The evidence cited in the opening post seems to support the idea that a group of refugees or invaders could transmit less genetic material to the surviving populace than expected. No one has ever contended otherwise.
Specifically, the Book of Mormon tells a completely different story about a group of colonists who filled up an empty land with their descendants. It tells a story that fits the popular thinking of Joseph Smith's time like hand in glove and explains the origins of the Native Americans. Except that it doesn't because of DNA and additional types of evidence.
Fiannan wrote:Why would Alma make such a big deal of bieing a direct descendant of Lehi if all Nephites and Lamanies shared the same origins?
Because the 19th century author of the Book of Mormon really wanted to explain the origin of the Native Americans as lost Semites, incidentally descendant from the fictional Father Lehi of Jerusalem. The character "Alma" was just a mouthpiece for the author.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Fiannan wrote:Why would Alma make such a big deal of bieing a direct descendant of Lehi if all Nephites and Lamanies shared the same origins?
Because some of the people in Lehi's party were relatives of Ishmael. The Book of Mormon accounts for people who came to America from Jerusalem circa 600 B.C.E., but were not part of Lehi's parentage.
See also:Mulekites.
There are no people mentioned in the Book of Mormon who did not come from Jerusalem, except the Jaredites, who were extinct except for one person by the time Lehi's party arrived.
The story also seems to indicate the mulekites were a much larger group then those who followed King Mosiah into the wilderness.
I'm glad no one is suggesting that the Viking raids and conquests in England were borne from the fervid imagination of some monk, who may or may not have borrowed the purloined runes of Solomon Erikson.
karl61 wrote:Please read relics of eden by former BYU professor daniel fairbanks. It will help you understand DNA and migration.
Care to summarize Fairbanks' argument for us?
Sorry I only have a phone to respond plus there are a lot of good reviews out there. Mitochondrial dna is used to show migration. Science books that I read report it
Darth J wrote:Because some of the people in Lehi's party were relatives of Ishmael. The Book of Mormon accounts for people who came to America from Jerusalem circa 600 B.C.E., but were not part of Lehi's parentage.
See also:Mulekites.
There are no people mentioned in the Book of Mormon who did not come from Jerusalem, except the Jaredites, who were extinct except for one person by the time Lehi's party arrived.
The story also seems to indicate the mulekites were a much larger group then those who followed King Mosiah into the wilderness.
I've blissfully forgotten about Mulekites, anyone what to give me the Readers Digest version?
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.