motives, together with the accusation of possibly being a minister. Yet when a short article is pointed out, you respond with "why should I read (the) article," smear the author (again), then post a reply as long as the article itself. Let me quote from the article:

"The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty."

Retired Prof said...

While Walter Williams (quoted by Anon 10:40) is right that no science is ever completely settled, he is using that principle to minimize the value of scientific discovery by distorting the way science goes about its business. The strategy is described by Jeremy P. Shapiro in

"Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.

"I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist."

Anonymous said...

That was an honest question Dennis.

Anonymous said...

Retired Prof
Excellent quote. But what Jeremy Shapiro describes is not a one way, but a two way street. Some would accuse him of projecting his own followers behavior onto others.
If you recall, it used to be called 'global warming' (with all the associated 'proof'), until it became obvious that the world was cooling, so now it's 'global change.' When political ideology is involved, 'scientific proof' is always suspect.
I recall watching a TV documentary on the extreme left wing 1960's, and how it profoundly affected perceptions. I recall a woman chemist saying that you would think it was immune, but even chemistry was affected. Politics does distort science.

Byker Bob said...

Many folks have a problem in evaluating what is printed or spoken, and in isolating the materials which are based on fact and quality research. As former Armstrongites, partisan “group” thinking has delayed us from developing our discernment muscles.

Probably ten years ago, I laughed at the very idea of what was then called “global warming”. There are buzz words that can make you do that, like “junk science”, “Al Gore”, “wearing Birkenstock and driving Priuses”, “tree huggers”, “consumed with hatred for the American lifestyle”, “Communist Chinese plot”, etc. Regular listeners to AM talk radio have heard these cliches many times. Most people do not listen to both talk radio and National Public Radio, also mixing in science-based programs on PBS, and information from NASA. We hear about news being slanted, and to some, this means restricting their listening or viewing only to the resources which are slanted towards their own partisan way of thinking. Even fewer take discernment to a deeper level, identifying which of their own partisn sources are really informed and well researched, and which are questionable orators for the cause. Some will say or do anything just to support an agenda.

A truth seeker is not one who determines that either the liberal side or the conservative side is the exclusive bearer of truth. A truth seeker considers facts. There actually is some settled science to climate change, evidence which rises above all of the partisan rhetoric of climate change. Green house gases, as an example, are measurable. The accelerated progression of melting and erosion of large bodies of ice such as glaciers which feed the world’s great rivers is able to be documented by taking sequential photographs. Also, the polar icecaps. Warmer sea destruction of the coral reefs which are home to many aquatic creatures is measurable, and has been documented. When you have species that once abounded, and which don’t just “find some other place to go” after their habitat has disappeared, their deaths are measurable. In fact, what scientists have called the “Holocene Extinction” has radically accelerated since the Industrial Revolution, and especially over the past 50 years. If we are honest, most of us in our lifetimes have had a firsthand opportunity to observe shifting baselines, and not for the good. When species are extinct, that is settled science. So, there exists a considerable body of settled science in the basic framework, and further testing and evidence are filling in additional blanks.

What do humans do when they know a hurricane is imminent? They take precautionary steps, and make preparations to minimize the damage. The hurricane doesn’t always hit where anticipated, and doesn’t always inflict maximum damage. Whether it hits or not, it’s bad for business, because even preparations will disrupt. There are powerful business interests who don’t want their revenue stream disrupted by something that is far worse than a hurricane. Disruption to business would naturally be larger in scale because this is a global problem, not a localized one. As in the case of a hurricane yet out at sea, destructive forces can be measured in advance. Yet, incredibly, we have powerful forces telling us that the measurements are junk science, that we “elightened” ones must separate ourselves from the people who are actually preparing, and that we should even relax restrictions on greenhouse gases in the automotive industry and restore industrial usage of coal! We’re not only seceding from those who are preparing, we’re thumbing our noses at them as well. Hurricane or flood preparations demonstrate that whether or not man has caused a disaster, man can act to minimize or delay damage.

According to the frequently revised models, I won’t be around for the brunt of this. All I can do is write about it. In fact, there’s a song called “All I Can Do Is Write About It” on Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Gimme Back My Bullets”, classic rock from from 1976. It is an early address of what was then just beginning to emerge.