You need a paper trail. DNA by itself is not the answer. May I suggest
reading the December 2005 issue of the /National Genealogical Society
Quarterly/: Genealogy and Genetics. The articles are written by experts
in the field and by practicing genealogists who have been heavily
involved in DNA projects. I think you will find it interesting and
informative. The issue should be available at the Library of Virginia
and at many local libraries as well.
Barbara Vines Little, CG
PO Box 1273
Orange, VA 22960
540-832-3473 (7-10 p.m.; all day Sunday)
[log in to unmask]
Joe Chandler wrote:
> Victoria,
>
> Genealogical DNA is more complicated than sometimes
> represented. Before taking such tests, I suggest
> careful study via several websites offering tests,
> talking with others who are involved (especially if
> anyone with your name is so involved) and carefully
> thinking through what you goals are.
>
> Genealogical DNA CANNOT PROVE father-son or
> brother-brother or sister-sister, etc. relationship.
> In his respect, it IS NOT like DNA as depicted in the
> movies and on TV or even real court cases in which
> actual samples of the DNA of the involved persons is
> available.
>
> When doing genealogical DNA, samples of the DNA of our
> ancestors are not usually available. There is the rare
> case (like Thomas Jefferson) in which samples have
> been found, but even then the best that the tests
> could do was to prove that some Jefferson male who was
> "available" (i.e., living nearby at the time) was the
> parent of a Hemings child (if I correctly understand
> the findings, and I think I do).
>
> Genealogical DNA CAN link some currently living
> individuals to the family to which they belong using
> the Y-chromosome. Still, it cannot tell any particular
> man WHICH individual ancestor he descends from,
> although multiple tests from lines of cousins can
> often refine a probable ID, supplemented with
> traditional "paper genealogies."
>
> When dealing with Y-chromosome DNA, one is ALWAYS
> dealing with someone's "unbroken male line," the issue
> is whose -- i.e., is it really (in my case) a CHANDLER
> line or at some point in the past did I belong to
> another surname only to have it changed to Chandler in
> one of several ways that can happen.
>
> The best way to verify a SURNAME DNA LINE is to test
> multiple cousins. Begin with a known 2nd cousin; there
> is a good chance there is a perfect match between any
> two such men, although it is not impossible that there
> will be small anomalies called "mutations." The more
> distant the cousins, the more likely there will be
> mutations, but the baseline should be there. But, for
> this purpose 25 or more test markers (also called
> "alleles") is HIGHLY recommended.
>
> But, there is NO GUARANTEE that the line will trace to
> ANY PARTICULAR ancestor. If someone claims to have
> done so, he/she is overstating what DNA alone can do
> -- it must be used in partnership with "paper
> genealogies."
>
> Joseph Barron Chandler, Jr.
> Administrator
> Chandler DNA Project @ <www.ftdna.com>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Victoria Robinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>> I've been interested in DNA testing for some time.
>> In fact, I will be doing
>> my own in the coming weeks. I do have one question
>> about when such tests
>> are compared to determine whether individuals are
>> descended from the same
>> projenator[sp?](such as Louis Gates and potential
>> cousins in last week's
>> African American Lives). My question:
>>
>> How can one be certain that the individuals being
>> used as the baseline have
>> an unbroken line to that ancestor? Or does this
>> approach rely on the
>> concept that biological legitimacy follows legal or
>> presumed paternity?
>>
>> I was just wondering.
>>
>> <html><div><P><STRONG>Victoria Robinson</STRONG>
>> <BR><FONT
>> color=#993399><EM>Ancestors sought: Gant,
>> Potts, Goss, Wynn, Robinson,
>> Kitchens, Edwards, Chambers, Dancer, Simmons, Jack,
>> etc, etc,
>> etc</EM></FONT></P>
>> <P>"The danger to political dissent is acute where
>> the Government attempts
>> to act under so vague a concept as the power to
>> protect 'domestic
>> security.' Given the difficulty of defining
>> the domestic security
>> interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect
>> that interest becomes
>> apparent." <BR><EM>-- U.S. Supreme Court,
>> 1972</EM></P></div></html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 05:36:01 -0800
>>> From: qvarizona <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: DNA Article In USA Today
>>>
>>> Until very recently, which genealogist would ever
>>>
>> have suspected that it
>>
>>> might be possible to prove/disprove family history
>>>
>> via a simple
>>
>>> cheek-scrape? Fascinating... and scary, too. Do
>>>
>> you suppose we'll all
>>
>>> need to take a quick course in how to read DNA
>>>
>> results?
>>
>>> Joanne
>>>
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please
>> see the instructions
>> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>
>
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
