Horses in the Book of Mormon

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Please provide a source. I'd be very interested in reading about such a discovery.

See Peter J. Schmidt, "La entrada del hombre a la peninsula de Yucatan," in Origines del Hombre Americano, comp. Alba Gonzalez Jacome (Mexico: Secretaria de Educacion Publica, 1988), 250.

Quote

The fact remains, however, that the Spaniards had access to Appaloosa from early on (see the illustration from the 8th century, for example), so it is not inconceivable that they would have brought those horses with them. There simply is no reason to assert that Appaloosa horses must have already been there. As Clark noted, there's no solid evidence of horse bones dating to pre-Columbian times, other than pleistocene-era horses.

And there is is no evidence to assert the Spanish must have brought the Appaloosa. It is mere presupposition, which actually seems rather unlikely. Then there is also the S. American Curly which Darwin noted in his travels - yet another far eastern horse also found in the Americas.

Quote

My understanding is that the ice age hit North America particularly hard, leading to horse extinction. Dr. Steven Stanley of Johns Hopkins suggests pleistocene horses became extinct due to the change in climate making it harder for them to get proper nutrition from available grasses. 

https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/espm-186/Unit_I_(cont)_files/horse extinctions II.pdf

Anyway, the lack of horses in Mesoamerica is suggested by a host of different factors in the archaeological and environmental record. I never say never, but thus far, I have not seen any solid evidence that Mesoamericans had access to horses. 

Yes, the ice age was particularly severe in N. America, but there is solid evidence that horses survived to the end of the ice age even in a place as hostile as Alaska. There is little reason to believe they wouldn't have survived in other tundra as well.

Just to be clear I am not arguing that horse survived in Mesoamerica. I don't believe they did to the time of the European discovery. There were too many humans there. That is why I believe virtually all large fauna went extinct there, which would otherwise have survived the ice age there. Horse apparently survived one of the longest periods, but I believe they too were eventually hunted to extinction.

Edited August 13, 2018 by RevTestament

[jkwilliams]

Just now, RevTestament said:

See Peter J. Schmidt, "La entrada del hombre a la peninsula de Yucatan," in Origines del Hombre Americano, comp. Alba Gonzalez Jacome (Mexico: Secretaria de Educacion Publica, 1988), 250.

Will have to read that. Thanks for the link.

Quote

And there is is no evidence to assert the Spanish must have brought the Appaloosa. It is mere presupposition, which actually seems rather unlikely. Then there is also the S. American Curly which Darwin noted in his travels - yet another far eastern horse also found in the Americas.

Presupposition is actually good enough in this case, as there's no reason to presuppose that Appaloosas and Curly Horses were in the Americas before Columbus. Acknowledging that both breeds could have been brought over by the Spanish is far less speculative than the idea that these were native horses before Columbus in America. I guess it comes down to Occam's Razor.

[jkwilliams]

I knew this Peter Schmidt stuff sounded familiar. Chris Smith managed to locate the Spanish text, and I translated it for him (you can read about it on MormonThink). Anyway, here is the relevant section:

Quote

”Critical for associating human industry with pleistocene fauna is layer VIII, where there is no ceramic but where lithic tools and many horse remains appear. But unfortunately there are horse [remains] in layers VII and VI and also a very small quantity in layer V, all three containing ceramics. 

Obviously there is some disturbance in these layers. Rodents as well as the most common mammals from the cave stand out in studies of the cave's fauna. 

The only radiocarbon dating published (1805 +- 150) BC was taken using a combined sample of various pieces of charcoal and belongs to the area of contact between layers VII and VIII. 

The stratigraphic and faunal analyses clearly establish that the excavated sediments must have accumulated from the Pleistocene era to the present, with heavy interference at least from layer VII on up. Only layer VIII remains a possible area of occurrence of both lithic material and pleistocene bones in a primary context. Unfortunately in neither this layer or others is there direct association of human tools with the bones, nor are there fire holes where charcoal or bones were clearly used or worked. The same is true with layer VII (El Tunel) (p 253).”

[After discussing flora found in the cave]. The situation in terms of fauna is more complicated. The majority of the animals discovered are represented since the Pleistocene era, having their origins in some of the neo-arctic and neotropical fauna. Studying in detail only the rodents, a sequence of types of vegetation the caves' surroundings was established that is very similar to that accomplished by means of pollen: layers before XIII-B, grassland; layers XIII and XII-L, medium jungle; layers XII-K to VIII, once again grassland; and from VII to I the current vegetation. These changes were not sudden but rather constitute advances and declines of the jungle with greater or lesser extension of the grasslands, where large animals and certain specialized rodents lived. 

Once again the end of pleistocene conditions appears to be situated in the region of layers VIII and VII of the well "El Toro." Of the four extinct pleistocene species (Mammut americanum, Canis diris, Tanupolama, and Equus conversidens) and the three whose distribution receded more to the north (Bison bison, Canis lupus, and Canis latrans) five did not occur above layer VIII in "El Toro" and layer VII-F in "El Tunel." [The exceptions are the bison with three problematic examples in layer VI of "El Toro" and the horse, with 44 fragments in layers VII, VI, and V (all with ceramics), in "El Toro" and 59 fragments en the subdivisions VII-B and VII-E in "El Tunel." What is clear is that the presence of the horse Equus conversidens alone cannot be sufficient to declare a layer as pleistocene in its entirety, given the long series of combinations of this species with later materials in the collections of Mercer, Hatt, and others. Something happened here that is still difficult to explain. Horse bones seem to have formed the last layer of the Pleistocene or Epi-Pleistocene in various caves, or they must have been dragged into the caves decades up to millenia later, something that is difficult to accept given the climatic conditions of the Tropics. If we postulate a longer survival of the horse than that of other pleistocene animals to explain this situation, it would have to extend until almost the beginning of the ceramic epoch, which would not please the paleontologists.

Lithic Loltun also has not been been very amenable [to exploration]. There are very few well-defined techniques for dealing with stone fragments and cores; such techniques have varied widely from the beginning to the end. One of the reasons may derive from the uselessness of local flint for fine work. In the layers considered to be pre-ceramic there are very few tools: scrapers, shavers, knife-scrapers, jagged-edged tools (denticulados), and one sharp-ended tool (punta), all being of a very reduced size and totaling no more than 11 objects. Production techniques are limited to marginal finishing using stone chips and plates as the primary materials. 

It may seem excessive the detail with which we have described the evidence that is so hard to understand about Loltun. But I believe that it is necessary because of the site's possible importance and because the findings have become widely known without specifying that the usable data until now are few and weak. Loltun has been incorporated into general theories about Mayan archeology and about the origins of humans in Mesoamerica. 

Some authors limit themselves to mentioning an association between stone artifacts and Pleistocene animal bones, for others there is an association [p. 256] with Mammoth bones, and in a summary of the most relevant Mayan archeology in the last few years the long stratified sequence and the appearance of ceramics supposedly dated in 1800 BC is indicated. Regarding this last date, we must emphasize that among the first pots found in layer VII of "El Toro" there appear some fragments having characteristics of early pottery, but comparisons with material from Chiapas and from the Swazey complex in Belize have not given positive results, so the most probable date is Middle Preclassic. 

The preceramic lithic material from Loltun has been tentatively assigned, because of its primitive and irregular character, to very early stages, before 14,000 BC. Others place it in the transition between the Pleistocene and Holocene and compare it with the complex of La Piedra del Coyote in the Guatemalan highlands and phase I of the Cave of Santa Martha in Chiapas. In this case it would have an age somewhere around 8000 to 10000 BC. It would be a manifestation of the Superior Cenolithic or until the Proto-Neolithic, or in other words, the Archaic. 

In view of the evidence I have described, I lean toward the second possibility, and it is possible that its antiquity could be less, if we consider the continuity of the lithic of the Preclassic. 

There is much left to do at Loltun. We are sure that there is an association of humans with pleistocene animals, but we must look in the part that has not yet been excavated for unmistakable evidence, where the strata have not been disturbed, where there is direct association of tools and bones, and direct action with the animals. We lack explicit traces of human visits to the cave as a home, places of work, or remains of other cultural elements besides only stone chips, and in the end, remains of prehistoric humans themselves." (pp. 254-55)

In short, Schmidt argues that the horse bones belong to the Pleistocene era, which is what we would expect. For the life of me, I don't know why this is touted as evidence of horses surviving past the Pleistocene.

ETA: He argues that there are two options: they are from the pleistocene, or they were "dragged into the caves decades up to millenia later," which he finds "difficult to accept." Apparently, when he says, "Something happened here that is still difficult to explain," he's talking about human interaction with pleistocene animals. "There is much left to do at Loltun. We are sure that there is an association of humans with pleistocene animals, but we must look in the part that has not yet been excavated for unmistakable evidence, where the strata have not been disturbed, where there is direct association of tools and bones, and direct action with the animals. We lack explicit traces of human visits to the cave as a home, places of work, or remains of other cultural elements besides only stone chips, and in the end, remains of prehistoric humans themselves."

Edited August 13, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

My guess is that the 240 km figure may be the total length of all or part of the El Mirador sacbe system, but again, that's just a guess. 

Mind you, sacbe width is just one of a multitude of archaeological clues that tell us Mesoamericans didn't have access to beasts of burden. A non-specific quote from a web site doesn't add much to the equation.

I agree that the 240 Km is probably the total length of the causeways. However, Doctor Hansen does tell us that the intersite causeways were all pretty wide. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323172522

Quote

the Mirador, Nakbe, and Tintal causeways link the sites of Nakbe, El Mirador, and Tintal..................
The massive size of these major causeways, some of which extended to more than 24 km in length, and range from 24 to 40 m wide (the Sacalero causeway near the Cascabel Group at El Mirador is 50 m wide) and 2 to 6 m high, incorporated massive amounts of labor and materials in their construction and their periodic maintenance.

The Sacelero causeway evidently is intrasite but the El Mirado to Nakbe and Elmirado to Tintal are inersite. Tintal also has causeways that connect to a couple of other sites, and one of those sites connect back to El Mirado but I can find no descriptive information. As I noted before, I am not even arguing that horses or other types of beasts of burden were used, only that the causeways listed were suitable for theur use.

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I agree that the 240 Km is probably the total length of the causeways. However, Doctor Hansen does tell us that the intersite causeways were all pretty wide. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323172522

The Sacelero causeway evidently is intrasite but the El Mirado to Nakbe and Elmirado to Tintal are inersite. Tintal also has causeways that connect to a couple of other sites, and one of those sites connect back to El Mirado but I can find no descriptive information. As I noted before, I am not even arguing that horses or other types of beasts of burden were used, only that the causeways listed were suitable for theur use.

Glenn

Fair enough. I will amend my statement to say that "some" of the sacbeob may have been suitable for beasts of burden. Again, there's no evidence they were.

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I knew this Peter Schmidt stuff sounded familiar. Chris Smith managed to locate the Spanish text, and I translated it for him (you can read about it on MormonThink). Anyway, here is the relevant section:

In short, Schmidt argues that the horse bones belong to the Pleistocene era, which is what we would expect. For the life of me, I don't know why this is touted as evidence of horses surviving past the Pleistocene.

Because he excuses where the bones were found. Since he believes they must date to the Pleistocene, he makes up unsupported alternatives. Does it really matter what he believes? Are you prepared to argue with him that a rat dug up the bones and threw them into a higher layer? - a rat dug up 6000 year old bones..... OK. 

Nevertheless, we have a solid carbon date placing the layers with the horse bones to BoM times. It is decent evidence whether Schmidt accepts it or not. As more evidence is found laggers such as Schmidt often change their minds.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Because he excuses where the bones were found. Since he believes they must date to the Pleistocene, he makes up unsupported alternatives. Does it really matter what he believes? Are you prepared to argue with him that a rat dug up the bones and threw them into a higher layer? - a rat dug up 6000 year old bones..... OK. 

Nevertheless, we have a solid carbon date placing the layers with the horse bones to BoM times. It is decent evidence whether Schmidt accepts it or not. As more evidence is found laggers such as Schmidt often change their minds.

The problem, of course, is that the layers have been disturbed, making it difficult to assign a date (the carbon date is for charcoal in the layers). You may think his guesses are unsupported, but there is certainly no support for the notion that these bones date to the Book of Mormon era, which is the original claim by apologists citing Schmidt. 

But assuming you're right that Schmidt is a "lagger." What evidence has emerged since 1988 that would make him likely to change his mind? 

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem, of course, is that the layers have been disturbed, making it difficult to assign a date (the carbon date is for charcoal in the layers). You may think his guesses are unsupported, but there is certainly no support for the notion that these bones date to the Book of Mormon era, which is the original claim by apologists citing Schmidt. 

But assuming you're right that Schmidt is a "lagger." What evidence has emerged since 1988 that would make him likely to change his mind? 

That's like insisting on standing by guesses for population densities in Mayan civilization before LiDAR showed they must be wrong. New evidence has a way of doing that. A few more archaeological finds is all it can take - or a new technology when brings new light on the subject - like dating the bones themselves more accurately than carbon 14 can.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That's like insisting on standing by guesses for population densities in Mayan civilization before LiDAR showed they must be wrong. New evidence has a way of doing that. A few more archaeological finds is all it can take - or a new technology when brings new light on the subject - like dating the bones themselves more accurately than carbon 14 can.

Again, 30 years have passed since Schmidt’s speculations. Has anyone confirmed the Loltun dates? You act as if it’s unreasonable to be reluctant to accept your reading of a 30-year old essay with no other data available. 

[PacMan]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

You would almost have to believe that the Spanish had colonies in Asia for 300 years.

 

I would be obliged if you'd name the particular Spanish colony that bred Curly horses, note the time of the colonization, and then show how they ended up in the Americas.  Last time I checked, the Curly horse wasn't native to the Phillipines and Marianas.

If you're going to try to trump the conversation of horses in America with "the Spanish brought them" without more, then this whole thread is a waste of time.  Your explanation for the Curly horse is completely speculative and you have no sound evidence to explain how they got not only to North America, but also to South America.  The current science is, quite simply, a big "we don't know."  Consequently, you have very little to hang your hat on.  To the contrary, Joseph Smith can hang his hat on the fact that horses are known to exist in the Americas anciently, existed by the 19th Century, have the same genetic make-up of those ancient American horses now thought extinct, and no one can quite conclude how many (namely the Curly) got here.  Frankly, that's a pretty good recipe to rebut the popular thinking that horses didn't exist here until the Spanish brought them.  That you're doggedly opposed to the notion, I suppose, is no surprise.

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I would be obliged if you'd name the particular Spanish colony that bred Curly horses, note the time of the colonization, and then show how they ended up in the Americas.  Last time I checked, the Curly horse wasn't native to the Phillipines and Marianas.

If you're going to try to trump the conversation of horses in America with "the Spanish brought them" without more, then this whole thread is a waste of time.  Your explanation for the Curly horse is completely speculative and you have no sound evidence to explain how they got not only to North America, but also to South America.  The current science is, quite simply, a big "we don't know."  Consequently, you have very little to hang your hat on.  To the contrary, Joseph Smith can hang his hat on the fact that horses are known to exist in the Americas anciently, existed by the 19th Century, have the same genetic make-up of those ancient American horses now thought extinct, and no one can quite conclude how many (namely the Curly) got here.  Frankly, that's a pretty good recipe to rebut the popular thinking that horses didn't exist here until the Spanish brought them.  That you're doggedly opposed to the notion, I suppose, is no surprise.

Yes, the science is a big we don’t know, yet you’re claiming “Game. Set. Match.” I’m not doggedly opposed to any notion except those that have no evidence, such as the notion that the curly horse predates the arrival of the Spanish. If you have some evidence for that notion, please present it. 

[PacMan]

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, the science is a big we don’t know, yet you’re claiming “Game. Set. Match.” I’m not doggedly opposed to any notion except those that have no evidence, such as the notion that the curly horse predates the arrival of the Spanish. If you have some evidence for that notion, please present it. 

Ummm...that Darwin saw them in Paraguay early in the 19th Century IS evidence.  The burden is now on the critic to show that the existence was limited and not native.  I don't have to prove a negative.  That's what you're asking.

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Ummm...that Darwin saw them in Paraguay early in the 19th Century IS evidence.  The burden is now on the critic to show that the existence was limited and not native.  I don't have to prove a negative.  That's what you're asking.

Darwin probably saw lots of things. You are asserting that curly horses are native. CFR that they are native to the Americas. I have no burden of proof because I’m not claiming a definite origin. You are. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Fair enough. I will amend my statement to say that "some" of the sacbeob may have been suitable for beasts of burden. Again, there's no evidence they were.

I'll take that and agree with you all of the way. Never thought I would see the day.

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I'll take that and agree with you all of the way. Never thought I would see the day.

Glenn

I think you may believe I’m more set in my beliefs than I am. I’m happy to learn new things and admit when I’m wrong. 

[PacMan]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Darwin probably saw lots of things. You are asserting that curly horses are native. CFR that they are native to the Americas. I have no burden of proof because I’m not claiming a definite origin. You are. 

jkwilliams, you don't understand how evidence or burden work.  Things are as they appear, unless proven otherwise.  The Curly was part of the Americas from our earliest Western records.  That, alone, is sufficient evidence for nativity.  If someone believes otherwise, it is their burden to prove it.  So to the point you believe you have no burden, I am glad you have finally accepted that the Curly horse is native to the Americas and that the BoMs references therein are spot on.

In any event, the dispute is one made by the critics that horses did not exist in the Americas during BoM times.  That they make the claim, it is their burden to prove it.  And to the point that science (common sense aside) does not support that claim, they have nothing to go on.  They lose.  End of story.

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, PacMan said:

jkwilliams, you don't understand how evidence or burden work.  Things are as they appear, unless proven otherwise.  The Curly was part of the Americas from our earliest Western records.  That, alone, is sufficient evidence for nativity.  If someone believes otherwise, it is their burden to prove it.  So to the point you believe you have no burden, I am glad you have finally accepted that the Curly horse is native to the Americas and that the BoMs references therein are spot on.

In any event, the dispute is one made by the critics that horses did not exist in the Americas during BoM times.  That they make the claim, it is their burden to prove it.  And to the point that science (common sense aside) does not support that claim, they have nothing to go on.  They lose.  End of story.

I see where you’re misunderstanding me, so let me clarify: saying there is no compelling evidence for horses in Pre-Columbian America is not the same as saying “horses did not exist in the Americas during BoM times.” 

To make things simpler:

CFR that there is evidence of horses in America before Columbus (after the Pleistocene era).

CFR that “the Curly was part of the Americas from our earliest Western records.”

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be making an argument similar to the following:

 

Quote

 

And then there's the Chinese person.

Many sources document the presence of Chinese people in North and South America in the early 1800s. Furthermore, pioneers recorded seeing them in the Western US. In fact, a Native American drawing from the 1860s depicts Chinese men working on the transcontinental railroad. 

No one knows where they came from. Speculation is that some group of unspecified Europeans brought them to the Americas. But that's unfounded speculation.

Game. Set. Match.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by jkwilliams

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

jkwilliams, you don't understand how evidence or burden work.  Things are as they appear, unless proven otherwise.  The Curly was part of the Americas from our earliest Western records.  That, alone, is sufficient evidence for nativity.  

Me thinks someone is missing what generates burden of proof. What appears is that horses were brought over by Europeans. Those arguing against this view have the burden of proof. Indeed if they can prove it in a peer reviewed journal it'd be a major discovery.

Saying that because curlies where here from the earlier records - which all involved Europeans - just fits the standard model which is they were European.

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Me thinks someone is missing what generates burden of proof. What appears is that horses were brought over by Europeans. Those arguing against this view have the burden of proof. Indeed if they can prove it in a peer reviewed journal it'd be a major discovery.

Saying that because curlies where here from the earlier records - which all involved Europeans - just fits the standard model which is they were European.

Wouldn't the claim that they were native to the Americas also mean that the same unique genetic trait developed independently in two different locations, continents apart?

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Wouldn't the claim that they were native to the Americas also mean that the same unique genetic trait developed independently in two different locations, continents apart?

Yup. Although that's not unheard of if there's selective pressure. Certain types of mutations will happen randomly. The question is much more what gets it to persist. So think of the classic example of white and black moths in England before, during and after the industrial revolution when there was so much pollution. During the industrial revolution the moths were black because there was an adaptive benefit. Before and after there was pressure to be white. In the case of a horse the adaptive pressure is due to humans selecting horses with particular properties and breeding them. But, while I know nothing about horse genes, I'd guess this is a common mutation that just doesn't consistently get selected for by humans for whatever reason.

Edited August 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

46 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yup. Although that's not unheard of if there's selective pressure. Certain types of mutations will happen randomly. The question is much more what gets it to persist. So think of the classic example of white and black moths in England before, during and after the industrial revolution when there was so much pollution. During the industrial revolution the moths were black because there was an adaptive benefit. Before and after there was pressure to be white. In the case of a horse the adaptive pressure is due to humans selecting horses with particular properties and breeding them. But, while I know nothing about horse genes, I'd guess this is a common mutation that just doesn't consistently get selected for by humans for whatever reason.

I suppose he could be arguing that the genetic variation was present in the common ancestors of these "native" horses and their Asian counterparts. Either way, the presence of something in the Americas 300 years after colonization in no way suggests that something was present before colonization.

[PacMan]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Me thinks someone is missing what generates burden of proof. What appears is that horses were brought over by Europeans. Those arguing against this view have the burden of proof. Indeed if they can prove it in a peer reviewed journal it'd be a major discovery.

Saying that because curlies where here from the earlier records - which all involved Europeans - just fits the standard model which is they were European.

Sorry, no.  The argument is that the BoM is false because it mentions horses, which critics argue did not exist during BoM times.  This is the critics' argument (not mine), so they bear the burden of proof.  As I've shown, they cannot conclude that horses did not exist in Americas during BoM due to the Curly horse, which, at best (for them), science cannot conclude where they came from.

Now, if my argument were that the BoM was true because horses existed pre-Columbian, then I would hold that burden of proof.  But I wouldn't make such a stupid argument in the first place because the veracity of the BoM has virtually nothing to do with horses, whatsoever.

Edited August 14, 2018 by PacMan

[PacMan]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Wouldn't the claim that they were native to the Americas also mean that the same unique genetic trait developed independently in two different locations, continents apart?

Not necessarily, but that's actually the exact point of the article that I noted earlier that argued that horses were anciently native to the Americas and that today's (reintroduced) animals follow the same genetic markers...meaning they are the same.  Of course, I think the argument makes more sense that they actually never left, but what'eva....

Thus, jkwilliams last comment is also not correct.  The science matches up current horses with what is known of the ancient horses in the Americas.

Edited August 14, 2018 by PacMan

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Sorry, no.  The argument is that the BoM is false because it mentions horses, which critics argue did not exist during BoM times.  This is the critics' argument (not mine), so they bear the burden of proof. 

But they've met that by appealing to science. The standard scientific consensus is they died out during or after the ice age. That means now the burden of proof is on the other side to show that the scientists are wrong. Now maybe it can be done. It just hasn't been done with sufficient evidence yet. We mentioned the claims of dated bones near the beginning of the thread and why they aren't yet sufficient - although I'm certainly open to being wrong. That'd be helpful.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Sorry, no.  The argument is that the BoM is false because it mentions horses, which critics argue did not exist during BoM times.  This is the critics' argument (not mine), so they bear the burden of proof.  As I've shown, they cannot conclude that horses did not exist in Americas during BoM due to the Curly horse, which, at best (for them), science cannot conclude where they came from.

Now, if my argument were that the BoM was true because horses existed pre-Columbian, then I would hold that burden of proof.  But I wouldn't make such a stupid argument in the first place because the veracity of the BoM has virtually nothing to do with horses, whatsoever.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but you’re certainly misrepresenting my position.