Such is your claim, based on ignorance and belief.
True on an individual basis, but not on a population basis. mDNA of Amerindians show no Hebrew origins.
True on an individual basis, but not on a population basis. The Y-chromosomes of Amerindians show no Hebrew origins.
It is your ignorance of the claims made (and the claims NOT made) in the Book of Mormon that has led you to believe that there
should be Hebrew genetic evidence in the Native American population today in order for the claims of the Book of Mormon to be true.
The Book of Mormon claims that:
1.) Two families – the family of Lehi and the family of Ishmael – migrated to the Americas on a single ship. The exact number of individuals was not recorded, however it can be estimated based on who were recorded as well as the mention of Lehi having daughters and Ishmael having sons (who also brought their families) that approximately 20-40 people came on that one ship.
2.) Another group of Hebrews came to the Americas and landed north of the Lehites and founded the city of Zarahemla. The exact number of these Hebrews was not recorded. A few centuries after their arrival they were introduced to the Nephites and they became one people.
3.) There were indigenous peoples living in the Americas before the arrival of the aforementioned Hebrews.
The Book of Mormon does
NOT claim that:
1.) A mass migration or exodus of Hebrews to the Americas took place.
2.) The aforementioned Hebrews were the
first or
only people to inhabit the Americas.
3.) The aforementioned Hebrews bred only amongst themselves or did not breed with any of the indigenous peoples that inhabited the Americas.
The fact that the Book of Mormon records very few Hebrews migrating to the Americas may account for the lack of Hebrew genetic evidence in the Native America populations today. The mtDNA and Y-chromosomes of the Hebrews would have been replaced only after a few generations.
This may be why they decided to refer to themselves after a new name (Nephites) rather than refer to themselves as Mannassehites after the custom of the Hebrews.
Remember the marble analogy given to you by rrosskopf? That analogy explains “genetic drift” and applies to the history of the Hebrews recorded in the Book of Mormon.
We need to also consider many events recorded in the Book of Mormon as well as what is known to have happened to the Meso-American peoples that would have caused a “bottle-neck” effect. This also may have attributed to the lack of Hebrew genetic evidence among the Native American populations today:
1.) The many wars, plagues and famines that had been recorded to have been wrought upon the Lehites throughout their history in the Americas.
2.) The great destruction by fire and natural disaster among the Lehites recorded to have happened immediately preceding the visitation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
3.) The genocide of the Nephite people recorded at the end of the Book of Mormon as well as the wars that were mentioned to have begun amongst the Lamanites after the Nephites were no more.
4.) The many millions of deaths among the Meso-American people caused by plague and violence upon the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors.
5.) The replacement of Native mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes with Spanish and other European mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes during the colonization of the Central and South American lands.
Then why have you been trumping around as if it was?
You [cannot] prove a negative, but highly indicative? Yes. The fact remains the mDNA, Y-chromosome and autosomal studies all fail to provide even a single indicator of [any] Hebrew origins.
The mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes of a small group of people mingling with the indigenous population could be completely replaced after only a few generations.
What you have shared may be “highly indicative” of doubt concerning
the ignorant assumptions you made about the claims of the Book of Mormon, but it does not disprove the
actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.
Sure, and it is possible, unlikely but possible, for a blind man to walk the length of Manhattan Island, unassisted and unaided and not trip once or be hit by a car.
Yes, the false narrative that you devised is very unlikely.
You are clutching at straws and confusing infinitesimal probabilities with likely events based on a semantic game with "weasel words" like "could."
Again, your
false assumptions about the claims of the Book of Mormon may be an “infinitesimal possibility”.
I don’t understand your vehemence concerning the word “could”.
I never claimed to know everything and the Book of Mormon claims that not everything about the Lehites had been recorded, so a lot of what we are discussing dwells within the “realm of possibility”.
If the Book of Mormon does not record something I cannot claim that that something did or did not happen, so I use the word ”could”. It could have happened or it could not have happened.
Again you are asking for proof of a negative, a waste of time.
You were the one who claimed that “The obstacles you've "discovered" are "readily ignored" by every major genetics authority out there.”
I was merely asking you to supply evidence of that claim. Which geneticist claimed that “genetic drift” and “bottle-necking” could be ignored?
The honest question is, "Where is the evidence that bottlenecking or genetic drift removed all traces of Hebrew DNA from the Mesoamerican population and how likely is it that this might have [occurred]?"
That is a good question and the answer could be found in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon clearly states that very few Hebrews were introduced to the Americas.
The Book of Mormon clearly states that there were other indigenous peoples living in the Americas before the introduction of those Hebrews.
The Book of Mormon recorded many events that led to massive loss of life among the Lehites which would generate a “bottle-neck” effect.
You don't get it, the specific words of the con-man are not particularity relevant. My criticisms are based not on such foolishness but on (as preciously stated and standing unrefuted), "... the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man"
So, what you are saying is, you don’t care to correctly quote the Prophet or to accurately present the claims made in the Book of Mormon?
It is just like what I said then. You are creating false narratives concerning LDS beliefs and the claims of the Book of Mormon and then “disproving” them.
You keep mentioning all these “professional scientific disciplines” without quoting them.
Is that because you don’t know how to correctly quote someone, like how you are unable to do so for the Prophet?
Again, a semantic game that relies on the fact that an honest scientist will never state that anything is fact, only that there is an extreme likelihood. You see, science makes no pretense at being "revealed" knowledge.
Then why have you been acting as if you have established facts?
Besides, if all the “professional scientific disciplines” are busy focusing on the false narratives generated by you and others – then their opinion doesn’t really matter.
Anyways, I don’t mind waiting for science to catch up while you can’t wait to make the claim that everything we believe in is nonsense.
This leads me to believe that your conclusion is not based solely on science (as you claim), but also upon your personal preference.