# Shroud of Turin...is this still a controversy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 15, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517 "2010-03-15T04:11:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/41 "2010-03-15T20:33:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > My claim is fully supported. You’re grasping at straws. The way to rebut is by showing evidence for the date you would like to be true, not just by trying to make specious arguments for gaps in my cites. For what it’s worth, here is the [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Blood_stains): > > The ball is in your court. Your thesis that the A and B groups were intermingled in Palestine before the 1st Century is based on what evidence? Well, that statement in wikipedia is not sourced, but if you look at the source for the end of that paragraph, you find: > [@](#): > > Blood group A is found in the highest concentrations among western Europeans. Unlike blood groups B and O, there are many varieties of group A. The major grouping, A1, accounts for about ninety-five percent of all A blood. The largest subgroup, A2, is found principally in Northern Caucasians. A2 is found in very high concentration in Iceland and Scandinavia, particularly among the Lapps, ancient settlers of the area. They are almost unique in their high frequency of A, and have the highest frequency of A2, registering forty-two percent in one group. The A2 gene is almost entirely confined to Caucasian populations. > > ``` > The European frequency of group A decreases as we head eastwards. Over much of Europe the frequency of the A gene is greater than twenty-five percent. It is also found in considerable numbers around the entire Mediterranean Sea, particularly in Corsica, Sardinia, Spain, Turkey, and the Balkans. It is clear that humankind most often laid down permanent settlements in those areas where conditions offered them the best chance of survival. > > ``` > > \ > > In the Middle-East it appears that tribes of Semitic group B nomads may have infiltrated into pre-existing Neolithic cultures, both passively and aggressively. Semitic peoples called the Hyksos were foreign rulers of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period. Exactly who those foreign rulers were is not known, but it is assumed they were Asiatics. The Egyptian term for Hyksos merely means “rulers of foreign lands.” It was once thought that foreign rule in Egypt would have necessarily entailed a violent overthrow, but instead there is the appearance of a peaceful takeover. More likely, the numbers of these foreigners slowly increased in the Delta region until they became a powerful political force. Under the rule of the Hyksos, the continuity of Egyptian culture and ritual was preserved, indicating that these foreign kings had become fully Egyptianized. Persian suzerainty may have also added large amount of B gene to the upper-class Egyptian gene pool, since a third century BC Egyptian mummy, ‘Iset Iri Hetes’ was recently typed and found to be group B. (18) Interestingly, Africa in general (independent of any racial categorization) has a higher incidence of group B than Europe or the Middle East. Whether this is the result of intermingling or the original B gene pool is unknown, however it does imply that the links between ancient Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa are deeper and older than generally recognized. > > The blood group characteristics of the various Jewish populations have long been of interest to anthropologists. As a general rule, regardless of their nationality or race, there is a trend towards higher than average rates of blood group B. The Ashkenazim of Eastern Europe and the Sephardim of the Middle East and Africa, the two major sects, share high rates of group B blood and bear no discernible differences. So, we have type B in an area known to also have type A. The wikipedia article takes exerpts from that source, and doesn’t make a clear distinction when it is talking about Europe or when it is talking about Eurasia or Asia. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/42 "2010-03-15T20:40:46Z")
> [@](#): > > primary relics (part of a person) are more valuable than secondary relics (something they touched). In general, yes, but on the other hand, relics associated with Jesus himself are a lot more valuable than relics associated with mere saints. Assuming that the objects could be verified (or at least, the buyer conned into thinking they were), a fragment of the True Cross (even without bloodstains) would probably be worth a lot more than the thighbone of St. Kunegunda. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/43 "2010-03-15T20:43:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, that statement in wikipedia is not sourced Yes it is. There are two sources, one of which was linkable (and which is the source I quoted from above). The other is cited, but to a book, not a linkable source. You quoted from the wrong cite. The relevant numbers are #72 and #73. You quoted from #75, which is immaterial. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/44 "2010-03-16T00:12:35Z")
> [@PlainJain](#): > > This has been demonstrated not to be the case. If you wrap a cloth around a human head and measure the distance between the ears you will see that it is quite a bit bigger than the measurement on the shroud. It will also be quite distorted and not look anything like the shroud. I said it was possible **a** contact method was used. The one you refer to wouldn’t work, for the reason you give. But that’s not the only possible contact method. Researchers and ‘sindonologists’ have tried all sorts of different contact methods, some of which compensate for exactly the kinds of problems and flaws that you cite. For example, they have experimented with methods where only a part of the cloth touches the body/model at any given time (a bit like rolling a curved printing plate on to paper and creating a perfectly flat image). Or methods where the cloth is stretched laterally first, before being laid on the body/model. The impression is taken, the stretching is reversed or undone, and the lateral distortion of the face disappears and a ‘normal-ish’ image results. All I’m saying is, there are a zillion variations and someone, somewhere has tried them all. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/45 "2010-03-16T01:55:44Z")
> [@johnpost](#): > > … i don’t recall i ever heard a claim of the ‘holy placenta’. I believe, that’s because of the “First Supper”. :eek: CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/46 "2010-03-16T01:58:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They also identified it as type AB which didn’t exist until the 7th Century. excuse me? How do we know that AB did not exist until the 7th century? Am I to believe that a person with A never boffed a person with B and had a sprog with AB? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/47 "2010-03-16T02:01:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes it does. > > No intermingling of groups until 300-800 CE. A and B were separate until then. > > It doesn’t specify Europe. > > If you can show evidence for type AB in 1st Century Asia (or anywhere else in the world), cough it up. Urumchi. Caucasians present as far back as 4000. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/48 "2010-03-16T02:02:20Z")
I’ve already provided the cites. Those populations did not intermingles significantly before the 4th Century, and no example of type type AB has been found before 700 CE. As I also said above, it’s a moot point anyway since no blood has been found on the shroud. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/49 "2010-03-16T02:09:26Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Urumchi. Caucasians present as far back as 4000. Show an example of AB blood before 700 CE. A couple of bronze age whiteys in China is not evidence of a type AB blood group in 1st Century Palestine. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/50 "2010-03-16T02:16:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes it is. There are two sources, one of which was linkable (and which is the source I quoted from above). The other is cited, but to a book, not a linkable source. You quoted from the wrong cite. The relevant numbers are #72 and #73. You quoted from #75, which is immaterial. No. I quoted #73, not 75. Give it up, **Dio**. The shroud is almost certainly a fake, but that does not mean that everything you read on the internet about it being a fake is true. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/51 "2010-03-16T02:17:52Z")
You quoted #75. Look again. **I** quoted #73. Give it up. You thought you had a point, but you didn’t. move on. ---
**Author:** ![wedgehed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8edcca/32.png) [@wedgehed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wedgehed)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/52 "2010-03-16T02:21:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Show an example of AB blood before 700 CE. A couple of bronze age whiteys in China is not evidence of a type AB blood group in 1st Century Palestine. Wasn’t that area a crossroads for pretty much everywhere else? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/53 "2010-03-16T02:29:26Z")
For the Mediterranean. Not for the Far East. The A group is not just anyone from Asia, but specifically Mongolic peoples of the Far East. Semitic peoples are caucasoid. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/54 "2010-03-16T02:33:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You quoted #75. Look again. **I** quoted #73. Give it up. You thought you had a point, but you didn’t. move on. Check this. I made a mistake. You were quoting from the same source as I was. It’s still immaterial. The hypothetical presense of semites (and the Hyksos genetic identity is actually unknown) in Egypt does not equate to A groups beingporesent in 1st century Palestine and does not alter that the fact that no AB has been discovered before 700 CE. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/55 "2010-03-16T02:43:10Z")
Wait, “hypothetical presence of Semites in Egypt”? How is that in any way hypothetical? Isn’t almost the entire population of Egypt Semitic? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/56 "2010-03-16T02:57:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Wait, “hypothetical presence of Semites in Egypt”? How is that in any way hypothetical? Isn’t almost the entire population of Egypt Semitic? Sorry. I got my signal scrambled on that post. I meant to say hypothetical presence of _Asiatics_, not semites. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/57 "2010-03-16T05:06:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Check this. I made a mistake. You were quoting from the same source as I was. It’s still immaterial. The hypothetical presense of semites (and the Hyksos genetic identity is actually unknown) in Egypt does not equate to A groups beingporesent in 1st century Palestine and does not alter that the fact that no AB has been discovered before 700 CE. Dude, you quoted from a site called “Eat right for your blood type”. Sorry, but fad diet sites aren’t what I trust to give me facts. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/58 "2010-03-16T05:15:35Z")
Wikipedia linked to it because it was linkable, but the material is excerpted from _The Blood Type Encyclopedia_, as I already pointed out when I posted it. This is beneath you. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/59 "2010-03-16T05:47:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > [Excerpted from _The complete Blood Type Encylopedia_](http://www.dadamo.com/knowbase/theory/anthro.htm) > > Wiki says that the earliest dating found for type AB is 700 CE, but that’s Wiki, so take it for what it’s worth. The source quoted above suggests that it was even later than that. Your cite is from Peter D’Adamo: > **[Blood type diet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_diet)** > > The blood type diets are fad diets advocated by several authors, the most prominent of whom is Peter J. D'Adamo. These diets are based on the notion that blood type, according to the ABO blood group system, is the most important factor in determining a healthy diet, and each author recommends a distinct diet for each blood type. > The consensus among dietitians, physicians, and scientists is that these diets are unsupported by scientific evidence. > In what was apparently the first study testing wh... "T_he blood type diet is a diet advocated by Peter D’Adamo, a naturopathic physician, and outlined in his book Eat Right 4 Your Type. D’Adamo’s claim is that ABO blood type is the most important factor in determining a healthy diet, and he promotes distinct diets for people with O, A, B, and AB blood types. Throughout his books D’Adamo cites the works of biochemists and glycobiologists who have researched blood groups, claiming or implying that their research supports this theory. Nevertheless, the consensus among dieticians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] .[8]"_ It goes on to say " **Blood type evolution issues** \*In a Brazilian medical research journal, Luiz C. de Mattos and Haroldo W. Moreira point out that D’Adamo’s assertion that the O blood type was the first human blood type requires that the O gene evolved before the A and B genes in the ABO locus.[18] However, phylogenetic networks of human and non-human ABO alleles show that the A gene was the first to evolve.[19] The authors argue that, in the evolutionary sense, it would be extraordinary for normal genes (those for types A and B) to have evolved from abnormal genes (for type O). Yamamoto et al. further note: ``` Although the O blood type is common in all populations around the world,[20] there is no evidence that the O gene represents the ancestral gene at the ABO locus. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that a defective gene would arise spontaneously and then evolve into normal genes.[21] ``` Another study from 2004 concluded that: “Assuming constancy of evolutionary rate, diversification of the representative alleles of the three human ABO lineages (A101, B101, and O02) was estimated at 4.5 to 6 million years ago.”[22] This finding directly contradicts D’Adamo’s assertion of blood type evolution.\*" It’s about as valuable as quoting a Homeopath site on the the germ theory of disease. In other words, it’s complete bullcrap. He’s a complete nutter, and about as scientific as a Astrologer. The whole title of his book is “The Eat Right 4 Your Type Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia” or as you put it “The Blood Type Encyclopedia”. He is the only author with any title like The Blood Type Encyclopedia. The cite for your wiki quote is " “_Peter D’Adamo_: ‘‘Blood groups and the history of peoples.’’ In: ‘‘_Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia._’’”. [Dadamo.com](http://Dadamo.com). 1999-01-15. [http://www.dadamo.com/knowbase/theory/anthro.htm](http://www.dadamo.com/knowbase/theory/anthro.htm). Retrieved 2009-04-12." In other words, cynics have used a bogus cite to prove a point on wiki. Shock!:eek: (italics mine) Try Googling it. This is what wiki sez about bloodtypes: "_Some evolutionary biologists theorize that the IA allele evolved earliest, followed by O (by the deletion of a single nucleotide, shifting the reading frame) and then IB.[citation needed] This chronology accounts for the percentage of people worldwide with each blood type. It is consistent with the accepted patterns of early population movements and varying prevalent blood types in different parts of the world: for instance, B is very common in populations of Asian descent, but rare in ones of Western European descent.) Another theory states that there are four main lineages of the ABO gene and that mutations creating type O have occurred at least three times in humans.[21] From oldest to youngest, these lineages comprise the following alleles: A101/A201/O09, B101, O02 and O01. The continued presence of the O alleles is hypothesized to be the result of balancing selection.[21] Both theories contradict the previously-held theory that type O blood evolved earliest, supported by the fact that all human beings (except Type hh) can receive it.[citation needed] The British National Blood Transfusion Service states this to be the case (see the web-link under External Links below) and says that originally all human beings were type O._ Nothing as strong as a specific date. The actual scientists say _“4.5 to 6 million years ago.”_ wiki "Roubinet F, Despiau S, Calafell F, Jin F, Bertranpetit J, Saitou N, Blancher A. Evolution of the O alleles of the human ABO blood group gene. Transfusion.2004 May;44(5):707-15 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15104652](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15104652) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2010, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517/60 "2010-03-16T06:00:50Z")
PS- would some SDMB wiki editor go in and fix the Shroud of Turin page and get rid of that worthless cite from the crackpot? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shroud-of-turin-is-this-still-a-controversy/532517.md?page=4)