Hello all Watkins Researchers,
To keep you all up to date with Watkins genealogy happenings we have
introduced a "Latest Watkins News" section on the Watkins FHS Home
page.
http://www.watkins.net.au/
The latest new item which I've just added is regarding the DNA test
results of John Thomas Watkins, Michigan, USA. John matches on all 26
loci markers with J. Gareth Watkins, Hull, UK. This confirms that they
both share the common ancestor of Thomas Watkins, born 1737 Llanllwyni,
Carmarthenshire, Wales.
The "Latest Watkins News" runs on the line of a weblog where you can
add comments on any of the news items. So if you have any views on one
of the subjects then just add your thoughts to it.
If you have a news item that you would like added to this section, such
as up coming reunions or success stories or any other Watkins news then
just send the details direct to me and I will include it on the
Webpage.
While you are on the Website, you will notice that we've introduced a
new style Message Board which you can now view in country categories,
which makes it easier for all to find what you are searching for.
http://www.watkins.net.au/mboard/
On the new Message Board I've copied the last couple of months postings
from the old board so it does not look so empty, though all the
messages from the old Messages Board have been retained and are
available to search.
Maybe you have a query, or you just want to say that you have called
by. Whatever it might be we welcome you to leave a message. Give it a
try, somebody out there might just have the answer to your query.
If you have posted a message on the board in the past. I would suggest
that you also post it on the new board, the more exposure you have the
better chances of finding an answer.
Enjoy
David Watkins
Webmaster - Watkins FHS
--
Latest Watkins News
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Brian Pears
Re: Latest Watkins News
David Watkins <davwat@iinet.net.au> wrote:
No, the test results do NOT confirm that they share Thomas
WATKINS born 1737 as a common ancestor, it confirms that
they had "a" common ancestor in their male lines at some
indeterminate date. Such testing cannot ever identify or
even confirm the identity of that common ancestor.
Even if you got a sample of Thomas WATKINS' DNA from his
mortal remains and there was a Y chromosome match with both
gentlemen, it still would not prove that Thomas WATKINS'
was a common ancestor - the nearest common ancestor could
be any of Thomas WATKINS' ancestors in the male line.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
The latest new item which I've just added is regarding the DNA test
results of John Thomas Watkins, Michigan, USA. John matches on all 26
loci markers with J. Gareth Watkins, Hull, UK. This confirms that they
both share the common ancestor of Thomas Watkins, born 1737 Llanllwyni,
Carmarthenshire, Wales.
No, the test results do NOT confirm that they share Thomas
WATKINS born 1737 as a common ancestor, it confirms that
they had "a" common ancestor in their male lines at some
indeterminate date. Such testing cannot ever identify or
even confirm the identity of that common ancestor.
Even if you got a sample of Thomas WATKINS' DNA from his
mortal remains and there was a Y chromosome match with both
gentlemen, it still would not prove that Thomas WATKINS'
was a common ancestor - the nearest common ancestor could
be any of Thomas WATKINS' ancestors in the male line.
--
Brian Pears
Gateshead, UK
-
Mike Day
Re: Latest Watkins News
"Brian Pears" <bpears@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7a4EqfU1lMCCFwFg@tardis.main...
cannot possibly confirm Thomas Watkins as a common ancestor. Let's
illustrate this with a simple example:
I have two brothers and two male first cousins by my father's brother. If
all five of us had submitted to a y-chromosome DNA test, (and assuming no
hanky panky by either my mother or my aunt) we could all reasonably expect
to have a 26 loci match (using the above example). If we were all strangers
(having been separated from our respective families at birth for example),
which father would you impute as being the common ancestor? Would you
assume that my father was in fact the father of all five of us, or would you
assume that my uncle was the father of all of us? Of course you would not
make such an assumption. It would be absurd.
It is equally flawed logic to impute a given common ancestor further back in
the past. By illustrating a case where one is only going back one
generation, it helps point up the correct interpretation when tracking back
a greater number of generations.
That said it does not mean that y-chromosome DNA or mtDNA testing is a
waste of time. It is however, important that people understand what can be
deduced from such tests before they spend the money on participating in
them.
Mike
(who has participated in such a test with my eyes open.)
news:7a4EqfU1lMCCFwFg@tardis.main...
David Watkins <davwat@iinet.net.au> wrote:
The latest new item which I've just added is regarding the DNA test
results of John Thomas Watkins, Michigan, USA. John matches on all 26
loci markers with J. Gareth Watkins, Hull, UK. This confirms that they
both share the common ancestor of Thomas Watkins, born 1737 Llanllwyni,
Carmarthenshire, Wales.
No, the test results do NOT confirm that they share Thomas
WATKINS born 1737 as a common ancestor, it confirms that
they had "a" common ancestor in their male lines at some
indeterminate date. Such testing cannot ever identify or
even confirm the identity of that common ancestor.
Even if you got a sample of Thomas WATKINS' DNA from his
mortal remains and there was a Y chromosome match with both
gentlemen, it still would not prove that Thomas WATKINS'
was a common ancestor - the nearest common ancestor could
be any of Thomas WATKINS' ancestors in the male line.
--
Yes. Brian is absolutely right. the 26 loci match of the two individuals
cannot possibly confirm Thomas Watkins as a common ancestor. Let's
illustrate this with a simple example:
I have two brothers and two male first cousins by my father's brother. If
all five of us had submitted to a y-chromosome DNA test, (and assuming no
hanky panky by either my mother or my aunt) we could all reasonably expect
to have a 26 loci match (using the above example). If we were all strangers
(having been separated from our respective families at birth for example),
which father would you impute as being the common ancestor? Would you
assume that my father was in fact the father of all five of us, or would you
assume that my uncle was the father of all of us? Of course you would not
make such an assumption. It would be absurd.
It is equally flawed logic to impute a given common ancestor further back in
the past. By illustrating a case where one is only going back one
generation, it helps point up the correct interpretation when tracking back
a greater number of generations.
That said it does not mean that y-chromosome DNA or mtDNA testing is a
waste of time. It is however, important that people understand what can be
deduced from such tests before they spend the money on participating in
them.
Mike
(who has participated in such a test with my eyes open.)
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Latest Watkins News
"Brian Pears" <bpears@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7a4EqfU1lMCCFwFg@tardis.main...
and Thomas Watkins is a very poular patronymic
http://www.ancestry.co.uk
Search Results: Thomas Watkins
Your search returned 6,592 matches in the databases below.
Census Records 2,779 matches | info
1881 England Census 480
1881 Wales Census 443
1901 England Census 399
1871 Wales Census 386
1891 England Census 361
view all 2,779 Census Records results >>
Birth, Marriage, & Death Records 3,666 matches
England and Wales, Civil Registration Index: 1837-1983 3,089
Pallot's Marriage Index for England: 1780 - 1837 174
Shropshire, England: Parish and Probate Records 71
Gloucestershire, England: Parish and Probate Records 69
England (General): Parish and Probate Records 40
view all 3,666 Birth, Marriage, & Death Records results >> snipped
I am totally opposed to carelessly planned DNA tests
we all have to accept that some documentaion is difficult to access
- or lost
Hugh W
news:7a4EqfU1lMCCFwFg@tardis.main...
David Watkins <davwat@iinet.net.au> wrote:
The latest new item which I've just added is regarding the DNA test
results of John Thomas Watkins, Michigan, USA. John matches on all 26
loci markers with J. Gareth Watkins, Hull, UK. This confirms that they
both share the common ancestor of Thomas Watkins, born 1737 Llanllwyni,
Carmarthenshire, Wales.
No, the test results do NOT confirm that they share Thomas
WATKINS born 1737 as a common ancestor, it confirms that
they had "a" common ancestor in their male lines at some
indeterminate date. Such testing cannot ever identify or
even confirm the identity of that common ancestor.
Even if you got a sample of Thomas WATKINS' DNA from his
mortal remains and there was a Y chromosome match with both
gentlemen, it still would not prove that Thomas WATKINS'
was a common ancestor - the nearest common ancestor could
be any of Thomas WATKINS' ancestors in the male line.
and Thomas Watkins is a very poular patronymic
http://www.ancestry.co.uk
Search Results: Thomas Watkins
Your search returned 6,592 matches in the databases below.
Census Records 2,779 matches | info
1881 England Census 480
1881 Wales Census 443
1901 England Census 399
1871 Wales Census 386
1891 England Census 361
view all 2,779 Census Records results >>
Birth, Marriage, & Death Records 3,666 matches
England and Wales, Civil Registration Index: 1837-1983 3,089
Pallot's Marriage Index for England: 1780 - 1837 174
Shropshire, England: Parish and Probate Records 71
Gloucestershire, England: Parish and Probate Records 69
England (General): Parish and Probate Records 40
view all 3,666 Birth, Marriage, & Death Records results >> snipped
I am totally opposed to carelessly planned DNA tests
we all have to accept that some documentaion is difficult to access
- or lost
Hugh W
-
Robert Burns
Re: Latest Watkins News
Oh dear DNA again. I find the use of DNA to prove a family connection to be
both tedious and boring. Surely if we are descended from Adam and Eve we
will all have the same markers required for Y chromosome testing and our
females would have the same MtA. Why spend the money to show that
genetically you are related through one male ancestor when the leg work and
paperwork will do that far more substantially. It is about time
genealogists forget this form of science until such time as DNA is far
better known and understood than at present. We on an archaeological
mailing list have just spent 2 months arguing the finer points of Y
chromosome and MtA testing with regards to results produced by the
University College London. The only thing we all were agreed on was that
there is no way at present to say that the evidence they supplied is 100%
accurate or not
Rob
"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36sa1eF52bnqoU1@individual.net...
both tedious and boring. Surely if we are descended from Adam and Eve we
will all have the same markers required for Y chromosome testing and our
females would have the same MtA. Why spend the money to show that
genetically you are related through one male ancestor when the leg work and
paperwork will do that far more substantially. It is about time
genealogists forget this form of science until such time as DNA is far
better known and understood than at present. We on an archaeological
mailing list have just spent 2 months arguing the finer points of Y
chromosome and MtA testing with regards to results produced by the
University College London. The only thing we all were agreed on was that
there is no way at present to say that the evidence they supplied is 100%
accurate or not
Rob
"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36sa1eF52bnqoU1@individual.net...
"Brian Pears" <bpears@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7a4EqfU1lMCCFwFg@tardis.main...
David Watkins <davwat@iinet.net.au> wrote:
The latest new item which I've just added is regarding the DNA test
results of John Thomas Watkins, Michigan, USA. John matches on all 26
loci markers with J. Gareth Watkins, Hull, UK. This confirms that they
both share the common ancestor of Thomas Watkins, born 1737 Llanllwyni,
Carmarthenshire, Wales.
No, the test results do NOT confirm that they share Thomas
WATKINS born 1737 as a common ancestor, it confirms that
they had "a" common ancestor in their male lines at some
indeterminate date. Such testing cannot ever identify or
even confirm the identity of that common ancestor.
Even if you got a sample of Thomas WATKINS' DNA from his
mortal remains and there was a Y chromosome match with both
gentlemen, it still would not prove that Thomas WATKINS'
was a common ancestor - the nearest common ancestor could
be any of Thomas WATKINS' ancestors in the male line.
and Thomas Watkins is a very poular patronymic
http://www.ancestry.co.uk
Search Results: Thomas Watkins
Your search returned 6,592 matches in the databases below.
Census Records 2,779 matches | info
1881 England Census 480
1881 Wales Census 443
1901 England Census 399
1871 Wales Census 386
1891 England Census 361
view all 2,779 Census Records results
Birth, Marriage, & Death Records 3,666 matches
England and Wales, Civil Registration Index: 1837-1983 3,089
Pallot's Marriage Index for England: 1780 - 1837 174
Shropshire, England: Parish and Probate Records 71
Gloucestershire, England: Parish and Probate Records 69
England (General): Parish and Probate Records 40
view all 3,666 Birth, Marriage, & Death Records results >> snipped
I am totally opposed to carelessly planned DNA tests
we all have to accept that some documentaion is difficult to access
- or lost
Hugh W