Evidence that the Book of Mormon Isn't Incorrect in the Way that Many Critics Have Said for Years

I came across the following story a couple of years ago, randomly, and I saved the link just in case I wanted to write something about it at some point. I decided to do so for today - and to keep it focused strictly on this issue, since expanding the issues would have necessitated a much longer post than what I feel like writing right now.  (*grin*)  The story was in multiple publications, so I saved the url for the one that was the most extensive.

"Wooly mammoth may have interbred with elephants"

There's nothing in the article that absolutely proves the use of "elephants" in the Book of Mormon is accurate (that the Book of Mormon is, in fact, a historical narrative), but it certainly places "elephants" throughout the Americas in a time frame that would fit the actual wording in the Book of Mormon. The only reference in the Book of Mormon comes from Ether, so it might have been as early as 5,000-6,000BC (assuming accurate Biblical chronology, which is suspect to begin with) - and the remains that were found date to about 11,000BC. Given all the variables, that's close enough to be a reasonable fit. Also, the reference to "cureloms and cumoms" in Ether might fit this article as various types of mammoths and inter-bred animals.

Again, not definitive proof by any stretch, but it points to how some arguments that have been considered undeniable proof of fiction (and obvious anachronisms) and assumed by all critics for a long time can be incorrect as we learn more and more.