Ten Bear wrote:
William Schryver wrote:
Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.
Mind you, I'm not a scholar or anything. But who is Charlemagne? I'll have to take your word here. But a question I might pose is, if we all are likely descendants of this Charlemagne
, would mDNA verify that?
If it does, then wouldn't that be another nail in the BofM coffin? If it doesn't, then do we use the same arguments to answer why not as we do on the BofM and it's mDNA issues?
Now we're getting somewhere!
Charlemagne was a king who lived around 400 A.D. He was also a prolific breeder, hence his prevalence in family trees that stretch back that far.
You ask, "... would mDNA verify that?"
And the answer ................... drumroll .................... NO
, it would not! Why? Because DNA testing in general, and mitochondrial DNA testing in particular, does not look at anything except a small fraction of our inherited DNA. And even though I can trace my genealogy back to several kings of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France, none of them are going to let me borrow the crown jewels for the weekend, nor would DNA testing necessarily show my relationship to Prince Harry.
And there is no reason to suppose that the DNA signature of a man named Lehi -- whatever his DNA may have looked like -- would be found in anyone living today, even though he may very literally be among the ancestors of every Amerindian currently living, just as Charlemagne is among my hundreds of thousands of ancestors.