This post below has made lots of guest appearances on X. It presents some facts, along with some theories. Every explanation of this I've seen so far mingles the two; i.e., no one spells out the actual Facts and then separates the facts from the various Assumptions, Inferences and Theories that lead to the overall Hypothesis.
This is the FAITH model that few people follow because they prefer to portray their theories as facts.
In my view, the actual facts support multiple working hypotheses, including the one described in the Book of Mormon.
But as anyone can see, the facts don't support the theory that Lehi's descendants were centered in Mesoamerica. Which is what Joseph said all along, such as in the Wentworth letter when he deleted Orson Pratt's theories about Central America.
But many (maybe most) modern LDS scholars don't care what Joseph (or Oliver) had to say if what they said contradicts the pet theories of these LDS scholars.
_____
The post points out that the scientific consensus claims
Genetics show X2a split from its Old World relatives over 12,000 years ago….before the last glacial melt. That means it was already separate long before the migrations we’ve been taught as the whole story.
The genetics don't "show" this, except based on certain assumptions that scientists make. Different assumptions lead to different dating time frames.
The post also points out that X2a presents a gap in traditional migration stories.
Haplogroup X doesn’t prove one migration theory. But it leaves a gap: Why is a Near Eastern Mediterranean lineage in the earliest North Americans, yet absent in the regions we thought they came from? Every answer raises a harder question. What’s yours?
One comment asked Grok:
_____
The Kennewick Man point is based on the assumption that Kennewick Man inhabited the area near the modern border between Washington and Oregon. If instead he was an explorer (such as Lewis and Clark) from eastern America, his DNA would be normal and not an exception.
