Americapox: The Missing Plague

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Obviously the problem is that had Lehi or Ether's immigrations actually occurred and merged with existing populations...this mass infection would have occurred earlier in 2200 BC and 600 BC instead of post 1492...of course none of this happened. And that is a problem for the veracity of the BoM narrative.

I forgot to address this bit. 

There are a couple big assumptions there!  Why do you assume that all of these diseases would have been transmitted to native populations by Jared or Lehi's groups?  Was there any indication that they were infected with  "bubonic plague, chicken pox, pneumonic plague, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis, and whooping cough"?  One would have to be both infected and actively infectious with these pathogens for any disease to spread to native populations. Without recent exposure of the pathogen, simple contact of international travelers who may have had previous exposure to pathogens does not lead to infection or epidemics in the naive population.  This also requires the assumption that these groups had contact with groups from Asia - this is not my area of expertise but I don't see any indication of that in the Book of Mormon.

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

I only thumbed through this briefly about a year ago, but IIRC, I believe you're incorrect.

https://www.amazon.com/PRE-COLUMBIAN-CONTACTS-AMERICAS-ACROSS-OCEANS/dp/B00K8GF1T6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1489088418&sr=8-5&keywords=pre-columbian+contact+sorenson

If it were not boxed up, I might take a closer gander to confirm.

I have something a little more accessible for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114494

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, I wasn't putting you on, and your attempted explanation here just doesn't do the job of explaining your initial claim that abandonment of the hemispheric idea created problems.  I don't see that at all, aside from your failure to understand why that abandonment took place.  I can see no causal, degenerative sequence.  Just the opposite.

The Snow Sucked!  Which came first the chicken or the egg...I say the egg while you say the chicken... for nearly 200 years the church promoted the hemispheric model for the of BoM setting...I know I know...que President Ivans...he's standing stage left ready to make his entrance...while I have President Kimble standing stage right.  BTW have you ever read President Ivans entire address?  I have its NOT very convincing.  The hemispheric model became untenable...I stand by what I stated earlier...that the church needed a new improved approach which bread the limited geography model...but as this entire thread shows...it came with a whole new set of  problems...this being only one of them.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I forgot to address this bit. 

There are a couple big assumptions there!  Why do you assume that all of these diseases would have been transmitted to native populations by Jared or Lehi's groups?  Was there any indication that they were infected with  "bubonic plague, chicken pox, pneumonic plague, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis, and whooping cough"?  One would have to be both infected and actively infectious with these pathogens for any disease to spread to native populations. Without recent exposure of the pathogen, simple contact of international travelers who may have had previous exposure to pathogens does not lead to infection or epidemics in the naive population.  This also requires the assumption that these groups had contact with groups from Asia - this is not my area of expertise but I don't see any indication of that in the Book of Mormon.

Columbus first arrived on the island of Espanola in 1492.  He left behind a group of 39 men.  At the time Espanola had a thriving native population numbering about 250,000. Within 10 years the native population had dwindled to just under 10,000 through exposure to these men.  I find it interesting that Lehi's supposed party consisted of perhaps the same number...39... If Lehi existed and if he and his party did immigrate to the Americas and merged with the native population you want to claim that this immigration had zero impact on the native population?  Though not impossible...That would go down as one of the least impactful mergers in all of recorded history I just find it implausible and very unlikely...but feel free to believe what you will...for me its a huge problem. Again we are talking about a native population with no immunities to Old World diseases.

I understand the need to assume that Lehi and company had no infectious diseases among them and that the claimed animals they brought did not either....but since church apologists have abandoned the notion that he brought animals...its consistent to also assume that those abandoned animals and humans in his party were disease free as well. Of course they were...

Edited March 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Columbus first arrived on the island of Espanola in 1492.  He left behind a group of 39 men.  At the time Espanola had a thriving native population numbering about 250,000. Within 10 years the native population had dwindled to just under 10,000 through exposure to these men.  I find it interesting that Lehi's supposed party consisted of perhaps the same number...39... If Lehi existed and if he and his party did immigrate to the Americas and merged with the native population you want to claim that this immigration had zero impact on the native population?  Though not impossible...That would go down as one of the least impactful mergers in all of recorded history I just find it implausible and very unlikely...but feel free to believe what you will...for me its a huge problem. Again we are talking about a native population with no immunities to Old World diseases.

I understand the need to assume that Lehi and company had no infectious diseases among them and that the claimed animals they brought did not either....but since church apologists have abandoned the notion that he brought animals...its consistent to also assume that those abandoned animals and humans in his party were disease free as well. Of course they were...

Yes Columbus arrived on Hispaniola (Haiti and Dominican Republic) in 1492, and yes he left 39 men who were are killed within the year.  What you neglected to mention is that 1 year later he returned with 1,300 Spaniards to colonize the island.  They started enslaving the local men and living polygamously with the local women.  They then started importing African slaves to the island because they found them to be better at physical labor.  Guess where the first reported cases of smallpox came from that caused the most devastating epidemic?  No, not from the 1,300 + Spanish living on the island, but from the imported African slaves.

No, it would not be miraculous or even slightly strange for a small group of <39 healthy individuals to travel to an area that is naive to foreign disease and not start a devastating epidemic.  If they were not sick and infectious, how could they infect anybody?  Just because you are from the old world does not mean that you are infectious.  You have to actually be sick/infected with the pathogen to spread it.  It is not unreasonable at all to assume that a small group of travelers were all healthy at the time of travel. 

Not only were the locals of Hispaniola immunologically naive, but their immune systems were reduced further by the harsh enslavement (considered as the most brutal in the world) and malnourishment through the redirection of food supplies towards the colonists.  It was a recipe for disaster - thousands of Europeans + hundreds of African slaves + sexual relations + immunologically naive individuals + malnourishment + physical exhaustion  = DEATH.  

You can't really compare Lehi's group with Columbus.  Nice try though!  

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Columbus first arrived on the island of Espanola in 1492.  He left behind a group of 39 men.  At the time Espanola had a thriving native population numbering about 250,000. Within 10 years the native population had dwindled to just under 10,000 through exposure to these men.  I find it interesting that Lehi's supposed party consisted of perhaps the same number...39... If Lehi existed and if he and his party did immigrate to the Americas and merged with the native population you want to claim that this immigration had zero impact on the native population?  Though not impossible...That would go down as one of the least impactful mergers in all of recorded history I just find it implausible and very unlikely...but feel free to believe what you will...for me its a huge problem. Again we are talking about a native population with no immunities to Old World diseases.

I understand the need to assume that Lehi and company had no infectious diseases among them and that the claimed animals they brought did not either....but since church apologists have abandoned the notion that he brought animals...its consistent to also assume that those abandoned animals and humans in his party were disease free as well. Of course they were...

1. we don't know what diseases the Lehites were exposed to and what was still active in their systems. Comparing them setting sail after many years isolated in the wilderness to a bunch of sailers coming out of (then) relatively dense cities seems problematic. You also neglect that it wasn't just 39 men but that he came the following year and the year next 1300 men arrived with continuing populations arriving. So you're being misleading at best. But beyond that, how do we know some diseases weren't brought over by the Nephites? It just didn't happen to be the ones the Europeans brought that were so devastating. But even if they brought over some virus or bacteria that was devastating, what records do we look to in order to find evidence of a plague in central America in 600 BCE? In other words you're railing against Mormons for a missing plague when you can't even demonstrate there is a missing plague.

2. As you note apologists for other reasons think most of the animals the Nephites and Jaredites had died. It's worth noting that when the Jaredites arrive while tilling in mentioned (Ether 6:8) but the earlier animals aren't mention suggesting they didn't survive. With the Nephites it's a bit more complex. First 1 Nephi 18:6 doesn't mention them bringing anything but fruits & meats from the wilderness, honey and seeds. No animals are mentioned. When they arrive seeds are mentioned (18:24) but no animals. The animals they found are explicitly said to be native. They call them cows, ones, asses, horses, goats, and others but we shouldn't assume they are the exact same animals rather than near match, much like the Spanish did with terms for new animals. (I recognize many people, especially critics, don't find this facet of the translation persuasive but at a minimum the narrative doesn't indicate they brought animals)

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Comparing them setting sail after many years isolated in the wilderness to a bunch of sailers coming out of (then) relatively dense cities seems problematic.

That is an excellent point that I didn't consider.  Most diseases have an incubation period of 1 - 2 weeks, some can take several months to show symptoms, some strains of malaria can take 1 year, and extremely rarely there can be longer incubation periods such as with melioidosis which can have an incubation period of 30 years in some cases, but that is spread by contaminated water and not from human to human.   For a person to live several years in isolation in the wilderness and then become infectious with a serious disease would be slim odds at best.  I can't think of a good example of a disease that could cause a serious and deadly epidemic with that kind of isolation time.  Some people can be chronic asymptomatic (silent) carriers of a disease and yet be infectious such as with typhoid, but the odds are slim.  

Edited March 9, 2017 by pogi

[Calm]

It also sounds like weaker members of the group died off pretty quickly.  Nephi talks about the hardiness of the women.  They may have been exposed to a lot of diseases over time, but by the time they hit landfall it seems like the survivors would have had their own immunities and no active sicknesses.  Lehi and Sariah are talked about as weak in old age, but I am trying to remember how much, if any they are talked about after landfall.  

Also the group might have stayed close to landfall and away from inhabitants until they were more secure in their surroundings, which would have added time for weak to die and illnesses to dissipated.

There are diseases, of course, that just sit there and come out on occasion.  Herpes is the most obvious one.  Also long term diseases like syphillis.  But I don't know anything about how infection would occur and besides sexually transmitted disease, what might be looked for.  Given the Jewish background, there were pretty strict rules when it came to skin lesions and such, were there not?  That might encourage isolation while in infectious stages?  Also make them less appealing marital partners so diseases wouldn't be passes on?

While it is unlikely hundreds of individuals will all be chaste, I can see a group of 39 with at least half women and children not being promiscuous and even if practiced polygamy (I believe Jacob demonstrates the original Lehite colony was monogamous), assumimg those involved were virgins or exclusive to their wives limits transmission.  Less likely for sexually transmitted diseases to survive then, right?  Or is this totally irrelevant.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is an excellent point that I didn't consider.  Most diseases have an incubation period of 1 - 2 weeks, some can take several months to show symptoms, some strains of malaria can take 1 year, and extremely rarely there can be longer incubation periods such as with melioidosis which can have an incubation period of 30 years in some cases, but that is spread by contaminated water and not from human to human.   For a person to live several years in isolation in the wilderness and then become infectious with a serious disease would be slim odds at best.  I can't think of a good example of a disease that could cause a serious and deadly epidemic with that kind of isolation time.  Some people can be chronic asymptomatic (silent) carriers of a disease and yet be infectious such as with typhoid, but the odds are slim.  

Actually. The Small Pox virus can survive for years on the fibers of cloth...such as the clothes of a small pox survivor

Edited March 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

"Some people can be chronic asymptomatic (silent) carriers of a disease and yet be infectious such as with typhoid".  It would be unlikely everyone would be asymptomatic even if blood relations, correct?  Likely would have wiped out the original group?

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yes Columbus arrived on Hispaniola (Haiti and Dominican Republic) in 1492, and yes he left 39 men who were are killed within the year.  What you neglected to mention is that 1 year later he returned with 1,300 Spaniards to colonize the island.  They started enslaving the local men and living polygamously with the local women.  They then started importing African slaves to the island because they found them to be better at physical labor.  Guess where the first reported cases of smallpox came from that caused the most devastating epidemic?  No, not from the 1,300 + Spanish living on the island, but from the imported African slaves.

No, it would not be miraculous or even slightly strange for a small group of <39 healthy individuals to travel to an area that is naive to foreign disease and not start a devastating epidemic.  If they were not sick and infectious, how could they infect anybody?  Just because you are from the old world does not mean that you are infectious.  You have to actually be sick/infected with the pathogen to spread it.  It is not unreasonable at all to assume that a small group of travelers were all healthy at the time of travel. 

Not only were the locals of Hispaniola immunologically naive, but their immune systems were reduced further by the harsh enslavement (considered as the most brutal in the world) and malnourishment through the redirection of food supplies towards the colonists.  It was a recipe for disaster - thousands of Europeans + hundreds of African slaves + sexual relations + immunologically naive individuals + malnourishment + physical exhaustion  = DEATH.  

You can't really compare Lehi's group with Columbus.  Nice try though!  

 

Oops...good catch, however my point remains. Small immune populations can infect, to catastrophic levels, large unimmune populations....even if that small population is not  sick at point of contact with larger population.

 

I want to add that no one can answer this question definitively...assuming Lehi existed, we can't say whether Lehi s party carried infectious diseases or not.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Actually. The Small Pox virus can survive for years on the fibers of cloth...such as the clothes of a small pox survivor

Possible survival doesn't mean likely survival.  This study came to the conclusion that is such actually happened, it would be rare:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554478/?page=2

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oops...good catch, however my point remains. Small immune populations can infect, to catastrophic levels, large unimmune populations....even if that small population is not  sick at point of contact with larger population.

But it is not a given, is it?  Given the size of the group and the relatively long term isolation of it prior to contact, it would be interesting to examine the probability of it occurring.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it is not a given, is it?  Given the size of the group and the relatively long term isolation of it prior to contact, it would be interesting to examine the probability of it occurring.

BoM claims aside...we can only look to what actually occurred in agreed upon recorded history. When old world met new world inhabitants the results were catastrophic.  

Id like to add that before Columbus, the Vikings arrived...do we know if they had contact with native populations?  If so this would be supportive of the BoM narrative if not then it's a non issue...I don't have time to research the question.

 

found this. Makes sense

17 March 2014: Some great answers here. Leif writes: The native populations (both Inuit and Beothuk) that came into contact with the old Norse were small and geographically isolated. Thus, the territory of this band was extensive, and if we can assume that other bands used a similarly large area, the size of the Beothuk population would have been relatively small. There is good evidence that the Beothuk population amounted to about 500 to 700 people at the time of first contact. Since Newfoundland is quite a large island, most of it would have been unpopulated. There were no natives living near L’Anse aux Meadows in the year 1000 AD. Given these conditions, the afflicted would either die or recover before they could spread a communicable disease. Source: Newfoundland and Labrador heritage  1998, Ingeborg Marshall on behalf of the Beothuk Institute. [Based on Ingeborg Marshall, A History and Ethnography of the Beothuk(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, ©1996).] Revised by Ingeborg Marshall, February, 2012. Accessed 16 March 2014.  PAB writes The first and most mortal of the pandemics unleased upon the Americas was smallpox. Smallpox requires a minimum human population density in order to sustain itself.  This is often expressed as having to be “dense”, as may be found in a regions dotted with thriving farming communities.  Survivors win immunity, and in a given affected population, it will be their offspring who, after coming to comprise a sufficient portion of the population, will be infected. In continental environs with vast swathes thickly peopled by farmers, smallpox could persist, ferociously surging when and where large numbers of vulnerable offspring came about. The exceedingly sparse populations of the insular western Vikings presented opposite circumstances, particularly in Greenland.  This situation would have acted as a barrier to transmission to the New World. The first recorded smallpox epidemic in Iceland was in 1241, arriving via the area of Denmark. Tacitus from Detritus writes: My suspicion is #2.  Considerable mortality but it was so long until the next Europeans turned up that the populations had recovered. Option #1 is implausible.  And regards the Vikings not having interesting infestations, recall that they were the great sea travelers of the age.  Hard to imagine that that had not visited a few ports where the assorted poxes and fluxes of the world were much in evidence.As to viral epidemics being attenuated in the Far North, consider this link. Our best documented modern plague the 1918 influenza pandemic hit Alaska like a ton of bricks. On another historical note, some of the best genetic data on the pandemic came from Alaska.  Several corpses were recovered intact from the permafrost, allowing scientists in high level biosuits the chance to determine the genetic nature of the 1918 bug.  Norm writes: A bit of # one would be my guess. The people living in Labrador were few in number and spread out, a sick person had less chance of spreading the fun around. We find the same factor in very virulent bugs like Ebola, they fail to spread in most cases because they kill before the victim can travel far enough to spread the bug. Airplanes and automobiles have been the reason we know of Ebola . Smallpox, diphtheria,cholera all killed millions in the Americas when the Spanish came along; the Spanish invaded areas with large population density, the trio were fast killers but not fast enough to kill their hosts before they were able to spread. And we don’t know that the Vikings did not spread their germs in the Americas, the Mayan collapse was in the 800-900 AD time span, about the same time the Vikings were starting to get out and about.   KMH writes: My response at first glance is the answer may lie in the geographical location of the Vikings before they set sail to America. If they departed from Iceland or Greenland, the seas may have provided a barrier to transmission of diseases from the mainland. Once they settled in these relatively remote areas further communication with the mainland may have been rather sparse, as I understand it, inhibiting disease transmission. Those who actually came from the mainland to America may not have interacted regularly enough with the southern cultures to become a fertile ground for the viruses. Animals were always important (perhaps as original sources)  in the diseases humans developed immunity to and carried with them, but Vikings don’t seem to have emphasized domesticated animals – other than to steal and slaughter them during their raids. James H finishes off: I might be wrong here, but I don’t remember that many stories of Euro disease transmission in South America. North and Central America yes, but not South. Perhaps I just haven’t read them or forgot if I had.’ thanks to all!!!

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

It appears there may be some evidence of contact in Icelanders:

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/surprising-ancestral-origins-revealed-by-dna-testing/

"In 2010 the National Geographic reported that more than 80 living Icelanders have a genetic variation in their mitochondrial DNA similar to one found mostly in Native Americans.  It probably entered Icelandic bloodlines around 1000 AD, suggesting that a Viking-Indian child was born in Iceland 500 years before Columbus landed in the  Americas, and that the child’s Native American mother voyaged to Iceland with Viking explorers.

Icelandic Viking child with Native American mother

There is no historical evidence that Icelandic Vikings took a Native American woman back home with them, but there are accounts and archaeological evidence that Icelandic Vikings settled in Greenland around 1000 AD and went on to establish a short-lived settlement in Newfoundland.  Icelandic sagas tell of their encounters with the ‘Skraelings’ – the Norse term for American Indians – but they seem to have been mostly hostile.

Nonetheless, DNA evidence shows that a sample of Icelanders carry a Native American variation from 4 specific lineages, descended from 4 women born early in the 18th century.  These 4 lineages are likely descended from a single woman with Native American DNA, and at least one lineage’s variation has mutated in a way that would likely have taken centuries to occur.

No living Native American has the exact genetic variation found in the Icelanders, but of the many versions related to the Icelandic variant, 95% found in Native Americans.  This suggests that the precise Icelandic variation may have come from a Native American group that died out after the arrival of Columbus and later European settlers."

[notHagoth7]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

It appears there may be some evidence of contact in Icelanders:

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/surprising-ancestral-origins-revealed-by-dna-testing/

Nonetheless, DNA evidence shows that a sample of Icelanders carry a Native American variation from 4 specific lineages, descended from 4 women born early in the 18th century.  These 4 lineages are likely descended from a single woman with Native American DNA, and at least one lineage’s variation has mutated in a way that would likely have taken centuries to occur.

No living Native American has the exact genetic variation found in the Icelanders, but of the many versions related to the Icelandic variant, 95% found in Native Americans.  This suggests that the precise Icelandic variation may have come from a Native American group that died out after the arrival of Columbus and later European settlers." 

...or that died out around 420 AD, long before Columbus.

[Calm]

That would have been difficult then to enter into the Icelandic population around 1000 AD.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The Snow Sucked!  Which came first the chicken or the egg...I say the egg while you say the chicken... for nearly 200 years the church promoted the hemispheric model for the of BoM setting...I know I know...que President Ivans...he's standing stage left ready to make his entrance...while I have President Kimble standing stage right.  BTW have you ever read President Ivans entire address?  I have its NOT very convincing.  The hemispheric model became untenable...I stand by what I stated earlier...that the church needed a new improved approach which bread the limited geography model...but as this entire thread shows...it came with a whole new set of  problems...this being only one of them.

Hey, I even believed the hemispheric model as a young whippersnapper, along with everyone else.  The Church didn't preach it to me, and there were no systematic efforts to explore the possibility.  It was simply an ignorant assumption which everyone made -- until they carefully read the actual text of the BofM.  Only then did it become crystal clear that it was impossible.  Mormon anthropologists had already concluded that in the 1940s, and did not do so based on some perceived need of the LDS Church.  The words of Orson Pratt and others had no impact on that newly formed scientific view.  It stood on its own and has come to dominate the modern era only because it is based on science and scholarship.

Not only have you got the etiology of the limited region model wrong, but you have yet to explain why that created any new difficulties.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Why do you assume that all of these diseases would have been transmitted to native populations by Jared or Lehi's groups?  Was there any indication that they were infected with  "bubonic plague, chicken pox, pneumonic plague, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis, and whooping cough"?

Also if the diseases weren't present there's no selection pressure to keep the genes.

[Johnnie Cake]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

But it is not a given, is it?  Given the size of the group and the relatively long term isolation of it prior to contact, it would be interesting to examine the probability of it occurring.

Agreed it is not a given.  However, unlike the Viking a Lehite migration would have a higher probability of impacting and infecting an existing Native population due the larger density of that native population.  But again this is all probability and speculation not a given

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hey, I even believed the hemispheric model as a young whippersnapper, along with everyone else.  The Church didn't preach it to me, and there were no systematic efforts to explore the possibility.  It was simply an ignorant assumption which everyone made -- until they carefully read the actual text of the BofM.  Only then did it become crystal clear that it was impossible.  Mormon anthropologists had already concluded that in the 1940s, and did not do so based on some perceived need of the LDS Church.  The words of Orson Pratt and others had no impact on that newly formed scientific view.  It stood on its own and has come to dominate the modern era only because it is based on science and scholarship.

Not only have you got the etiology of the limited region model wrong, but you have yet to explain why that created any new difficulties.

I'm fully aware of the journey taken by the LGT and its apologetic scaffolding...but I disagree with you on what prompted it.  You seem to assume that it materialized out of a vacuum, isolated from what was occurring around it...I tend to believe that it materialized out of the untenable ridiculousness and the lack of scientific support for the prevailing and LDS promoted HGT.  Do I even need to mention the introduction page of the Book of Mormon written by McConkie?  Ok I just did.  I have no doubt that if reality supported a HGT it would still be the prevailing model...because it offers the most intellectually satisfying conclusion based on a reading of the BoM.  Only when one begins to ask questions regarding distance and travel...does it begin to fall apart.

I still stand by my assertion that by abandoning the HGT new unforeseen problems were created...just as old problems disappeared.

[Johnnie Cake]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

It appears there may be some evidence of contact in Icelanders:

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/surprising-ancestral-origins-revealed-by-dna-testing/

"In 2010 the National Geographic reported that more than 80 living Icelanders have a genetic variation in their mitochondrial DNA similar to one found mostly in Native Americans.  It probably entered Icelandic bloodlines around 1000 AD, suggesting that a Viking-Indian child was born in Iceland 500 years before Columbus landed in the  Americas, and that the child’s Native American mother voyaged to Iceland with Viking explorers.

Icelandic Viking child with Native American mother

There is no historical evidence that Icelandic Vikings took a Native American woman back home with them, but there are accounts and archaeological evidence that Icelandic Vikings settled in Greenland around 1000 AD and went on to establish a short-lived settlement in Newfoundland.  Icelandic sagas tell of their encounters with the ‘Skraelings’ – the Norse term for American Indians – but they seem to have been mostly hostile.

Nonetheless, DNA evidence shows that a sample of Icelanders carry a Native American variation from 4 specific lineages, descended from 4 women born early in the 18th century.  These 4 lineages are likely descended from a single woman with Native American DNA, and at least one lineage’s variation has mutated in a way that would likely have taken centuries to occur.

No living Native American has the exact genetic variation found in the Icelanders, but of the many versions related to the Icelandic variant, 95% found in Native Americans.  This suggests that the precise Icelandic variation may have come from a Native American group that died out after the arrival of Columbus and later European settlers."

Interesting that the inherited DNA from a single child born of a native American woman and a Viking male is detectible in the modern populations of Iceland and yet the inherited DNA of the Lehite migration continues to be illusive despite BoM claims that Lehi descendants filled all the land both North and South, East and West.

[Calm]

How do you know there were not a fifty native Americans brought with the one or at other times?  I remember a study that there were a number of documented lost DNA lines in Iceland (they have excellent genealogical records there).  It is, iirc, cited in the GT essay on DNA.  Or be patient I will find it later, back to sleep to make my eight.

We know someone's DNA has to survive.  Doesn't mean all DNA lines are going to.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Interesting that the inherited DNA from a single child born of a native American woman and a Viking male is detectible in the modern populations of Iceland and yet the inherited DNA of the Lehite migration continues to be illusive despite BoM claims that Lehi descendants filled all the land both North and South, East and West.

Wouldn't population numbers make a difference?  Currently there are about 240,000 people in Iceland (so much less during the time frame in question), so it seems like one person's DNA would not dilute nearly as fast as a few dozen would dilute mixing in with a population of a tens of millions.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wouldn't population numbers make a difference?  Currently there are about 240,000 people in Iceland (so much less during the time frame in question), so it seems like one person's DNA would not dilute nearly as fast as a few dozen would dilute mixing in with a population of a tens of millions.

Recent DNA studies....some of which that have been discussed on this board...say otherwise...genetic studies have been able to show that the America's were populated by 5 founding migrations....each with its trace markers intact....despite population size, the passage of time, bottle necks or founder effects.