The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Jeff

The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 30 apr 2005 03:11:23

I have recently done the Family Tree Dna test and I would like to tell
anyone contemplating it, dont waste your money or your time. The results are
vague at best. They ask for MORE money to guarantee the results. And even
then they cannot guarantee anything. Like I said. Dont waste your time or
money.

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 apr 2005 15:20:56

In a message dated 4/29/2005 10:15:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tankerHC@yahoo.com writes:

I have recently done the Family Tree Dna test and I would like to tell
anyone contemplating it, dont waste your money or your time. The results are

vague at best. They ask for MORE money to guarantee the results. And even
then they cannot guarantee anything. Like I said. Dont waste your time or
money.



Thanks very much for sharing that.

James A. Doemer

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 30 apr 2005 16:16:31

Through which organization?

"Jeff" <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fPBce.49879$hu5.8788@tornado.texas.rr.com...
I have recently done the Family Tree Dna test and I would like to tell
anyone contemplating it, dont waste your money or your time. The results
are
vague at best. They ask for MORE money to guarantee the results. And even
then they cannot guarantee anything. Like I said. Dont waste your time or
money.


Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 30 apr 2005 18:12:33

Through which organization?

Through FamilyTreeDNA, that is the organization

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 30 apr 2005 18:41:39

Jeff wrote:

Through which organization?


Through FamilyTreeDNA, that is the organization


Being a participant in a DNA study (through Relative Genetics) and

familiar with what FTDNA offers, I'm curious as to why you are so
dissatisfied with FTDNA.

Is it because you got a 15-marker or 25-marker test and it doesn't tell
you much? Is it because what it tells you is meaningless without
something to compare to? Is it because you don't understand the
results? Or is it truly because their product is inferior?

Could you elaborate?

BTW, for all, I am part of a Lee Family Study through RG, and I am well
pleased with what I have learned. I took the 37-marker test and can
compare it against about 30 other people in the RG study, at least 15 or
so in a similar FTDNA study, another 6 or 10 in a Leigh family study
(FTDNA again), and another 10 or 15 listed in the yBase and ySearch
public databases. Although I have not proven kinship with anyone so far
profiled, I can say with some certainty who I am NOT kin to. For a Lee,
this means such things as: are you kin to Robert E. Lee? I can
definitely say "no", which is information in and of itself. I know to
focus my research on other family lines.

I think DNA studies are the greatest thing to hit genealogy research
since the Internet.

Dennis Lee
Wimberley, TX

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 30 apr 2005 19:44:08

Being a participant in a DNA study (through Relative Genetics) and
familiar with what FTDNA offers, I'm curious as to why you are so
dissatisfied with FTDNA.


OK, here goes.

1. For Genetic genealogy purposes, a Generation is defined as 25 years pre
dark ages and 25-30 years post dark ages. On a 25 marker match with anyone
they GUARANTEE that there is a 50% possibility of a common ancestor within
14.5 generations. Thats within 435 years. You and I probably have that in
common and its almost a certainty at 17 generations. Basically that
information is useless. It doesnt mean a damn thing. Fifty per cent means
maybe-maybe not.

2. REO or Recent Ethnic Origins. Doesnt tell you one single thing about YOUR
recent ethnic origins, only what it means and in a very general way. Once
again, useless information.

3. Haplogroups. They do not explain what exactly the Haplogroups mean in any
way understandable to the layman. There is no explanation of the count or
anything else. Haplogroup fractures represent points in time of 10s of
thousands of years. Once again, useless information. 60,000 years ago and
prior it is generally believed that all of our ancestors came from what is
now the African Continent. I didnt need to pay 200 dollars to find this out,
just had to read National Geographic.

4. When they come up with your haplotyope, it only "appears" that this may
be your haplotype. If you really want to know they want you to pay another
$65 for an additional SNP test. So, if thats the case, what was my original
$239 for? Becuase there certainly isnt anything else in these reults that
say anything about anything.

5. They offer the Haplogroup Tree at a cost. I found it online for free.

6. They dont explain what the Locus, DYS# or Alleles fields represent. From
my research I am finding the reason this might be is because they represent
information that will not tell you anything.

The bottom line is that the information provided in these tests is basically
worthless. After doing further research into this so called "Science" (I got
sucked in reading the pro MSNBC report) I find the following information.

a.. The areas of the Y chromosome and mtDNA do not contain information about
a persons traits or medical information. For example, the Y DNA area is
known as Junk DNA by the scientists, since it does not code for personal
information.

b. Every company I found information on, spoke with reps and read reports
all have one thing in common. The Y Chromosome and mtDNA are junk DNA, the
tests are less than scientific and there is NO worthwhile information
contained in any Y DNA Samples.

As I stated, if your looking for any information to back up Paper genealogy,
forget it. You wont find it in DNA genealogy. If your looking to match up
with others, this may happen BUT taking a serious look its probably that you
will find with a 25 OR 37 DNA Marker Match that your common ancestor MIGHT
be within 400 years or so. The DNA program recently started by National
Geographic looks back thousands of years, and notes that past 17
generations everyone has a common ancestor with everyone else somewhere
between 17 generations and infinity. We are all related to 60,000 years.

Bottom line. As I stated before. IN MY OPINION, Genealogy DNA is nothing but
a waste of money, plain and simple.

Joe Pessarra

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Joe Pessarra » 30 apr 2005 20:41:48

"Dennis Lee" <dennis@gazinkus.com> wrote in message
news:nrPce.50123$hu5.38382@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Jeff wrote:

Through which organization?


Through FamilyTreeDNA, that is the organization


Being a participant in a DNA study (through Relative Genetics) and
familiar with what FTDNA offers, I'm curious as to why you are so
dissatisfied with FTDNA.

(Message snipped)

I think DNA studies are the greatest thing to hit genealogy research
since the Internet.

Dennis Lee
Wimberley, TX

Glad to see your comments, Dennis. Have been thinking about doing the
National Geographic study myself, but wondered what it would get me. Can I
find Relative Genetics site on the Internet easily, or can you direct me to
them?

My Pessarra family came from East Prussia, now Poland. They were there in
the 1600's. Family lore from at least 5 of the families I have found in
present day Germany say that the family originally came from Italy. before
the 1600's. I am interested in comparing my DNA with those of some possible
relations in present day Italy, with similar surnames.

By the way, do you happen to know the McIlheran or the Robbins families in
Wimberley?

Joe in Georgetown, Texas, USA
Return address is bogus.
Use joepessarra@cox.net
to respond directly.

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 30 apr 2005 20:45:21

1. For Genetic genealogy purposes, a Generation is defined as 25 years pre
dark ages and 25-30 years post dark ages. On a 25 marker match with anyone
they GUARANTEE that there is a 50% possibility of a common ancestor within
14.5 generations. Thats within 435 years. You and I probably have that in
common and its almost a certainty at 17 generations. Basically that
information is useless. It doesnt mean a damn thing. Fifty per cent means
maybe-maybe not.

First, this is not a FTDNA problem. This is a statistical issue with
Y-Allele DNA testing in general. You can only tell so much from the
data. Specifically, if you have a certain percentage of matches (e.g.
23 of 25 markers, 35 of 37, etc.), you can state that there is a
bloodline match between these two persons back to a common male
descendant AND you can give a statistic probability for the number of
generations in question.
What does this mean? It means, that for anyone in the past 10
generations or so, you'd better damn well be an almost perfect match to
be "kin". You start getting off of perfect, and the statistical
probability of being kin drops off pretty quickly, and the MRCA (most
recent common ancestor) is many generations back.
2. REO or Recent Ethnic Origins. Doesnt tell you one single thing about YOUR
recent ethnic origins, only what it means and in a very general way. Once
again, useless information.

I have no real comment on this. I could care less about such things.
3. Haplogroups. They do not explain what exactly the Haplogroups mean in any
way understandable to the layman. There is no explanation of the count or
anything else. Haplogroup fractures represent points in time of 10s of
thousands of years. Once again, useless information. 60,000 years ago and
prior it is generally believed that all of our ancestors came from what is
now the African Continent. I didnt need to pay 200 dollars to find this out,
just had to read National Geographic.

Likewise. I think Haplogrouping is a waste of time, unless you're
trying to figure out if you're a Cro-Magnon descendant or a Space Alien
descendant, neither of which matters to me.
4. When they come up with your haplotyope, it only "appears" that this may
be your haplotype. If you really want to know they want you to pay another
$65 for an additional SNP test. So, if thats the case, what was my original
$239 for? Becuase there certainly isnt anything else in these reults that
say anything about anything.

This sounds like a legit gripe.
5. They offer the Haplogroup Tree at a cost. I found it online for free.

Another legit gripe - although it isn't FTDNA's fault that someone is
giving info away for free. There are lots of agencies out there who
offer you a service for pay, when if you look you can find the same
service for free.
6. They dont explain what the Locus, DYS# or Alleles fields represent. From
my research I am finding the reason this might be is because they represent
information that will not tell you anything.

The bottom line is that the information provided in these tests is basically
worthless. After doing further research into this so called "Science" (I got
sucked in reading the pro MSNBC report) I find the following information.

a.. The areas of the Y chromosome and mtDNA do not contain information about
a persons traits or medical information. For example, the Y DNA area is
known as Junk DNA by the scientists, since it does not code for personal
information.

b. Every company I found information on, spoke with reps and read reports
all have one thing in common. The Y Chromosome and mtDNA are junk DNA, the
tests are less than scientific and there is NO worthwhile information
contained in any Y DNA Samples.

Whoa. The Alleles tested in Y-Chromosome research (and to my knowledge
in mtDNA research) have nothing to do with medical info or personal
traits. There's a whole bunch of DNA in each of us, and these folks are
only using a very little bit of it. Specifically, in the Y DNA studies,
they are taking a small piece of the Y Chromosome - which can only be
passed from male to male, similar to the way surnames are passed in our
Western societies. Ergo, by tracking the Y Chromosome data, you can
follow the surname, or vice versa.
The information IS useful. If you and I had the same last surname we
could tell one of two things by comparing our DNA: Either we are
statistically related in recent (post-Dark Ages) history, or we aren't.
If we ARE statistically related, it means we have a common ancestor
somewhere in our surname history. How far back is a matter of
probability. We can say with a 90% probability he is so far back, with
a 50% probability he is so far back, etc. No, we can't say that he is X
generations back, because these Alleles mutate over time at variable
rates, and that allows for a degree of uncertainty.
I think the information regarding non-relationship is MORE valuable
than that regarding proved relationships. Let's say that you and I are
named "Johnson". And we both believe that we are descended from the
famous "Ezra Johnson" (I'm making him up). We compare DNA. We have 25
markers that each of us has tested in common. Comparing them, it is
clear that 12 are mismatches. Statistically, we are no more in common
in our Johnson-age than we are with Smiths or Jones. And further, if
one of us can PROVE that we are descended from ole Ezra, the other
ISN'T. The scientific evidence proves that this cannot be.
This is valuable. We have disputed anecdotal evidence and can
therefore hit the books a bit harder and figure out to which family the
non-Ezra person belongs, since he clearly isn't a descendant of Ezra.
As I stated, if your looking for any information to back up Paper genealogy,
forget it. You wont find it in DNA genealogy. If your looking to match up
with others, this may happen BUT taking a serious look its probably that you
will find with a 25 OR 37 DNA Marker Match that your common ancestor MIGHT
be within 400 years or so. The DNA program recently started by National
Geographic looks back thousands of years, and notes that past 17
generations everyone has a common ancestor with everyone else somewhere
between 17 generations and infinity. We are all related to 60,000 years.

Again, I say the merit of DNA testing is in supplementing the paper
genealogy and in focusing research. In my own case, I know to not
research 5 or 6 of the major Lee/Leigh/Lea lines here in the USA -
because I clearly CANNOT be related to them (unfortunately, including
the Lees of VA - Robert E. and that bunch). I have to be descended from
another line someplace. So, I'm not wasting my time documenting all of
Robert E.'s third cousins and such in hopes of tying my earliest known
ancestor in someplace.
And, in my case - I'm looking 6, 8, 10 generations back in most of my
lines. In my surname line, I'm specifically looking 7 generations back,
so DNA can prove useful in ruling out relationships with other known lines.
Bottom line. As I stated before. IN MY OPINION, Genealogy DNA is nothing but
a waste of money, plain and simple.

It has been my experience that there is a whole lot of bunk in amateur
(and some professional) genealogy. All you have to do is go look at
http://www.familysearch.com (the LDS website) and read all the misinformation
that exists for any given family. DNA testing gives us a scientific way
to at least DISPROVE some of this bunk. And, in some cases it gives us
a way to PROVE other assertations.
Your old great-aunt, who swore that you were a descendant of George
Washington (even though no documentation existed) - can now be proved,
or more likely disproved. Just compare your DNA with a known descendant
of George. If you match, you're related. If not - well, old Great-Aunt
Mabel was full of it. Look somewhere else for your family. If you
partially match - well you MIGHT be related, but it might be so far back
in time as to not matter. It's a matter of statistics.

BTW - I have no formal training in genetics or DNA testing, only an
informed layman's knowledge. And, I do not have any relationship (other
than as a paying client) with any DNA testing firm. My opinions are my own.

James A. Doemer

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 30 apr 2005 21:03:12

"Dennis Lee" <dennis@gazinkus.com> wrote in message
news:nrPce.50123$hu5.38382@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Jeff wrote:

Through which organization?


Through FamilyTreeDNA, that is the organization


Being a participant in a DNA study (through Relative Genetics) and
familiar with what FTDNA offers, I'm curious as to why you are so
dissatisfied with FTDNA.

Is it because you got a 15-marker or 25-marker test and it doesn't tell
you much? Is it because what it tells you is meaningless without
something to compare to? Is it because you don't understand the
results? Or is it truly because their product is inferior?

Could you elaborate?

BTW, for all, I am part of a Lee Family Study through RG, and I am well
pleased with what I have learned. I took the 37-marker test and can
compare it against about 30 other people in the RG study, at least 15 or
so in a similar FTDNA study, another 6 or 10 in a Leigh family study
(FTDNA again), and another 10 or 15 listed in the yBase and ySearch
public databases. Although I have not proven kinship with anyone so far
profiled, I can say with some certainty who I am NOT kin to. For a Lee,
this means such things as: are you kin to Robert E. Lee? I can
definitely say "no", which is information in and of itself. I know to
focus my research on other family lines.

I think DNA studies are the greatest thing to hit genealogy research
since the Internet.


Well, I have to admit almost 100% ignorance about such studies. What is it
that we (the collective we) are supposed to learn? The National Geographic
Study says we will learn about our "Deep Ancestry". Is that the DNA passed
down from our fathers, or the miDNA from our mother? If I am 50% German,
25% Irish, some Scots, some Cherokee, or what ever make-up, exactly what am
I going to learn about my "deep ancestry that I don't already know? What
did you learn that made it worth the $100.00? Was it really worth it to
learn who you were NOT related to?

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 apr 2005 22:09:56

You can get your "deep ancestry" from both Y-chromosome testing and
mtDNA testing. I just got deep ancestry for 3 cousins' DNA. These tests
were NOT through "Family Tree DNA."

The time-frames for the results I received were 46,000 years for the two
Y-chromosome tests, and 50,000 years for the mtDNA test.

This was not what I wanted to learn.

tootncmon

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 30 apr 2005 22:11:31

Well, I have to admit almost 100% ignorance about such studies. What is it
that we (the collective we) are supposed to learn? The National Geographic
Study says we will learn about our "Deep Ancestry". Is that the DNA passed
down from our fathers, or the miDNA from our mother? If I am 50% German,
25% Irish, some Scots, some Cherokee, or what ever make-up, exactly what am
I going to learn about my "deep ancestry that I don't already know? What
did you learn that made it worth the $100.00? Was it really worth it to
learn who you were NOT related to?

I have 100% ignorance about the National Geographic Study that people
mention. Further, I have very little interest in knowing that my
earliest ancestors arose from caves in Croatia versus in Ethiopia.
Apparently much of the work with "haplotypes" and "ethnic origins" have
much to do with this.

I have interest in genealogy in the A.D. timeframe, and specifically
for most of my families, in the 1700's. Ergo, my involvement in DNA
testing is in checking the relationships between my known family
information and anecdotal/recorded histories for families to whom mine
might be tied. In my case, there are over 80 distinct Lee/Lea/Leigh
families in the USA as of the appearance of my first known ancestor.
Knowing which of these known families I cannot be kin to allows me to
focus my limited resources on expanding what I know about those families
I MIGHT be related to. I have learned, for instance, that I am not kin
to the Lees of VA (Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Robert E.
Lee, etc.). Ergo - I have no need to research branches in that line to
see if my guys might tie in at some point. But, since I have found no
descendant of the famous Hugh Lee line (another long, well-researched
line) in any DNA study, and therefore my DNA might not conflict with
that descendant, therefore I MIGHT be a member of that line - it
behooves me to continue my research on that line and see if there are
any obvious connections with my guys.

Re Y-DNA: Males only carry the Y Chromosome. The information in the Y
Chromosome is passed from male to male. So are surnames in our Western
society. Ergo, Y Chromosome matching allows comparisons of indivduals
with the same surnames to determine if there is any common ancestry. If
a number of the "alleles" tested are equivalent, one can state with a
degree of probabilistic certainty that these two individuals have a
common ancestor X generations back; ergo, they are kin. Unfortunately,
this information is probablistic - you can say that there is a 90%
probability that your common ancestor is within 16 generations, and a
50% probability that it is within 6 (for example), but the real ancestor
may be two generations back or 26. This is, of course, questionable help.

I find that the converse situation is more useful for genealogy. We
know that surnames have only been around since, oh, 1000 A.D. or so.
That isn't all that many generations back - maybe 30 or so. So, if two
individuals with the same surname cannot be said to be statistically
linked via DNA within those 30 generations, it is practically impossible
for them to be "kin" in a surname sense. This allows exclusion of data,
as I said above.

RE mtDNA: I am less familiar with this one, but apparently there are
DNA elements within cell mitochondria which are passed from the mother
to the next generation. Therefore, by comparing mtDNA, one can check
maternal linkages (even if the last generation is male...). I
understand that the comparison process is similar to that in Y DNA, but
for different alleles obtained from a different source (cell
mitochondria DNA versus Y-chomosome DNA). But, in Western societies,
this has less applicability to genealogy research, as our surnaming
patterns are patriarchal.

What will you learn about your heritage? Well, if you know
specifically what families of Scots, Cherokee, etc. from which you
arise, you can confirm or refute that information. Great Grampa's tales
about his heritage may be true, or they may not. If you don't know
which groups to which you belong, but are able to compare against
multiple members of a given surname - you can sort out which ones are
kin and which ones aren't. For instance, if your surname is Mackenzie,
you might surmise that someone in your past was from Scotland. Let's
say that the Mackenzies were a well researched group, with 4 known lines
arising from different parts of the Old Country. If you could compare
your DNA with a representative of each, you could rule out the
non-conforming families, and find a relationship with a conforming
family. OR, you might determine that somewhere along the way, your
Mackenzie ancestor was adopted - and that you're actually not blood kin
to anyone in Scotland.

Was it worth $100? Well, in my case, it was $195 (I had a 37-marker
Y-DNA test done at Relative Genetics, http://www.relativegenetics.com, as part
of a family study). Yes. When I consider the countless hundreds of
hours I have spent trying to tie my earliest known ancestor with any
known Lee/Leigh/Lea family, the fact that I can rule out many of them
allows me to focus my searches on the ones that cannot be eliminated. I
don't have time to flesh out the descendancy of every Lee/Lea/Leigh
family from the 1700's; I might have time to flesh out a few of them.

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 30 apr 2005 22:24:47

For those of you who are interested in such things, I invite you to look
at the Lee Study at Relative Genetics.

1. Go to http://www.relativegenetics.com

2. Log in as LeeParticipant@relativegenetics.com

3. Password is LeeDNA

4. You can't change anything or see any private data. But you can look
at two important collections of information. On the main page, look at
"Family Project" and "Group Results".

5. "Family Project" gives a list of the individual persons who have
submitted DNA for the project. The person's name and personal info is
hidden, and they are referred to as "XXXXX Lee Descendant" with some
identifying info about the first known ancestor in that line. You'll
see that there are a number of these people. For reference: I am
participant number 35243, a descendant of a fellow named John Lee b. ca
1760, d. 1814. (You can tell I am not a privacy freak...)

6. "Group Results" is where the rubber meets the road. The data for
each participant is listed vertically. Participants with similar DNA
patterns are grouped together horizontally. Note that the number of
alleles tested for participants varies. RG offers several different
tests. Most of our folks have opted for the 37-marker test, as it is
the most comprehensive Y DNA test offered by this vendor. Note that
there are a number of participants whose DNA markers are essentially
identical - or maybe one number off in one marker. Some of these folks
did not know they were kin to each other, OR that their ancestor were
kin to the other guys' ancestors. Note also my DNA line - I'm not kin
to anyone here. Amazing. I'm a space alien! This is good info -
instead of wasting my time looking for ancestors in Scotland or Ireland
or Germany - I can look on Mars or Pluto...

Oh, another thing about the tables: the colors indicate similarity in
allele values. For instance, all of the 21's in DYS439 will be colored
one value, and all of the 20's will be a different color. It is easier
then to see commonalities from participant to participant.

James A. Doemer

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 30 apr 2005 22:33:30

Was it of any value at all?

<tootncmon@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15053-4273F424-675@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net...
You can get your "deep ancestry" from both Y-chromosome testing and
mtDNA testing. I just got deep ancestry for 3 cousins' DNA. These tests
were NOT through "Family Tree DNA."

The time-frames for the results I received were 46,000 years for the two
Y-chromosome tests, and 50,000 years for the mtDNA test.

This was not what I wanted to learn.

tootncmon

James A. Doemer

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 30 apr 2005 22:42:26

"Dennis Lee" <dennis@gazinkus.com> wrote in message
news:7wSce.35206$h6.21241@tornado.texas.rr.com...

Well, I have to admit almost 100% ignorance about such studies. What is
it
that we (the collective we) are supposed to learn? The National
Geographic
Study says we will learn about our "Deep Ancestry". Is that the DNA
passed
down from our fathers, or the miDNA from our mother? If I am 50%
German,
25% Irish, some Scots, some Cherokee, or what ever make-up, exactly what
am
I going to learn about my "deep ancestry that I don't already know?
What
did you learn that made it worth the $100.00? Was it really worth it
to
learn who you were NOT related to?

I have 100% ignorance about the National Geographic Study that people
mention. Further, I have very little interest in knowing that my
earliest ancestors arose from caves in Croatia versus in Ethiopia.
Apparently much of the work with "haplotypes" and "ethnic origins" have
much to do with this.

I have interest in genealogy in the A.D. timeframe, and specifically
for most of my families, in the 1700's. Ergo, my involvement in DNA
testing is in checking the relationships between my known family
information and anecdotal/recorded histories for families to whom mine
might be tied. In my case, there are over 80 distinct Lee/Lea/Leigh
families in the USA as of the appearance of my first known ancestor.
Knowing which of these known families I cannot be kin to allows me to
focus my limited resources on expanding what I know about those families
I MIGHT be related to. I have learned, for instance, that I am not kin
to the Lees of VA (Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Robert E.
Lee, etc.). Ergo - I have no need to research branches in that line to
see if my guys might tie in at some point. But, since I have found no
descendant of the famous Hugh Lee line (another long, well-researched
line) in any DNA study, and therefore my DNA might not conflict with
that descendant, therefore I MIGHT be a member of that line - it
behooves me to continue my research on that line and see if there are
any obvious connections with my guys.

Re Y-DNA: Males only carry the Y Chromosome. The information in the Y
Chromosome is passed from male to male. So are surnames in our Western
society. Ergo, Y Chromosome matching allows comparisons of indivduals
with the same surnames to determine if there is any common ancestry. If
a number of the "alleles" tested are equivalent, one can state with a
degree of probabilistic certainty that these two individuals have a
common ancestor X generations back; ergo, they are kin. Unfortunately,
this information is probablistic - you can say that there is a 90%
probability that your common ancestor is within 16 generations, and a
50% probability that it is within 6 (for example), but the real ancestor
may be two generations back or 26. This is, of course, questionable help.

I find that the converse situation is more useful for genealogy. We
know that surnames have only been around since, oh, 1000 A.D. or so.
That isn't all that many generations back - maybe 30 or so. So, if two
individuals with the same surname cannot be said to be statistically
linked via DNA within those 30 generations, it is practically impossible
for them to be "kin" in a surname sense. This allows exclusion of data,
as I said above.

I suppose that is where I have a certain advantage. My surname is pretty
rare, even in "the old country". I've linked all but two in the U.S. to my
family, and with all the other branches, I know the exact person that
entered America and when. I'm back five generations, and I know the exact
point of origins for all of the branches of my family.

RE mtDNA: I am less familiar with this one, but apparently there are
DNA elements within cell mitochondria which are passed from the mother
to the next generation. Therefore, by comparing mtDNA, one can check
maternal linkages (even if the last generation is male...). I
understand that the comparison process is similar to that in Y DNA, but
for different alleles obtained from a different source (cell
mitochondria DNA versus Y-chomosome DNA). But, in Western societies,
this has less applicability to genealogy research, as our surnaming
patterns are patriarchal.

What will you learn about your heritage? Well, if you know
specifically what families of Scots, Cherokee, etc. from which you
arise, you can confirm or refute that information.

I already know though.



Great Grampa's tales
about his heritage may be true, or they may not. If you don't know
which groups to which you belong, but are able to compare against
multiple members of a given surname - you can sort out which ones are
kin and which ones aren't. For instance, if your surname is Mackenzie,
you might surmise that someone in your past was from Scotland. Let's
say that the Mackenzies were a well researched group, with 4 known lines
arising from different parts of the Old Country. If you could compare
your DNA with a representative of each, you could rule out the
non-conforming families, and find a relationship with a conforming
family. OR, you might determine that somewhere along the way, your
Mackenzie ancestor was adopted - and that you're actually not blood kin
to anyone in Scotland.

Was it worth $100? Well, in my case, it was $195 (I had a 37-marker
Y-DNA test done at Relative Genetics, http://www.relativegenetics.com, as part
of a family study). Yes. When I consider the countless hundreds of
hours I have spent trying to tie my earliest known ancestor with any
known Lee/Leigh/Lea family, the fact that I can rule out many of them
allows me to focus my searches on the ones that cannot be eliminated. I
don't have time to flesh out the descendancy of every Lee/Lea/Leigh
family from the 1700's; I might have time to flesh out a few of them.

From the sound of things, it doesn't really seem to offer anything that I
don't already know, at least in my case. I think I'll sit back and see how
the technology progresses before I jump into it.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 01 mai 2005 02:20:21

Being one marker off gives a near ZERO chance of ebing a match. Even a
perfect match only shows a POSSIBLE common ancester within 14.5 generations
or 435 years. It doesnt mean anything. DNA Genealogy is useless.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 01 mai 2005 02:22:59

DNA Genealogy is akin to Mall Genealogy. It purports to show many things
when in fact it shows nothing but useless information. Take it from
experience. As they say in my profession...someone has already bled to learn
that lesson.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 01 mai 2005 02:25:21

"James A. Doemer" <ckdbigtoe@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KQSce.2353$HL2.286@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Was it of any value at all?

If you consider the fact that I might have had ancestors that MAY have
crossed the Bering Sea from Asia 10-20,000 years ago then possibly it might
have been of some value. Of course being that I am not Asian, nor Native
American, nor show any of those traits I have to take it for what its worth
and that sure is not the 239 dollars I paid for it.

Marshall Lake

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Marshall Lake » 01 mai 2005 05:15:31

DNA Genealogy is akin to Mall Genealogy. It purports to show many things
when in fact it shows nothing but useless information. Take it from
experience. As they say in my profession...someone has already bled to learn
that lesson.

Being involved in a family DNA project has certainly helped me.

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 01 mai 2005 16:09:34

Dennis Lee wrote:

[...}
Was it worth $100? Well, in my case, it was $195 (I had a 37-marker
Y-DNA test done at Relative Genetics, http://www.relativegenetics.com, as part
of a family study). Yes. When I consider the countless hundreds of
hours I have spent trying to tie my earliest known ancestor with any
known Lee/Leigh/Lea family, the fact that I can rule out many of them
allows me to focus my searches on the ones that cannot be eliminated. I
don't have time to flesh out the descendancy of every Lee/Lea/Leigh
family from the 1700's; I might have time to flesh out a few of them.

I've been following this thread and am wondering about that. Those would seem to
be rather complex tests and I would doubt very much that they are 100% error-free
of either technical or human error. What ever is? Your confidence level could be
increased by rerunning the test for yet another $195, but that doesn't rerun the
tests for all of the other people. We all have lines where someone's parentage is
in doubt to one degree or another because there is no such thing as a perfect
source. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are taking this test as a
perfect source with no room for error. Can you be certain? Food for thought?

Bob

DNACousins

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av DNACousins » 01 mai 2005 16:50:19

DNA test results can't prove that you're related to a specific
ancestor, but they can support or rule out a hypothesis -- e.g. whether
all the Browns in Warren County, TN have a common origin, or whether
there is a connection between the Royce and Rice families, or whether
the Perkins families who first settled in Connecticut and Massachusetts
are related. DNA testing is a guide to traditional research, not a
substitute, and it can save you lots of time and money in the long run
by telling you which paths will be dead ends.

I see some misconceptions about the interpretation of statistical
results, the difference between haplotype and haplogroup tests, and
other topics. I am the administrator for the very active GENEALOGY-DNA
mailing list at RootsWeb (~1500 messages per month). That keeps me busy
enough that I can't respond to everything here, but for people who are
interested in more details, you can subscribe to the mailing list and
get answers from a variety of perspectives there.


Ann Turner - GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
Search or Browse the archives, Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/D ... Y-DNA.html
author of "Trace Your Roots with DNA"

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 01 mai 2005 18:04:36

I've been following this thread and am wondering about that. Those would seem to
be rather complex tests and I would doubt very much that they are 100% error-free
of either technical or human error. What ever is? Your confidence level could be
increased by rerunning the test for yet another $195, but that doesn't rerun the
tests for all of the other people. We all have lines where someone's parentage is
in doubt to one degree or another because there is no such thing as a perfect
source. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are taking this test as a
perfect source with no room for error. Can you be certain? Food for thought?

Bob


Bob, I'm taking it as a whole bunch less error-prone than a lot of the
so-called "documentation" out there. The testing is done in a lab,
under guidelines promulgated by an international organization. Contrast
that with the LDS website, where people are allowed to post data
willy-nilly without a shred of proof. Or to census records where
misspellings and age inaccuracies are common. Or to Bible records which
are notoriously inaccurate because they are often done after the fact.
Or to death records, which often are done by a descendant with no real
knowledge of their grandparents (the deceased's record often states the
names and birthplace of his/her parents). DAR records are often
inaccurate. Why is this? Because many of these records are subject to
illiteracy, complacency, wishful thinking, and other facets of human
behavior.

In contrast, the DNA testing is done to a standard, by scientists and
technicians trained to do such things. You or I can't do it - and then
enter the data, unlike paper research. So, our individual flaws and
biases can't corrupt the results.

In the few cases where I've seen an individual be tested by different
organizations, the outcome was exactly the same for both tests - at
least for the markers that the two tests had in common. And, by and
large, FTDNA and RG, two of the major genealogical DNA testing
organizations, test the same markers - perhaps 90% commonality between them.

I fully recognize that there may be flaws in DNA test data. But I
think, on the whole, it is a helluva lot more accurate than a lot of
other genealogical resources, and certainly is worth investigating as a
supplement to your other work.

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 01 mai 2005 19:40:42

Dennis Lee wrote:

I've been following this thread and am wondering about that. Those would seem to
be rather complex tests and I would doubt very much that they are 100% error-free
of either technical or human error. What ever is? Your confidence level could be
increased by rerunning the test for yet another $195, but that doesn't rerun the
tests for all of the other people. We all have lines where someone's parentage is
in doubt to one degree or another because there is no such thing as a perfect
source. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are taking this test as a
perfect source with no room for error. Can you be certain? Food for thought?

Bob

Bob, I'm taking it as a whole bunch less error-prone than a lot of the
so-called "documentation" out there. The testing is done in a lab,
under guidelines promulgated by an international organization. Contrast
that with the LDS website, where people are allowed to post data
willy-nilly without a shred of proof. Or to census records where
misspellings and age inaccuracies are common. Or to Bible records which
are notoriously inaccurate because they are often done after the fact.
Or to death records, which often are done by a descendant with no real
knowledge of their grandparents (the deceased's record often states the
names and birthplace of his/her parents). DAR records are often
inaccurate. Why is this? Because many of these records are subject to
illiteracy, complacency, wishful thinking, and other facets of human
behavior.

I agree with your point as to relative credibility of sources, but that's no insurance
of 100% reliability of the lab testing. I also see a touch of apples & oranges there.

In contrast, the DNA testing is done to a standard, by scientists and
technicians trained to do such things. You or I can't do it - and then
enter the data, unlike paper research. So, our individual flaws and
biases can't corrupt the results.

Excuse me for saying this, but you & I didn't send out over 3000 samples of a virulent
flu virus as was done by trained scientists and technicians. That's just one example
and it's not exactly unheard of for medical labs to make errors. Those people are all
human. I can't grant you any points there.

In the few cases where I've seen an individual be tested by different
organizations, the outcome was exactly the same for both tests - at
least for the markers that the two tests had in common. And, by and
large, FTDNA and RG, two of the major genealogical DNA testing
organizations, test the same markers - perhaps 90% commonality between them.

I wasn't suggesting that there was a high rate of errors such as would have destroyed
all credibility for DNA testing, only that your actions regarding Lee research might be
a bit drastic in light of the possibility of error. I was interrupted while composing
that post and when I came back to it I forgot to complete my thought, as follows. I am
a descendent of a Lovina Lamkin (1796-1850) of Vermont. I have no real hard, but good
circumstantial, evidence that she was a daughter of Josiah Lamkin/Charity Curtiss and
therefore ultimately a descendent of Thomas Lamkin b. ~1610 Norwich, Norfolk, England.
I'm quite convinced of her parentage as was Dr. Wilkins when I furnished the
information that was printed in his book. However! I haven't closed my mind to any
future evidence to the contrary. I keep my mind open on all of my lines.

I fully recognize that there may be flaws in DNA test data. But I
think, on the whole, it is a helluva lot more accurate than a lot of
other genealogical resources, and certainly is worth investigating as a
supplement to your other work.

But that comparison isn't helpful. You've indicated that you will drop certain lines
of Lee research and are passing that message on to viewers here who may now be inclined
to act in a similar fashion. That's accepting DNA evidence as infallible. and have you
considered that a Lee researcher in a line you now ignore may have erroneously lifted
your line? You'll still need to keep on top of those other lines to make certain that
hasn't happened.

Bob

Norman J. Garland

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Norman J. Garland » 01 mai 2005 19:51:56

For my Franklin name I use; http://www.roperld.com/FranklinGenetics.htm
You can go there and read up on the DNA test. You can look for your family name and
{here's why I like it} usually the submitter has gone into greater detail of their
family, and you can look at them all. Lots of info......Norman

Dennis Lee wrote:

I've been following this thread and am wondering about that. Those would seem to
be rather complex tests and I would doubt very much that they are 100% error-free
of either technical or human error. What ever is? Your confidence level could be
increased by rerunning the test for yet another $195, but that doesn't rerun the
tests for all of the other people. We all have lines where someone's parentage is
in doubt to one degree or another because there is no such thing as a perfect
source. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are taking this test as a
perfect source with no room for error. Can you be certain? Food for thought?

Bob

Bob, I'm taking it as a whole bunch less error-prone than a lot of the
so-called "documentation" out there. The testing is done in a lab,
under guidelines promulgated by an international organization. Contrast
that with the LDS website, where people are allowed to post data
willy-nilly without a shred of proof. Or to census records where
misspellings and age inaccuracies are common. Or to Bible records which
are notoriously inaccurate because they are often done after the fact.
Or to death records, which often are done by a descendant with no real
knowledge of their grandparents (the deceased's record often states the
names and birthplace of his/her parents). DAR records are often
inaccurate. Why is this? Because many of these records are subject to
illiteracy, complacency, wishful thinking, and other facets of human
behavior.

In contrast, the DNA testing is done to a standard, by scientists and
technicians trained to do such things. You or I can't do it - and then
enter the data, unlike paper research. So, our individual flaws and
biases can't corrupt the results.

In the few cases where I've seen an individual be tested by different
organizations, the outcome was exactly the same for both tests - at
least for the markers that the two tests had in common. And, by and
large, FTDNA and RG, two of the major genealogical DNA testing
organizations, test the same markers - perhaps 90% commonality between them.

I fully recognize that there may be flaws in DNA test data. But I
think, on the whole, it is a helluva lot more accurate than a lot of
other genealogical resources, and certainly is worth investigating as a
supplement to your other work.

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 mai 2005 23:59:44

Not for me. I am interested in learning where groups of people are TODAY
who have similar DNA.

I am African American, so "Africa" was not a revelation. "European"
results for the two Y-chromosome tests would not have been a surprise,
either, since at least a quarter of African American and
Caribbean-Briton men tested do have a European Y. And I know I have some
degree of European ancestry,18% actually, according to another DNA test.

"Ethiopia" for the mtDNA was odd at first reading, but the time-frame of
50,000 years ago likely explains that. The results did say the
particular sequence is widespread throughout Africa and has its highest
frequency in "West" Africa. I assume that means today and not 50,000
years ago since Ethiopia is in "East" Africa.

Was it of any value at all?

tootncmon@webtv.net> wrote in message

The time-frames for the results I received
were 46,000 years for the two
Y-chromosome tests, and 50,000 years for
the mtDNA test.

This was not what I wanted to learn.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 02 mai 2005 03:33:51

Your not pointing out the important part of the equation here. 37 marker
test matches with a common ancestor can only show that there is a common
ancestor to maybe 435 years, if the surname isnt the same then it goes up to
1000 years or more. For most people this doesnt mean a d_mn thing.

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 mai 2005 12:19:27

On Mon, 02 May 2005 02:33:51 GMT, "Jeff" <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote:

Your not pointing out the important part of the equation here. 37 marker
test matches with a common ancestor can only show that there is a common
ancestor to maybe 435 years, if the surname isnt the same then it goes up to
1000 years or more. For most people this doesnt mean a d_mn thing.

What were your expectations? Did you do any research into this before signing
up? It doesn't sound like it.

Others have stated that the testing provided them with valuable information,
even if it involved identifying who they were NOT related to. This sounds like
a reasonable argument. I am debating whether or not to have the test done for
my wife's father (a LEE by the way). Knowing who he is not related to would be
good information. But is it worth $200 to me for that information? That's the
only thing stopping me right now.

--

Dennis K.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 02 mai 2005 14:34:21

<Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:rq1c71hbqr553dlj84cpvhbknn51u335mj@4ax.com...
Did you do any research into this before signing
up?

Absolutely and the claim made by Family Tree DNA is that a 25 marker match
would show a common ancestor within 8 generations. (MSNBC report). Well,
when you actually take the test that changes, to 14.5 and without a common
surname 1000 years or greater. 435 years and one thousand years is not 200
years. There is a huge difference. Its good that your interested to know
that you have a common ancestor with someone 1000 years ago. But the fact
remains that the information is useless for any part of real genealogy. You
might as well go to the Mall and have them print you out some mall
genealogy. The reason I say this is that Scientists using good DNA not junk
DNA like these labs do, that are doing real research into "Deep Genetics"
know that everyone on earth has at least one common ancestor at 17
generations. Thats within 510 years, so knowing you have a common ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything. Totally useless.

Allen

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Allen » 02 mai 2005 15:02:21

Jeff wrote:

Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:rq1c71hbqr553dlj84cpvhbknn51u335mj@4ax.com...
Did you do any research into this before signing

up?


Absolutely and the claim made by Family Tree DNA is that a 25 marker match
would show a common ancestor within 8 generations. (MSNBC report). Well,
when you actually take the test that changes, to 14.5 and without a common
surname 1000 years or greater. 435 years and one thousand years is not 200
years. There is a huge difference. Its good that your interested to know
that you have a common ancestor with someone 1000 years ago. But the fact
remains that the information is useless for any part of real genealogy. You
might as well go to the Mall and have them print you out some mall
genealogy. The reason I say this is that Scientists using good DNA not junk
DNA like these labs do, that are doing real research into "Deep Genetics"
know that everyone on earth has at least one common ancestor at 17
generations. Thats within 510 years, so knowing you have a common ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything. Totally useless.

I would suggest a good mathematical statistics course for you, not the

"mall" kind. While you are enrolling for it, you might consider signing
up for English 101.
Allen

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 mai 2005 15:11:27

On Mon, 02 May 2005 13:34:21 GMT, "Jeff" <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote:

the claim made by Family Tree DNA is that a 25 marker match
would show a common ancestor within 8 generations. (MSNBC report).

Can you point me to that report? I would like to read it in context.

The FTDNA site links to the following table...

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/25-0-0.html

....which tells me what to expect.

so knowing you have a common ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything.

We are talking about a common ancestor in the direct male line, not any old
common ancestor. Big difference in my opinion. And like others have stated ...
who you are NOT related to could be just as important.

Did you take the test as part of a surname project? Or standalone?

--

Dennis K.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 02 mai 2005 16:30:35

Instead of making ignorant comments, why dont you try something elementary,
like explaining yourself. Your vague comments are about as defining as DNA
Genealogy. Idiot.

"Allen" <allen@nothere.net> wrote in message
news:Npqde.50921$hu5.31042@tornado.texas.rr.com...

Jeff wrote:

Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:rq1c71hbqr553dlj84cpvhbknn51u335mj@4ax.com...
Did you do any research into this before signing

up?


Absolutely and the claim made by Family Tree DNA is that a 25 marker
match
would show a common ancestor within 8 generations. (MSNBC report). Well,
when you actually take the test that changes, to 14.5 and without a
common
surname 1000 years or greater. 435 years and one thousand years is not
200
years. There is a huge difference. Its good that your interested to know
that you have a common ancestor with someone 1000 years ago. But the
fact
remains that the information is useless for any part of real genealogy.
You
might as well go to the Mall and have them print you out some mall
genealogy. The reason I say this is that Scientists using good DNA not
junk
DNA like these labs do, that are doing real research into "Deep
Genetics"
know that everyone on earth has at least one common ancestor at 17
generations. Thats within 510 years, so knowing you have a common
ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything. Totally useless.

I would suggest a good mathematical statistics course for you, not the
"mall" kind. While you are enrolling for it, you might consider signing
up for English 101.
Allen


Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 02 mai 2005 16:37:26

Jeff wrote:

Instead of making <snip

Please! Could we refrain from personal comments and stick to the issues. I
myself would like to see an intelligent discussion of those issues and the flaws
that I have seen in some of the conclusions and there are undoubtedly many
others who feel as I do.

Bob

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 02 mai 2005 16:42:15

This could be debated forever. Im getting tired of it already. DNA Genealogy
is all but useless, the facts speak for themselves. I shouldnt have to look
anything up for anyone. Like I said, its all there. No need for a statistics
course, a relative just recieved her report back with a match for an unknown
and FTDNA themselves state that it proves only there was a common ancestor
within 1000 years. Waste of time, waste of money. Bottom line. Not one
person here has shown how Genealogy DNA testing HELPED them do anything.
These junk DNA results are so inaccurate that your probably throwing out
relatives and ancestors mistakenly. As for me, I will not go by this
Pseudo-Science until a lot more research has been done, the testing is done
on DNA strands that actually contain information worthwhile and accuracy is
incresed considerably. I wasted my money once, now I know the facts. I wont
be duped into again, thats for damn sure.
<Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:8nbc715bi7sb4lrnmb08d1t5shgdnd5e0g@4ax.com.
Can you point me to that report? I would like to read it in context.

Its on MSNBC's website. GO there and search for Genealogy, it will take you
to their seriel report.
The FTDNA site links to the following table...

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/25-0-0.html
Its THEIR lab, do you think your going to find anything negative there? NO,

because they are trying to sell this pseudo science

...which tells me what to expect.


Did you take the test as part of a surname project? Or standalone?

STandalone, 25 marker

anna

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av anna » 02 mai 2005 16:47:34

I too am a member of the RG Lee DNA project and it has been very
helpful to me. My 18th century Jesse Lee has been mixed up with other
18th century Jesse Lees so according to most available research, it
looks as if the two Jesses are the same (even though my research points
to two different individuals.) Through the DNA project, we can see
that my Jesse and the other Jesse are not related. I'm thrilled with
this information because I know to look in other directions. The only
disappointment with the DNA study is that it looks like my ancestor
isn't related to any of the other Lees tested yet either.

Dennis--I too have turned to the Hugh Lee line because there seems to
be some research on the web that shows my Jesse was from this line.
However, I have written these people about their sources and have had
no response yet. I have been hoping that a proven ancestor of the Hugh
Lee line might get tested so I can see if we might have a match.

Once again, even in the Hugh Lee line my Jesse is being confused with
another Jesse. Jesse Lee, the famous Methodist circuit rider, is the
son of Nathaniel Lee Jr. while (according to my latest findings) Jesse
Lee (mine) is the son of Nathaniel Sr. My Jesse Lee was a Baptist lay
minister.

I believe the DNA studies can be quite helpful to genealogists to sort
out these problems and some of the questionable research.

I also think we carry the privacy thing a little too far--I would like
to at least see the ancestoral lines for a few generations for the
participants so that I can compare it with my research--in this way, it
would help me know which path I don't need to follow.

Dave Hinz

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 02 mai 2005 16:50:57

On Mon, 02 May 2005 15:42:15 GMT, Jeff <none@none.com> wrote:
This could be debated forever. Im getting tired of it already. DNA Genealogy
is all but useless, the facts speak for themselves. I shouldnt have to look
anything up for anyone.

Jeff, you're the one coming in here and asserting it's useless. You're
making a global statement. It doesn't fit your needs, perhaps, but that
is something that research before you spent money would have told you.

Like I said, its all there. No need for a statistics
course, a relative just recieved her report back with a match for an unknown
and FTDNA themselves state that it proves only there was a common ancestor
within 1000 years. Waste of time, waste of money. Bottom line. Not one
person here has shown how Genealogy DNA testing HELPED them do anything.

If it doesn't do what you expected, perhaps you should reserach before
you spend money on something you don't understand.

These junk DNA results are so inaccurate that your probably throwing out
relatives and ancestors mistakenly. As for me, I will not go by this
Pseudo-Science until a lot more research has been done, the testing is done
on DNA strands that actually contain information worthwhile and accuracy is
incresed considerably.

Yes, you keep saying that.

I wasted my money once, now I know the facts. I wont
be duped into again, thats for damn sure.

Well, for what it's worth, I don't think you've done a particularly good
job of educating the rest of us about the topic. All I'm seeing is some
guy who's pissed off that he bought one thing when he thought he was
getting something else.

That doesn't make it a pseudo-science, it makes you an uneducated
consumer.

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 mai 2005 16:51:37

On Mon, 02 May 2005 15:42:15 GMT, "Jeff" <none@none.com> wrote:

Im getting tired of it already.

So am I.

Not one person here has shown how Genealogy DNA testing HELPED them do anything.

You are ignoring what others have said in this thread.

--

Dennis K.

P.S. <plonk>

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 02 mai 2005 17:00:43

Please! Could we refrain from personal comments and stick to the issues.

Bob


Yes, if I am not attacked personally, I wont respond as such. We can keep
this civil.

J

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 02 mai 2005 17:21:14

I studied all the information available for close to 2 years before going
through with the test. However, the information put out is not what you get
back after you take the test. I knew EXACTLY what to expect based on the
CLAIMS of the people who own the companies that do the DNA testing. I am not
uninformed about anything. Duped, is what I was as are most of thre people I
know who have also taken the test. I posted quite a bit of information.
There is not need for a statistics class. The FTDNA people themselves along
with NG team states that pre dark ages generations are considered 25 years
and post dark ages generations are to be considered 25-30 years. The claims
are that an Y Chromosone DNA test will show (If it shows a common ancestor)
that the Common ANcestor is within 14.5 Generations, thats as accurate as
they get with a 25 or 37 marker test. I have no problem with that, a 14.5
generation common ancestor or proof of certain type haplotypes within that
200 year range would have given me the information I needed. No problem.
However, once you complete the test the information they send turns out to
be different. For example, if there is a 25 marker match for a comon
ancestor the fact is that only shows that there is a 50% possibility of a
common ancestor within 17 Generations or 435 years. If anyone has any
question about the meaning of 50% it means maybe, maybe not. If the surname
is different, based on the COMPANIES research then there is a 50% chance of
a common ancestor within 1000 years. None of this information tells anyone
anything. ANother thing that was a negative. Lets say the Haplogroup was
R1b. Does this mean the individual is from western european descent?
According to the people (Geneticists?) at FTDNA the answer is MAYBE. Well,
maybe is not good enough. Lets say you came up with a Haplogroup of Q or Q3,
Native American or Asian. If that shows to be your Haplogroup does that mean
your of Native American descent? Once again the answer is MAYBE or NOT
NECCESARILY. How about a YES OR NO? The only way to even determine if your
HAPLOGROUP is Q or Q3 AFTER you have paid for the initial test is through a
further SNP test then its still not conclusive, its still a maybe. I stand
by my statement that DNA Genealogy is all but worthless.

Dave Hinz

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 02 mai 2005 17:28:40

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:21:14 GMT, Jeff <none@none.com> wrote:
I studied all the information available for close to 2 years before going
through with the test. However, the information put out is not what you get
back after you take the test.

So you are claiming that, while the science is valid, the delivery of
the science from the vendor you used is not as advertised? That's a
very different statement than your subject-line would suggest.

R1b. Does this mean the individual is from western european descent?
According to the people (Geneticists?) at FTDNA the answer is MAYBE. Well,
maybe is not good enough. Lets say you came up with a Haplogroup of Q or Q3,
Native American or Asian. If that shows to be your Haplogroup does that mean
your of Native American descent? Once again the answer is MAYBE or NOT
NECCESARILY. How about a YES OR NO? The only way to even determine if your
HAPLOGROUP is Q or Q3 AFTER you have paid for the initial test is through a
further SNP test then its still not conclusive, its still a maybe. I stand
by my statement that DNA Genealogy is all but worthless.

And you just re-contradicted yourself. OK, you bought something, you
don't like it. We understand. You made that point. It's kind of
turning into a rant at this point though, Jeff, which is going to make
people less receptive to your point.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 02 mai 2005 17:38:56

So you are claiming that, while the science is valid, the delivery of
the science from the vendor you used is not as advertised? That's a
very different statement than your subject-line would suggest.

No, you are misconstruing what I am posting. Let me make this clear. The
PSEUDO SCIENCE has a zero level of accuracy. Does it show markers,
hapltoypes and haplogroups thaty show where you decend from thousands of
years ago? The answer is MAYBE, which doesnt mean anything. Does it show
common ancestors within a legitimate number of generations for realistic
Genealogical research? The answer is NO. Does it show anything of value to a
genealogist? The answer I have to give for that one is a maybe, maybe if its
important to you to know that there is a minor chance you may hasve a common
ancestor with someone thousands of years ago.

And you just re-contradicted yourself. OK, you bought something, you
don't like it. We understand. You made that point. It's kind of
turning into a rant at this point though, Jeff, which is going to make
people less receptive to your point.


First, I have not contradited myself or RE contradicted anyting. Speak for
yourself not other people.

Huntersglenn

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Huntersglenn » 02 mai 2005 18:46:05

Jeff wrote:
Absolutely and the claim made by Family Tree DNA is that a 25 marker match
would show a common ancestor within 8 generations. (MSNBC report). Well,
when you actually take the test that changes, to 14.5 and without a common
surname 1000 years or greater. 435 years and one thousand years is not 200
years. There is a huge difference. Its good that your interested to know
that you have a common ancestor with someone 1000 years ago. But the fact
remains that the information is useless for any part of real genealogy. You
might as well go to the Mall and have them print you out some mall
genealogy. The reason I say this is that Scientists using good DNA not junk
DNA like these labs do, that are doing real research into "Deep Genetics"
know that everyone on earth has at least one common ancestor at 17
generations. Thats within 510 years, so knowing you have a common ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything. Totally useless.

So you're saying that EVERYONE on earth shares a common ancestor if they
go back 17 generations? I'm already back to 10 generations (I'm the
10th), so you're saying that when I go back 7 generations, then I'll be
related to everyone else? Maybe I'm misinterpreteing what you're
saying, but I highly doubt that if I go back 7 more generations that
I'll find that I'm related to you and the others on this list.

Cathy

Dave Hinz

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 02 mai 2005 18:46:58

On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:38:56 GMT, Jeff <none@none.com> wrote:
So you are claiming that, while the science is valid, the delivery of
the science from the vendor you used is not as advertised? That's a
very different statement than your subject-line would suggest.

No, you are misconstruing what I am posting. Let me make this clear. The
PSEUDO SCIENCE has a zero level of accuracy. Does it show markers,
hapltoypes and haplogroups

Yes, to this point.

thaty show where you decend from thousands of
years ago? The answer is MAYBE, which doesnt mean anything.

In your opinion. If you know so much about it, then why are you
so pissed off that you sent 'em money to do it, to get what apparently
you knew you'd get?

Does it show
common ancestors within a legitimate number of generations for realistic
Genealogical research? The answer is NO.

So why did you buy it then? Just so you could go on and on and on about
how angry it made you? I mean, as long as you're getting enjoyment, do
go on, but it's kind of repetitive at this point.

Does it show anything of value to a
genealogist? The answer I have to give for that one is a maybe, maybe if its
important to you to know that there is a minor chance you may hasve a common
ancestor with someone thousands of years ago.

And yet, you sent them money to find out just that. Ah well.

And you just re-contradicted yourself. OK, you bought something, you
don't like it. We understand. You made that point. It's kind of
turning into a rant at this point though, Jeff, which is going to make
people less receptive to your point.

First, I have not contradited myself or RE contradicted anyting. Speak for
yourself not other people.


Fair enough. <plonk>. If I want to read rants, I can find well-constructed
ones in other groups.

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 02 mai 2005 18:58:36

Jeff wrote:.

[.....] ANother thing that was a negative. Lets say the Haplogroup was
R1b. Does this mean the individual is from western european descent?
According to the people (Geneticists?) at FTDNA the answer is MAYBE. Well,
maybe is not good enough. Lets say you came up with a Haplogroup of Q or Q3,
Native American or Asian. If that shows to be your Haplogroup does that mean
your of Native American descent? Once again the answer is MAYBE or NOT
NECCESARILY. How about a YES OR NO? The only way to even determine if your
HAPLOGROUP is Q or Q3 AFTER you have paid for the initial test is through a
further SNP test then its still not conclusive, its still a maybe. I stand
by my statement that DNA Genealogy is all but worthless.

You did deal with familytreedna=Family Tree DNA like in the subject header
didn't you? They talk about that at the very top of their webpage at:
http://www.familytreedna.com/description.html

They make the *unqualified* statement at the very top of *all* of the:
"Y-Chromosome - DNA Tests" that: "Ethnic and Geographic Origins: All Y-DNA
tests allow you to identify your ethnic and geographic origins, both recent and
far distant on your direct male descending line. Among others, you will be able
to check your Native-American or African Ancestry as well as for the Cohanim
Ancestry."

They offer no further explanation there nor any clickable links in that
paragraph that would offer further explanation. So I looked at the sample
reports to see what one would get in that regard. Unfortunately, those are
unreadable even when downloaded and magnified in an image viewer. So I wasn't
able to tell what they really meant by "recent" and "far distant" and without
seeing a sample report that reports the type of information that was promised in
that paragraph, I'm left in doubt as to what I would get. Sounds like you've
cleared that up.

Bob

Marshall Lake

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Marshall Lake » 02 mai 2005 19:00:31

No, you are misconstruing what I am posting. Let me make this clear. The
PSEUDO SCIENCE has a zero level of accuracy. Does it show markers,
hapltoypes and haplogroups thaty show where you decend from thousands of
years ago? The answer is MAYBE, which doesnt mean anything. Does it show
common ancestors within a legitimate number of generations for realistic
Genealogical research? The answer is NO.

I don't understand. Isn't the following chart valid (which is produced
by familytreedna.com) ?

MRCA = Most Recent Common Ancestor

Probability for MRCA

Number 50% (MRCA 90% (MRCA 95% (MRCA
of no more no more no more
matching than this than this than this
markers number of number of number of
generations) generations) generations)

11 of 12 17 39 47
12 of 12 7 23 29
23 of 25 11 23 27
24 of 25 7 16 20
25 of 25 3 10 13
35 of 37 6 12 14
36 of 37 4 8 10
37 of 37 2 5 7


So, if two people match on 37 markers, then they have a 95% chance of
having a common ancestor within 7 geneations. Isn't that a legitimate
number of generations?

Joe Pessarra

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Joe Pessarra » 02 mai 2005 19:41:33

"Huntersglenn" <huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yFtde.4717$aB.2938@lakeread03...
Jeff wrote:
(Message snipped)


Scientists using good DNA not junk
DNA like these labs do, that are doing real research into "Deep
Genetics"
know that everyone on earth has at least one common ancestor at 17
generations. Thats within 510 years, so knowing you have a common
ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything. Totally useless.

So you're saying that EVERYONE on earth shares a common ancestor if they
go back 17 generations? I'm already back to 10 generations (I'm the
10th), so you're saying that when I go back 7 generations, then I'll be
related to everyone else? Maybe I'm misinterpreteing what you're
saying, but I highly doubt that if I go back 7 more generations that
I'll find that I'm related to you and the others on this list.

Cathy



One might take a look at the following Parker DNA Project site.

http://web.utk.edu/~corn/parkerdna/park5.htm

I have not studied it, nor am able to understand it all at this point, but
it looks like some reasonable information about various Parker lines. At
least, by looking into some of the genealogy information provided by the
participants, one might be able to do a better job of finding the right
places to look for information that they are still missing in their
particular lines.

DNA tests are, at the very least, one more tool for genealogists to use in
their research. And the biggest challenge is deciding what you would like
to learn about your DNA connections, and inquiring of the various DNA
laboratories as to whether they can provide that type of information, and at
what price.

My surname is from East Prussia in the 1600's. But, family lore from at
least 5 distant German relatives says that the family came from Italy
earlier, passing through and remaining in Austria for awhile.

DNA comparisons between some of these Pessarra families and some similarly
spelled Italian family names in the area where the family is supposed to
have originated, might (I emphasize might) give us some clues as to where to
start looking for more information. And we are talking only in the realm of
400 years in the past.

A good German genealogist leaves no Stein unturned!

Joe in Georgetown, Texas, USA
Return address is bogus.
Use joepessarra@cox.net
to respond directly.

James A. Doemer

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 03 mai 2005 00:19:54

"Allen" <allen@nothere.net> wrote in message
news:Npqde.50921$hu5.31042@tornado.texas.rr.com...

Jeff wrote:

Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:rq1c71hbqr553dlj84cpvhbknn51u335mj@4ax.com...
Did you do any research into this before signing

up?


Absolutely and the claim made by Family Tree DNA is that a 25 marker
match
would show a common ancestor within 8 generations. (MSNBC report). Well,
when you actually take the test that changes, to 14.5 and without a
common
surname 1000 years or greater. 435 years and one thousand years is not
200
years. There is a huge difference. Its good that your interested to know
that you have a common ancestor with someone 1000 years ago. But the
fact
remains that the information is useless for any part of real genealogy.
You
might as well go to the Mall and have them print you out some mall
genealogy. The reason I say this is that Scientists using good DNA not
junk
DNA like these labs do, that are doing real research into "Deep
Genetics"
know that everyone on earth has at least one common ancestor at 17
generations. Thats within 510 years, so knowing you have a common
ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything. Totally useless.

I would suggest a good mathematical statistics course for you, not the
"mall" kind. While you are enrolling for it, you might consider signing
up for English 101.
Allen



If all you have are personal attacks, take it some place else. I'm
interested in seeing what others have to say, not insults.

James A. Doemer

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 03 mai 2005 00:27:58

"Joe Pessarra" <pessarraspam@spamcox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:fvude.6372$yV4.4371@okepread03...
"Huntersglenn" <huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yFtde.4717$aB.2938@lakeread03...

Jeff wrote:
(Message snipped)

Scientists using good DNA not junk
DNA like these labs do, that are doing real research into "Deep
Genetics"
know that everyone on earth has at least one common ancestor at 17
generations. Thats within 510 years, so knowing you have a common
ancestor
with someone 1000 years ago doesnt mean anything. Totally useless.

So you're saying that EVERYONE on earth shares a common ancestor if they
go back 17 generations? I'm already back to 10 generations (I'm the
10th), so you're saying that when I go back 7 generations, then I'll be
related to everyone else? Maybe I'm misinterpreteing what you're
saying, but I highly doubt that if I go back 7 more generations that
I'll find that I'm related to you and the others on this list.

Cathy



One might take a look at the following Parker DNA Project site.

http://web.utk.edu/~corn/parkerdna/park5.htm


Interesting link, thank you very much.

Jeff

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Jeff » 03 mai 2005 01:33:26

I would suggest a good mathematical statistics course for you, not the
"mall" kind. While you are enrolling for it, you might consider signing
up for English 101.
Allen



If all you have are personal attacks, take it some place else. I'm
interested in seeing what others have to say, not insults.



You added this last paragraph yourself. Next time you add something and want
to talk to yourself, dont make it so obvious.

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 03 mai 2005 01:50:56

Jeff wrote:

I would suggest a good mathematical statistics course for you, not the
"mall" kind. While you are enrolling for it, you might consider signing
up for English 101.
Allen

If all you have are personal attacks, take it some place else. I'm
interested in seeing what others have to say, not insults.

You added this last paragraph yourself. Next time you add something and want
to talk to yourself, dont make it so obvious.

That wasn't the case! Better doublecheck who said what.

Bob

James A. Doemer

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av James A. Doemer » 03 mai 2005 03:12:48

Jeff <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would suggest a good mathematical statistics course for you, not
the "mall" kind. While you are enrolling for it, you might
consider signing up for English 101.
Allen



If all you have are personal attacks, take it some place else. I'm
interested in seeing what others have to say, not insults.



You added this last paragraph yourself. Next time you add something
and want to talk to yourself, dont make it so obvious.

I added nothing but what I said.

singhals

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av singhals » 03 mai 2005 15:32:07

Jeff wrote:

So you are claiming that, while the science is valid, the delivery of
the science from the vendor you used is not as advertised? That's a
very different statement than your subject-line would suggest.


No, you are misconstruing what I am posting. Let me make this clear. The
PSEUDO SCIENCE has a zero level of accuracy. Does it show markers,
hapltoypes and haplogroups thaty show where you decend from thousands of
years ago? The answer is MAYBE, which doesnt mean anything. Does it show
common ancestors within a legitimate number of generations for realistic
Genealogical research? The answer is NO. Does it show anything of value to a
genealogist? The answer I have to give for that one is a maybe, maybe if its
important to you to know that there is a minor chance you may hasve a common
ancestor with someone thousands of years ago.


And you just re-contradicted yourself. OK, you bought something, you
don't like it. We understand. You made that point. It's kind of
turning into a rant at this point though, Jeff, which is going to make
people less receptive to your point.



First, I have not contradited myself or RE contradicted anyting. Speak for
yourself not other people.


Jeff -- first off, I'm more on your side than on the other vis-a-vis the
usefulness of genealogy DNA studies. I think they tell a lot of people
things they didn't actually want to know and don't tell most people
things they DID want to know.

However, you DID say a few messages back that you took a stand-alone
test, and weren't part of a study. That severely affects the utility of
any result. The major utility of genealogy-level DNA testing is to
determine *IF* two groups are at all likely to be related. IOW, it can
rule out, it can't rule in.

FWIW.

Cheryl

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 03 mai 2005 16:16:00

singhals wrote:

Jeff wrote:
snipped a lot

No, you are misconstruing what I am posting. Let me make this clear. The
PSEUDO SCIENCE has a zero level of accuracy. Does it show markers,
hapltoypes and haplogroups thaty show where you decend from thousands of
years ago? The answer is MAYBE, which doesnt mean anything. Does it show
common ancestors within a legitimate number of generations for realistic
Genealogical research? The answer is NO. Does it show anything of value to a
genealogist? The answer I have to give for that one is a maybe, maybe if its
important to you to know that there is a minor chance you may hasve a common
ancestor with someone thousands of years ago.

Jeff -- first off, I'm more on your side than on the other vis-a-vis the
usefulness of genealogy DNA studies.

Likewise

I think they tell a lot of people
things they didn't actually want to know and don't tell most people
things they DID want to know.

And the studies are entirely dependent on the family trees that the individuals
have generated via traditional means. A single data point is sampled at the end of
the line and the results assumed to be true of the entire line.

However, you DID say a few messages back that you took a stand-alone
test, and weren't part of a study. That severely affects the utility of
any result.

Hopefully his results would be portable and could be used in a study. Not so? If
not, then it's even more of a waste.

The major utility of genealogy-level DNA testing is to
determine *IF* two groups are at all likely to be related. IOW, it can
rule out, it can't rule in.

It is only comparing individuals! the participants! everything else is derivative
and depends on tradition research.

FWIW.

Likewise

Bob

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 04 mai 2005 01:08:50

anna wrote:
I too am a member of the RG Lee DNA project and it has been very
helpful to me. My 18th century Jesse Lee has been mixed up with other
18th century Jesse Lees so according to most available research, it
looks as if the two Jesses are the same (even though my research points
to two different individuals.) Through the DNA project, we can see
that my Jesse and the other Jesse are not related. I'm thrilled with
this information because I know to look in other directions. The only
disappointment with the DNA study is that it looks like my ancestor
isn't related to any of the other Lees tested yet either.

Dennis--I too have turned to the Hugh Lee line because there seems to
be some research on the web that shows my Jesse was from this line.
However, I have written these people about their sources and have had
no response yet. I have been hoping that a proven ancestor of the Hugh
Lee line might get tested so I can see if we might have a match.

Once again, even in the Hugh Lee line my Jesse is being confused with
another Jesse. Jesse Lee, the famous Methodist circuit rider, is the
son of Nathaniel Lee Jr. while (according to my latest findings) Jesse
Lee (mine) is the son of Nathaniel Sr. My Jesse Lee was a Baptist lay
minister.

I believe the DNA studies can be quite helpful to genealogists to sort
out these problems and some of the questionable research.

I also think we carry the privacy thing a little too far--I would like
to at least see the ancestoral lines for a few generations for the
participants so that I can compare it with my research--in this way, it
would help me know which path I don't need to follow.

One note - Clint Lee has recently informed me that we may be getting a

member of the Hugh Lee line into the RG study. He's working on it.

Dennis

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 04 mai 2005 01:21:40

Bob:

You raise good points. However, IMO, the testing labs offer a
scientifically determinate hard point that many of the other genealogy
sources don't. Yes, there may be errors. All human activities are
subject to error. I just think, and believe (perhaps naively), that a
defined scientific test from a reputable lab following prescribed
procedures according to international standards will produce a
reasonably valid result.

And I understand statistics. Jeff is unhappy because (in part) that
FTDNA can't tell how many generations back - to the number - that a
common ancestor may exist. I understand that they will NEVER be able to
tell that, any more than Nielsen will ever tell exactly how many TVs are
tuned into "CSI: Topeka". Statistics give you an approximate value and
a confidence level.

As I have said several times, I think the fact that you can
statistically state (within reasonable error) that two people AREN'T
related, via use of DNA testing, may be more valid than saying that they
ARE.

I am certainly more trusting of statistics and scientific procedures
than anecdotal evidence and shoddy documentation sources - but I am
willing to agree that either can be valid - or invalid.

Dennis



Robert Heiling wrote:

Dennis Lee wrote:


I've been following this thread and am wondering about that. Those would seem to
be rather complex tests and I would doubt very much that they are 100% error-free
of either technical or human error. What ever is? Your confidence level could be
increased by rerunning the test for yet another $195, but that doesn't rerun the
tests for all of the other people. We all have lines where someone's parentage is
in doubt to one degree or another because there is no such thing as a perfect
source. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are taking this test as a
perfect source with no room for error. Can you be certain? Food for thought?

Bob

Bob, I'm taking it as a whole bunch less error-prone than a lot of the
so-called "documentation" out there. The testing is done in a lab,
under guidelines promulgated by an international organization. Contrast
that with the LDS website, where people are allowed to post data
willy-nilly without a shred of proof. Or to census records where
misspellings and age inaccuracies are common. Or to Bible records which
are notoriously inaccurate because they are often done after the fact.
Or to death records, which often are done by a descendant with no real
knowledge of their grandparents (the deceased's record often states the
names and birthplace of his/her parents). DAR records are often
inaccurate. Why is this? Because many of these records are subject to
illiteracy, complacency, wishful thinking, and other facets of human
behavior.


I agree with your point as to relative credibility of sources, but that's no insurance
of 100% reliability of the lab testing. I also see a touch of apples & oranges there.


In contrast, the DNA testing is done to a standard, by scientists and
technicians trained to do such things. You or I can't do it - and then
enter the data, unlike paper research. So, our individual flaws and
biases can't corrupt the results.


Excuse me for saying this, but you & I didn't send out over 3000 samples of a virulent
flu virus as was done by trained scientists and technicians. That's just one example
and it's not exactly unheard of for medical labs to make errors. Those people are all
human. I can't grant you any points there.


In the few cases where I've seen an individual be tested by different
organizations, the outcome was exactly the same for both tests - at
least for the markers that the two tests had in common. And, by and
large, FTDNA and RG, two of the major genealogical DNA testing
organizations, test the same markers - perhaps 90% commonality between them.


I wasn't suggesting that there was a high rate of errors such as would have destroyed
all credibility for DNA testing, only that your actions regarding Lee research might be
a bit drastic in light of the possibility of error. I was interrupted while composing
that post and when I came back to it I forgot to complete my thought, as follows. I am
a descendent of a Lovina Lamkin (1796-1850) of Vermont. I have no real hard, but good
circumstantial, evidence that she was a daughter of Josiah Lamkin/Charity Curtiss and
therefore ultimately a descendent of Thomas Lamkin b. ~1610 Norwich, Norfolk, England.
I'm quite convinced of her parentage as was Dr. Wilkins when I furnished the
information that was printed in his book. However! I haven't closed my mind to any
future evidence to the contrary. I keep my mind open on all of my lines.


I fully recognize that there may be flaws in DNA test data. But I
think, on the whole, it is a helluva lot more accurate than a lot of
other genealogical resources, and certainly is worth investigating as a
supplement to your other work.


But that comparison isn't helpful. You've indicated that you will drop certain lines
of Lee research and are passing that message on to viewers here who may now be inclined
to act in a similar fashion. That's accepting DNA evidence as infallible. and have you
considered that a Lee researcher in a line you now ignore may have erroneously lifted
your line? You'll still need to keep on top of those other lines to make certain that
hasn't happened.

Bob



Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 04 mai 2005 02:01:07

Dennis

The accuracy of the DNA testing wasn't the major point, although it
remains something to keep in mind especially when you consider what sort
of company you might be dealing with. But let's pretend or agree for the
moment that there are zero problems in that regard and that the DNA
tests are 99.999999% accurate. Then we have:

I am certainly more trusting of statistics and scientific procedures
than anecdotal evidence and shoddy documentation sources - but I am
willing to agree that either can be valid - or invalid.

But look at what you and others in that Lee study have accomplished with
your DNA tests. You have established tentative relatiionship degrees
among each other. That's all!

For the remainder or any conclusions or any further research, you are
forced to depend on one another's researched trees - the very research
that you have been downplaying in your posts. Your own DNA test proves
nothing about who you say is your father or grandfather or g-gf or . . .
and so on with the other participants in a DNA sense. Just what good has
the DNA test accomplished?

Bob

Dennis Lee wrote:
Bob:

You raise good points. However, IMO, the testing labs offer a
scientifically determinate hard point that many of the other genealogy
sources don't. Yes, there may be errors. All human activities are
subject to error. I just think, and believe (perhaps naively), that a
defined scientific test from a reputable lab following prescribed
procedures according to international standards will produce a
reasonably valid result.

And I understand statistics. Jeff is unhappy because (in part) that
FTDNA can't tell how many generations back - to the number - that a
common ancestor may exist. I understand that they will NEVER be able to
tell that, any more than Nielsen will ever tell exactly how many TVs are
tuned into "CSI: Topeka". Statistics give you an approximate value and
a confidence level.

As I have said several times, I think the fact that you can
statistically state (within reasonable error) that two people AREN'T
related, via use of DNA testing, may be more valid than saying that they
ARE.

I am certainly more trusting of statistics and scientific procedures
than anecdotal evidence and shoddy documentation sources - but I am
willing to agree that either can be valid - or invalid.

Dennis

Robert Heiling wrote:

Dennis Lee wrote:


I've been following this thread and am wondering about that. Those would seem to
be rather complex tests and I would doubt very much that they are 100% error-free
of either technical or human error. What ever is? Your confidence level could be
increased by rerunning the test for yet another $195, but that doesn't rerun the
tests for all of the other people. We all have lines where someone's parentage is
in doubt to one degree or another because there is no such thing as a perfect
source. Your last sentence seems to imply that you are taking this test as a
perfect source with no room for error. Can you be certain? Food for thought?

Bob

Bob, I'm taking it as a whole bunch less error-prone than a lot of the
so-called "documentation" out there. The testing is done in a lab,
under guidelines promulgated by an international organization. Contrast
that with the LDS website, where people are allowed to post data
willy-nilly without a shred of proof. Or to census records where
misspellings and age inaccuracies are common. Or to Bible records which
are notoriously inaccurate because they are often done after the fact.
Or to death records, which often are done by a descendant with no real
knowledge of their grandparents (the deceased's record often states the
names and birthplace of his/her parents). DAR records are often
inaccurate. Why is this? Because many of these records are subject to
illiteracy, complacency, wishful thinking, and other facets of human
behavior.


I agree with your point as to relative credibility of sources, but that's no insurance
of 100% reliability of the lab testing. I also see a touch of apples & oranges there.


In contrast, the DNA testing is done to a standard, by scientists and
technicians trained to do such things. You or I can't do it - and then
enter the data, unlike paper research. So, our individual flaws and
biases can't corrupt the results.


Excuse me for saying this, but you & I didn't send out over 3000 samples of a virulent
flu virus as was done by trained scientists and technicians. That's just one example
and it's not exactly unheard of for medical labs to make errors. Those people are all
human. I can't grant you any points there.


In the few cases where I've seen an individual be tested by different
organizations, the outcome was exactly the same for both tests - at
least for the markers that the two tests had in common. And, by and
large, FTDNA and RG, two of the major genealogical DNA testing
organizations, test the same markers - perhaps 90% commonality between them.


I wasn't suggesting that there was a high rate of errors such as would have destroyed
all credibility for DNA testing, only that your actions regarding Lee research might be
a bit drastic in light of the possibility of error. I was interrupted while composing
that post and when I came back to it I forgot to complete my thought, as follows. I am
a descendent of a Lovina Lamkin (1796-1850) of Vermont. I have no real hard, but good
circumstantial, evidence that she was a daughter of Josiah Lamkin/Charity Curtiss and
therefore ultimately a descendent of Thomas Lamkin b. ~1610 Norwich, Norfolk, England.
I'm quite convinced of her parentage as was Dr. Wilkins when I furnished the
information that was printed in his book. However! I haven't closed my mind to any
future evidence to the contrary. I keep my mind open on all of my lines.


I fully recognize that there may be flaws in DNA test data. But I
think, on the whole, it is a helluva lot more accurate than a lot of
other genealogical resources, and certainly is worth investigating as a
supplement to your other work.


But that comparison isn't helpful. You've indicated that you will drop certain lines
of Lee research and are passing that message on to viewers here who may now be inclined
to act in a similar fashion. That's accepting DNA evidence as infallible. and have you
considered that a Lee researcher in a line you now ignore may have erroneously lifted
your line? You'll still need to keep on top of those other lines to make certain that
hasn't happened.

Bob



Christopher Jahn

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Christopher Jahn » 04 mai 2005 02:33:07

Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in
news:42781ED3.15B5BA33@comcast.net:

Dennis

The accuracy of the DNA testing wasn't the major point, although it
remains something to keep in mind especially when you consider what
sort of company you might be dealing with. But let's pretend or agree
for the moment that there are zero problems in that regard and that
the DNA tests are 99.999999% accurate. Then we have:

I am certainly more trusting of statistics and scientific
procedures than anecdotal evidence and shoddy documentation sources -
but I am willing to agree that either can be valid - or invalid.

But look at what you and others in that Lee study have accomplished
with your DNA tests. You have established tentative relatiionship
degrees among each other. That's all!


That can be enough.


For the remainder or any conclusions or any further research, you are
forced to depend on one another's researched trees - the very research
that you have been downplaying in your posts. Your own DNA test proves
nothing about who you say is your father or grandfather or g-gf or . .
. and so on with the other participants in a DNA sense. Just what good
has the DNA test accomplished?

Here is an example of what a DNA test can accomplish:

Bill Smith is from Cincinatti, Ohio. His family records don't go back
very far, but his grandfather (Ed jr) said HIS grandfather came from
Pennsylvania to Cleveland in the 1880's. He finds a John Smith from
Pennsylvania, with a son Edward in the 1890 Census. Is this his GGG?

Pete Smith from Columbus, IS a descendent of this John Smith; he has the
family bible, and other personal papers.

A DNA test can indicate a relationship, although it won't prove that Bill
is descended from Pete's ancestor. But if it comes out higher than
average, Bill can continue to research Pete's line for clues. He may
discover that John had a brother or an uncle, and find a connection
there.

If it come out that Bill is as likely to be related to anyone as much as
Pete, then he can conclude that John is likely not his ancestor, and
abandon further research along that line.

Another way it can be used:
Two families with similar names with completely different origins. The
Feltens are from Germany - the name was orginally Veltin. Some branches
of this family now spell it "Felton". There is also a Felton line that
has that spelling - and it's from England. If you are a Felton, and you
don't know which is your line, a DNA test may help narrow it down. Will
it conclusively say THIS or THAT? No. But your DNA may more closely
match one line than the other, and that can give you a starting point.


--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

Moderation is for monks. (Robert Anson Heinlein)

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 04 mai 2005 04:09:21

Robert Heiling wrote:

Dennis

The accuracy of the DNA testing wasn't the major point, although it
remains something to keep in mind especially when you consider what sort
of company you might be dealing with. But let's pretend or agree for the
moment that there are zero problems in that regard and that the DNA
tests are 99.999999% accurate. Then we have:


I am certainly more trusting of statistics and scientific procedures
than anecdotal evidence and shoddy documentation sources - but I am
willing to agree that either can be valid - or invalid.


But look at what you and others in that Lee study have accomplished with
your DNA tests. You have established tentative relatiionship degrees
among each other. That's all!

For the remainder or any conclusions or any further research, you are
forced to depend on one another's researched trees - the very research
that you have been downplaying in your posts. Your own DNA test proves
nothing about who you say is your father or grandfather or g-gf or . . .
and so on with the other participants in a DNA sense. Just what good has
the DNA test accomplished?

Bob


Bob:
I think it to be a major accomplishment that I can narrow the scope of
my limited research time into areas more likely to be fruitful for me.
For years, I have be shotgunning - trying to tie my ancestor back into
any of the known lines or fragments of lines. Since I now *know* (and I
will stipulate a small degree of uncertainty here) that I am not related
to several lines - why waste my limited resources looking into them?

I can instead focus on those lines where I might possibly match.
Hopefully, as in the case of the "Hugh Lee" line mentioned in several
recent posts, a known descendant will come forward and be tested, and I
can compare my DNA to his. If there's a match, or even a near match - I
can focus my research energies on tracing that line for connections to
my guy. If there's no match, I move on to another line. I don't waste
my time digging on the Internet and in musty courthouse records for
something I know, within reasonable certainty, to be nonexistent (i.e. a
tie between my guys and that line).

At some point in time, I hope to make a match with one of the more
established lines. That still will *prove* nothing, as you have stated.
What it will do is allow me to focus my energies accumulating
information regarding that line and how it could tie to my guy. Once
you know where to look for something, it's a helluva lot easier to find.

I'll give you an example of what DNA testing has done for me
specifically. I don't know the origins of my ancestor, John Lee. All I
know is that he appears in LA in 1805, he has a wife, and 6 kids, and he
was born before 1765 (assuming that you believe the 1810 census is 100%
accurate - and I don't). Through some research, I found him and his
wife in Currituck Co, NC in 1786, selling land that his wife had
inherited. The land transaction says that they were "of Beaufort Co,
NC". Now, for the first time ever, I had a legitimate shot at a
birthplace and perhaps a family for my guy.

So, I researched Currituck Co, NC and Beaufort Co, NC. And prominent
among these guys are the Beaufort Co Leigh family. The Lee surname has
been altered so many times from generation to generation, my guy might
well have been a Leigh. Luckily, some Leighs have been DNA tested.
And, sure enough, a descendant of Judge James Leigh of Beaufort Co, NC
was among the participants. We don't match. Not even close. Even if
one of the tests was screwy, we'd still be too many markers off to be
related. So, my ancestor can't be related to James Leigh, and part of
that family. I therefore look elsewhere. I haven't found a participant
from the Currituck Co Lee's - so, they remain a possiblity. And I
continue searching for data on them. But I don't waste my time on the
Beaufort Leighs (any more).

I find this tremendously valuable. I have *wasted* thousands of hours
(quite of bit of which has proved useful to other people) researching
family fragments. Some of these have now been ruled out. I need waste
my time there no more. I've moved on to more likely possibilities.

Dennis

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 04 mai 2005 05:03:53

Dennis Lee wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:
Dennis

The accuracy of the DNA testing wasn't the major point, although it
remains something to keep in mind especially when you consider what sort
of company you might be dealing with. But let's pretend or agree for the
moment that there are zero problems in that regard and that the DNA
tests are 99.999999% accurate. Then we have:

I am certainly more trusting of statistics and scientific procedures
than anecdotal evidence and shoddy documentation sources - but I am
willing to agree that either can be valid - or invalid.

But look at what you and others in that Lee study have accomplished with
your DNA tests. You have established tentative relatiionship degrees
among each other. That's all!

For the remainder or any conclusions or any further research, you are
forced to depend on one another's researched trees - the very research
that you have been downplaying in your posts. Your own DNA test proves
nothing about who you say is your father or grandfather or g-gf or . . .
and so on with the other participants in a DNA sense. Just what good has
the DNA test accomplished?

Bob

Bob:
I think it to be a major accomplishment that I can narrow the scope of
my limited research time into areas more likely to be fruitful for me.
For years, I have be shotgunning - trying to tie my ancestor back into
any of the known lines or fragments of lines. Since I now *know* (and I
will stipulate a small degree of uncertainty here) that I am not related
to several lines - why waste my limited resources looking into them?

Maybe you shouldn't be looking at any Lee's whatsoever? Suppose that the elusive
ancestor wasn't a Lee, but took Lee as a surname for whatever reason - adoption,
whim, . . . ?

I can instead focus on those lines where I might possibly match.
Hopefully, as in the case of the "Hugh Lee" line mentioned in several
recent posts, a known descendant will come forward and be tested, and I
can compare my DNA to his. If there's a match, or even a near match - I
can focus my research energies on tracing that line for connections to
my guy. If there's no match, I move on to another line. I don't waste
my time digging on the Internet and in musty courthouse records for
something I know, within reasonable certainty, to be nonexistent (i.e. a
tie between my guys and that line).

But how to you define what you moving away from? How do you define which
people/lines you should ignore? Do you mean the list of people from the non-match
participants in the DNA study? and do you know if they did their job correctly
without going over their trees and the list yourself? (just what you should be
ignoring?).

At some point in time, I hope to make a match with one of the more
established lines. That still will *prove* nothing, as you have stated.
What it will do is allow me to focus my energies accumulating
information regarding that line and how it could tie to my guy. Once
you know where to look for something, it's a helluva lot easier to find.

As you know, that day hasn't arrived and may never arrive, so I don't see how you
can give DNA any credit there..

I'll give you an example of what DNA testing has done for me
specifically. I don't know the origins of my ancestor, John Lee. All I
know is that he appears in LA in 1805, he has a wife, and 6 kids, and he
was born before 1765 (assuming that you believe the 1810 census is 100%
accurate - and I don't). Through some research, I found him and his
wife in Currituck Co, NC in 1786, selling land that his wife had
inherited. The land transaction says that they were "of Beaufort Co,
NC". Now, for the first time ever, I had a legitimate shot at a
birthplace and perhaps a family for my guy.

Interesting. But you're positive it's he & his wife? How so? Some find that came
before the land transaction find I suppose.

So, I researched Currituck Co, NC and Beaufort Co, NC. And prominent
among these guys are the Beaufort Co Leigh family. The Lee surname has
been altered so many times from generation to generation, my guy might
well have been a Leigh. Luckily, some Leighs have been DNA tested.
And, sure enough, a descendant of Judge James Leigh of Beaufort Co, NC
was among the participants.

Or so *he* claims! Remember all that slipshod work, unreliable records, wishful
thinking etc that can distort a line.

We don't match. Not even close. Even if
one of the tests was screwy, we'd still be too many markers off to be
related. So, my ancestor can't be related to James Leigh, and part of
that family. I therefore look elsewhere. I haven't found a participant
from the Currituck Co Lee's - so, they remain a possiblity. And I
continue searching for data on them. But I don't waste my time on the
Beaufort Leighs (any more).

I find this tremendously valuable. I have *wasted* thousands of hours
(quite of bit of which has proved useful to other people) researching
family fragments. Some of these have now been ruled out. I need waste
my time there no more. I've moved on to more likely possibilities.

Ones that you hadn't previously been considering anyhow? I still haven't seen
where DNA has helped you. It hasn't caused you to find anyone. You say it will
help you to ignore some research, but I don't see what the precise methodology for
ignoring is going to be. At the same time, you are being forced to accept the
trees that other people have developed using all of the traditional resources and
you don't know the quality of their research. DNA hasn't done anything for you as
far as I can see and seems somewhat like the pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow. I'm sitting here with open eyes and an open mind, but that's how I see it
at the moment.

Regards,

Bob

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 04 mai 2005 05:38:58

Bob:
Maybe you shouldn't be looking at any Lee's whatsoever? Suppose that the elusive
ancestor wasn't a Lee, but took Lee as a surname for whatever reason - adoption,
whim, . . . ?

That's always a possibility. But, for the moment, I'm working off the
assumption (and it is only that) that my guy was indeed a Lee (however
spelled).

But how to you define what you moving away from? How do you define which
people/lines you should ignore? Do you mean the list of people from the non-match
participants in the DNA study? and do you know if they did their job correctly
without going over their trees and the list yourself? (just what you should be
ignoring?).

Well, for one thing, most of the formalized studies require that the
participants submit pedigrees back to the last verifiable ancestor. I
know our RG study does. Now, even that can have errors, as the Project
Coordinator does not verify the pedigrees. And yes, someone can state
that they're descended from Joe Blow but have dubious proof, and it can
turn out to be in error. That's why the study likes to have several
members from each line.

As you know, that day hasn't arrived and may never arrive, so I don't see how you
can give DNA any credit there..

Oh, I disagree. For instance, several family lines *suspected* of
being related were shown to be so via DNA testing. Those participants
are actively searching for documentation to support the DNA findings.
Also, these suspected relations were surprised to find that they were
DNA-related to a more famous line (John Lee of Nansemond). The
participants are actively seeking the links between their fragments and
that older line.
Interesting. But you're positive it's he & his wife? How so? Some
find that came
before the land transaction find I suppose.

Yeah, it had to do with naming conventions and commonality of given
names of some families.

Or so *he* claims! Remember all that slipshod work, unreliable records, wishful
thinking etc that can distort a line.

Actually, it was 3 "he's" in this case. But that really doesn't alter
your point. All 3 could have relied on poor documentation.

Ones that you hadn't previously been considering anyhow? I still haven't seen
where DNA has helped you. It hasn't caused you to find anyone. You say it will
help you to ignore some research, but I don't see what the precise methodology for
ignoring is going to be. At the same time, you are being forced to accept the
trees that other people have developed using all of the traditional resources and
you don't know the quality of their research. DNA hasn't done anything for you as
far as I can see and seems somewhat like the pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow. I'm sitting here with open eyes and an open mind, but that's how I see it
at the moment.

Sure, I had been considering those fragmentary lines before. But, you
have to understand how daunting a task I've been facing. When it was
clear that I wasn't going to be able to backtrack my John Lee, I decided
to brute-force the approach. I'd find every John Lee/Lea/Leigh in
existence in the middle 1700's and weed them out. Shouldn't be that
many, right? Wrong. There's over 150 of them, with a good 70 or so as
possible candidates. And those are just the ones I've found so far.
So, I began accumulating data on each and every one of them.

My rudimentary Word-file database now consists of over 700 pages of Lee
data. There are at least 200 family lines in this stuff. Some are one
or two generations deep. Some are 10 or 12 (and I stopped counting
forward in the middle 1800's).

Now I can either continue shotgunning like this, or I can focus. DNA
gives me a tool to focus. I've been able to cull out major family
groups (e.g. the Lees of VA) because my DNA does not match with a
descendant of that family. Now, my focus area looks more like 150
family lines. Some improvement. If we add participants from several
other major family lines (and I've identified up to 80 of them, some of
which are probably related), I can condense that further.

Say that someday in the near future I've ruled out all but 20 family
lines. I can spend all of my time tracing leads in those lines,
visiting those state Archives and county courthouses, asking vital
records folks for those records, etc. - instead of the similar actions
for the culled families. That alone would be a huge savings to me -
well more than the $195 I paid for the test. I have finite resources
both of time and money, and this culling would allow me to focus those
resources.

And, there's always the possibility that some participant will match
with me. The two of us can then put our heads together and work jointly
on what had been two individual problems.

Dennis

Christopher Jahn

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Christopher Jahn » 04 mai 2005 05:41:07

Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in
news:427849A9.150315BD@comcast.net:

DNA hasn't done anything for you as
far as I can see and seems somewhat like the pot of gold at the end of
the rainbow. I'm sitting here with open eyes and an open mind, but
that's how I see it at the moment.

Regards,

Bob

Bob, you're an idiot.

PLONK.

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is the most fatal.

cecilia

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av cecilia » 04 mai 2005 09:11:54

Dennis Lee wrote:
[...] prominent
among these guys are the Beaufort Co Leigh family. [...]
some Leighs have been DNA tested.
And, sure enough, a descendant of Judge James Leigh of Beaufort Co, NC
was among the participants. We don't match. Not even close.
[...] So, my ancestor can't be related to James Leigh, and part of
that family. I therefore look elsewhere. [...]

There remains the possibility that your ancestor is descended from a man
that thought he belonged to that family (but had a father different from
his mother's family).

I have a third cousin once removed whose great-great-grandfather is said
by my line not to have totally believed that his son's posthumous
illegitimate son was in fact his grandson, though he brought the child
up as a member of the family.

(Myself, I find the reason given to support the view that he had doubts
inadequate, but that's by the by.)

I don't think the cousin's line know of what can (in the absence of
proof) be considered gossip.

But if they did, and people wanted to be sure, there are male-line
members on both sides that could be tested. A difference in the DNA
would point to the likelihood that the posthumous child was not his
putative father's son - but it could instead mean that that was true of
at least one of the 8 births involved in connecting the two men being
tested.

Lesley Robertson

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Lesley Robertson » 04 mai 2005 09:54:27

"Dennis Lee" <dennis@gazinkus.com> wrote in message
news:oAUde.33290$AE6.9415@tornado.texas.rr.com...
As I have said several times, I think the fact that you can
statistically state (within reasonable error) that two people AREN'T
related, via use of DNA testing, may be more valid than saying that they
ARE.

You are quite right that it is a useful tool - the problem is that some

people dive in without realising that it IS only another tool, and not a
shortcut to their ancestors without doing the rest of the research. Some of
the less reputable companies actually encourage this view - people are not
encouraged to read the small print. Perhaps folk should have to prove that
they've done at least a few months of classical genealogy research (and
therefore understand the pitfalls and limitations) before that can
participate [I think that was really only half a joke..]. That way people
would avoid these big disappointments, and might understand what they were
getting.
Lesley Robertson

Bruce Remick

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Bruce Remick » 04 mai 2005 12:38:21

I've been following the substance portions of this thread and found them
intriguing. I had never considered DNA as a potential research tool before. My
own stumbling block is the country of origin for my Remick ancestor who appeared
in Maine in the mid-1600's. It has been speculated that he came from England,
Holland, Luxembourg, and /or Germany, but no records have ever been found to
document this. I have found evidence of a Remick line in England (Cornwall) in
the late-1600's and know there were early Remich lines in (Remich) Luxembourg.

From what I gather, if I could locate a living descendant from either or each of
these lines and we could arrange to have our DNA examined, it would help me, at
least, to determine if I am descended from one of those family lines. If I got
a positive hit from one of these, it would help me to concentrate my research in
that direction and would solve a long time mystery. It would be worth a couple
hundred bucks to me if I could determine my ancestor's origin. I can't speak
for the other two participants. In this way, I can see a real value to using
DNA as a tool.

Bruce

Lesley Robertson

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Lesley Robertson » 04 mai 2005 12:59:02

"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Ou2ee.10179$iU.7430@lakeread05...
From what I gather, if I could locate a living descendant from either or
each of
these lines and we could arrange to have our DNA examined, it would help
me, at
least, to determine if I am descended from one of those family lines.

It'll only work if there's an unbroken line of males, if you're thinking of
tracking the y chromosome (which is normally done for surname studies). That
said, yes, it should help in a case like this.
Lesley Robertson

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 04 mai 2005 14:37:06

Bruce Remick wrote:

I've been following the substance portions of this thread and found them
intriguing. I had never considered DNA as a potential research tool before. My
own stumbling block is the country of origin for my Remick ancestor who appeared
in Maine in the mid-1600's. It has been speculated that he came from England,
Holland, Luxembourg, and /or Germany, but no records have ever been found to
document this. I have found evidence of a Remick line in England (Cornwall) in
the late-1600's and know there were early Remich lines in (Remich) Luxembourg.

From what I gather, if I could locate a living descendant from either or each of
these lines and we could arrange to have our DNA examined, it would help me, at
least, to determine if I am descended from one of those family lines. If I got
a positive hit from one of these, it would help me to concentrate my research in
that direction and would solve a long time mystery. It would be worth a couple
hundred bucks to me if I could determine my ancestor's origin. I can't speak
for the other two participants. In this way, I can see a real value to using
DNA as a tool.

Bruce


Exactly my point.


You can either spend fantastic amounts of time and money tracking both
family segments in England AND Luxembourg, which would probably involve
all sorts of long-distance letter writing, overseas trips, etc. - half
of which you would eventually find to be wasted - OR you could know with
a reasonable degree of certainty that you were descended from one side
or the other, and focus on research only on that line.

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 04 mai 2005 15:21:54

Dennis Lee wrote:

Bruce Remick wrote:

I've been following the substance portions of this thread and found them
intriguing. I had never considered DNA as a potential research tool before. My
own stumbling block is the country of origin for my Remick ancestor who appeared
in Maine in the mid-1600's. It has been speculated that he came from England,
Holland, Luxembourg, and /or Germany, but no records have ever been found to
document this. I have found evidence of a Remick line in England (Cornwall) in
the late-1600's and know there were early Remich lines in (Remich) Luxembourg.

From what I gather, if I could locate a living descendant from either or each of
these lines and we could arrange to have our DNA examined, it would help me, at
least, to determine if I am descended from one of those family lines. If I got
a positive hit from one of these, it would help me to concentrate my research in
that direction and would solve a long time mystery. It would be worth a couple
hundred bucks to me if I could determine my ancestor's origin. I can't speak
for the other two participants. In this way, I can see a real value to using
DNA as a tool.

Bruce


Exactly my point.

You can either spend fantastic amounts of time and money tracking both
family segments in England AND Luxembourg, which would probably involve
all sorts of long-distance letter writing, overseas trips, etc. - half
of which you would eventually find to be wasted - OR you could know with
a reasonable degree of certainty that you were descended from one side
or the other, and focus on research only on that line.

Wait a sec! He hasn't found that other person. He said: " if I could locate a living
descendant". Now how much time & effort & letter writing, etc will be spent in
locating such a person and determining that their ancestry is from one of those
locations? Then suppose that person is found and suppose that stranger even agrees to
a DNA test, but isn't interested in genealogy and you will have to foot the bill. So
you pay 2X $195. Then there isn't a match and you try to reinterate the process.

Bob.

Dave Hinz

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 04 mai 2005 15:22:39

On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:41:07 -0500, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in
news:427849A9.150315BD@comcast.net:

DNA hasn't done anything for you as
far as I can see and seems somewhat like the pot of gold at the end of
the rainbow. I'm sitting here with open eyes and an open mind, but
that's how I see it at the moment.

Regards,

Bob

Bob, you're an idiot.
PLONK.

Might as well plonk me right away too then, Christopher, as it's unlikely
that we'll get along either.

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 04 mai 2005 15:58:10

Wait a sec! He hasn't found that other person. He said: " if I could locate a living
descendant". Now how much time & effort & letter writing, etc will be spent in
locating such a person and determining that their ancestry is from one of those
locations? Then suppose that person is found and suppose that stranger even agrees to
a DNA test, but isn't interested in genealogy and you will have to foot the bill. So
you pay 2X $195. Then there isn't a match and you try to reinterate the process.

Bob.


Sure. And that's exactly the point of family groups getting involved in

organized studies. Chances are, if there is a "Remick" family study
someplace, it will be easier to get far-flung "cousins" involved in DNA
testing. I know that has been true for the Lee family, and it gets
easier and easier as more folks with allied surnames get involved.

And, you're gonna spend a whole bunch more than $195 if you have to
travel to Luxembourg and live for a month in church basements and city
records depositories, trying to find all of the common-surnamed
relatives that MIGHT be kin to you. It'd be far easier to find one male
descendant of such a line (assuming there is one), and pay for their test.

Bruce Remick

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Bruce Remick » 04 mai 2005 16:04:52

"Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4278DA82.81FF60FC@comcast.net...
Dennis Lee wrote:

Bruce Remick wrote:

I've been following the substance portions of this thread and found them
intriguing. I had never considered DNA as a potential research tool
before. My
own stumbling block is the country of origin for my Remick ancestor who
appeared
in Maine in the mid-1600's. It has been speculated that he came from
England,
Holland, Luxembourg, and /or Germany, but no records have ever been found
to
document this. I have found evidence of a Remick line in England
(Cornwall) in
the late-1600's and know there were early Remich lines in (Remich)
Luxembourg.

From what I gather, if I could locate a living descendant from either or
each of
these lines and we could arrange to have our DNA examined, it would help
me, at
least, to determine if I am descended from one of those family lines. If
I got
a positive hit from one of these, it would help me to concentrate my
research in
that direction and would solve a long time mystery. It would be worth a
couple
hundred bucks to me if I could determine my ancestor's origin. I can't
speak
for the other two participants. In this way, I can see a real value to
using
DNA as a tool.

Bruce


Exactly my point.

You can either spend fantastic amounts of time and money tracking both
family segments in England AND Luxembourg, which would probably involve
all sorts of long-distance letter writing, overseas trips, etc. - half
of which you would eventually find to be wasted - OR you could know with
a reasonable degree of certainty that you were descended from one side
or the other, and focus on research only on that line.

Wait a sec! He hasn't found that other person. He said: " if I could locate a
living
descendant". Now how much time & effort & letter writing, etc will be spent
in
locating such a person and determining that their ancestry is from one of
those
locations? Then suppose that person is found and suppose that stranger even
agrees to
a DNA test, but isn't interested in genealogy and you will have to foot the
bill. So
you pay 2X $195. Then there isn't a match and you try to reinterate the
process.

Bob.


Still, for someone like myself who has dedicated over 30 years toward cataloging
the 12+ generations of descendants of Christian Remick, without knowing where
Christian came from, the cost would be worth it, considering how much I already
have spent in research over the years. Even if I were able to locate living
male Remicks from the early lines in Luxembourg and England who were willing to
participate in a DNA submission, and if the results indicated that NONE of us
were "related", I would consider the effort and expense worthwhile. Time,
effort, and letter writing are the accepted and fun part of genealogy to me.

Spending a couple hundred dollars to travel to a distant courthouse to search
records for a specific marriage date is not uncommon for a serious researcher.
The expense simply is part of the game for many of us, much like a hobbyist who
will fly to a major collectible show, yet maybe not acquire anything new there.
Serious genealogy on a budget can only take you so far, IMO. And of course a
little bit of luck always helps, too.

Bruce

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 04 mai 2005 18:01:45

Bruce Remick wrote:

"Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4278DA82.81FF60FC@comcast.net...
Dennis Lee wrote:
Bruce Remick wrote:
snip

Still, for someone like myself who has dedicated over 30 years toward cataloging
the 12+ generations of descendants of Christian Remick, without knowing where
Christian came from, the cost would be worth it, considering how much I already
have spent in research over the years. Even if I were able to locate living
male Remicks from the early lines in Luxembourg and England who were willing to
participate in a DNA submission, and if the results indicated that NONE of us
were "related", I would consider the effort and expense worthwhile.

But why not write to them to see if they have a Christian who emigrated or is
missing? That would seem to be a basic before even considering DNA testing.

Time,
effort, and letter writing are the accepted and fun part of genealogy to me.

Then start writing. :-) I didn't find any Remick, but there is this company and a
letter might lead to something:

REMICH HOLDING S.A., 13 bd Prince Henri, 1724 LUXEMBOURG (LETZEBUERG), 463920-1

Similar lookups can be done for UK. How many letters will you send out? and how many
X $195 are you willing to spend?

I do sympathize with your interest in finding where your ancestor came from and that
sort of thing would be worth quite a bit to me also. My own fortune is to already
know where my ancestor came from in Europe because it was a recent 1865. Then I've
more recently met another Heiling whose line came from what was the same Hungarian
village that mine did. We've compared notes and gone back 5 generations without a
connection and the records run out. Are we related? I dunno, but my intuition tells
me we are. A male of that line could probably be contacted and asked for a cheek
swab, but I might have to pay. Is it worth $380 for me to find out if we're related?
No! Is it worth $195? No! I'll settle for my reasonable assumption that we are 5th?
6th? cousins.

Spending a couple hundred dollars to travel to a distant courthouse to search
records for a specific marriage date is not uncommon for a serious researcher.
The expense simply is part of the game for many of us, much like a hobbyist who
will fly to a major collectible show, yet maybe not acquire anything new there.
Serious genealogy on a budget can only take you so far, IMO. And of course a
little bit of luck always helps, too.

I agree and have spent airfare, car rental, motel, etc to do genealogy and tie it in
with meeting & enjoying the company of newly-found relatives. It's a matter of
getting the most bang for the buck!

Bob

Bruce Remick

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Bruce Remick » 05 mai 2005 02:49:06

"Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4278FFF9.E3286936@comcast.net...
Bruce Remick wrote:

"Robert Heiling" <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4278DA82.81FF60FC@comcast.net...
Dennis Lee wrote:
Bruce Remick wrote:
snip

Still, for someone like myself who has dedicated over 30 years toward
cataloging
the 12+ generations of descendants of Christian Remick, without knowing
where
Christian came from, the cost would be worth it, considering how much I
already
have spent in research over the years. Even if I were able to locate living
male Remicks from the early lines in Luxembourg and England who were willing
to
participate in a DNA submission, and if the results indicated that NONE of
us
were "related", I would consider the effort and expense worthwhile.

But why not write to them to see if they have a Christian who emigrated or is
missing? That would seem to be a basic before even considering DNA testing.

Write to whom? I thought I made it clear that I had never considered DNA
research before and my post was purely speculative. I also have never attempted
to connect with any Remicks from England or Luxembourg, since my efforts have
been concentrated in US research. Nonetheless, after 30+ years of exposure, I
believe I am the only one in the world doing anything approaching comprehensive
Remick research.

Time,
effort, and letter writing are the accepted and fun part of genealogy to me.

Then start writing. :-) I didn't find any Remick, but there is this company
and a
letter might lead to something:

REMICH HOLDING S.A., 13 bd Prince Henri, 1724 LUXEMBOURG (LETZEBUERG),
463920-1


That may be a company from the town of Remich, not an individual. Actually I
have already done some writing. All records from the suspected surname origin
town of Remich, Luxembourg prior to 1670 (my ancestor was born abt 1630) have
been destroyed in wars. No pre-1700 church records from the two Cornwall,
England parishes where I found Remick lines have survived. These two
revelations have discouraged me from actively looking to contact Remicks from
these two countries. Too many other things in the job jar. With these new DNA
studies, I may rethink this.

Similar lookups can be done for UK. How many letters will you send out? and
how many
X $195 are you willing to spend?

How many would I need? I would probably look for any male Remick who could
trace his Remick line back to the UK lines I found from the early 1700's. If
DNA analysis works, we should be able to determine if we are related. This
would be important to me, probably not for him. I'm not ready to say I would
foot the bill for both of us, but I might consider it depending on the
circumstances.

I do sympathize with your interest in finding where your ancestor came from
and that
sort of thing would be worth quite a bit to me also. My own fortune is to
already
know where my ancestor came from in Europe because it was a recent 1865. Then
I've
more recently met another Heiling whose line came from what was the same
Hungarian
village that mine did. We've compared notes and gone back 5 generations
without a
connection and the records run out. Are we related? I dunno, but my intuition
tells
me we are. A male of that line could probably be contacted and asked for a
cheek
swab, but I might have to pay. Is it worth $380 for me to find out if we're
related?
No! Is it worth $195? No! I'll settle for my reasonable assumption that we
are 5th?
6th? cousins.

In your case, I might feel the same way. In mine, I'm looking to penetrate the
brick wall of a country of origin for my ancestor that quite a few professional
genealogists have been unable to determine over the last hundred years from US
records. It might be worth a couple hundred dollars to me to learn for sure
what country my ancestor came from.

Spending a couple hundred dollars to travel to a distant courthouse to
search
records for a specific marriage date is not uncommon for a serious
researcher.
The expense simply is part of the game for many of us, much like a hobbyist
who
will fly to a major collectible show, yet maybe not acquire anything new
there.
Serious genealogy on a budget can only take you so far, IMO. And of course
a
little bit of luck always helps, too.

I agree and have spent airfare, car rental, motel, etc to do genealogy and tie
it in
with meeting & enjoying the company of newly-found relatives. It's a matter of
getting the most bang for the buck!

Bob

Phil

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Phil » 05 mai 2005 04:50:59

I could not help but follow this interesting thread concerning the
validity of DNA tests (Y Chromosome or MTDNA) for genealogical pursuits.
I am a participant of the PRINCE surname DNA project, and we use FTM DNA
for our testing facility. Most of the participants are of the Southern
line of Princes, and various men with this surname arrived in VA as
early as 1607.

We have had nine 25 marker matches, and several with a one step mutation
at various markers. It is my interpretation, based on my own research,
that this is highly indicative of a MRCA. These DNA tests, of course, do
not tell one just who that common ancestor might have been. It is up to
those diligent researchers to produce more documents if possible in
ascertaining those familial ties. I agree, we are assured of nothing in
life, except the fact we are all going to kick the bucket one day.

In my case, men who I felt I would have matched on these DNA tests,
produced quite the opposite. I did not match those who already had found
matches, and I have yet to match any other Prince male in our project.
This was very disconcerting to me, as a researcher and family historian.
After much searching, I located my great grandfather's brothers great
grandson. He and I never knew of each other's existence. I asked him to
help with my research, and he took the 25 marker test. Guess what? He
and I did not match, but he matched nine other Prince males on all 25
markers, and had a one step mutation with three other Prince males. This
discovery was very important for my knowledge and research. I asked FTM
to check my test results, which they do free of charge, and the results
were still the same. Now I could retest for an additional cost, but have
not decided to do that at this time.

These types of DNA tests are only one tool to use. It is a new and
exciting field, and the wonders of things to come should prove very
interesting. These tests cannot, and must not, take the place of on
hands research. However, in my opinion, they are a useful tool that
sometimes shatters one's way of thinking about their own research.

There is a new link on one's personal page from Family Tree DNA that
will let you compare your results with that of another, based on the
type of test, 12, 25, or 37 markers, which substantially narrows the
time frame to the MRCA. In the case of my cousin, and that of a Prince
male he matched on all 25 markers, the time frame to the MRCA is around
90% that they both shared an ancestor in the past 200 years. This is
very important, as the history of the Southern Prince lines shows a
migration from Surry/Sussex counties VA south and west, but very rarely
northward.

I do have some reservations about the different Haplogroup designations.
Those participants in our project, thus far, are overwhelmingly R1b,
while I and one other Prince male are R1a. Folks, there were formal and
informal adoptions, non paternal events, etc. that would throw ones
anticpated DNA results askew. A surname change, for whatever reason,
would also be an avenue to contend with when one sees these expected
matches that turn out otherwise. Some of these would be hard to prove,
but I believe anything is possible when trying to construct a family
tree.

One last note: The number of participants in any DNA project would be a
great factor in proving those who share a MRCA. The smaller the pool,
the less likely one would find a match early on. Only with more
participants, those with the same surname or variation thereof, would
there be a credible source for trying to indentify a bloodline or
several unrelated bloodlines.

These are only my opinions from one who has done a great amount of paper
reasearch, and found the fascinating tool of DNA testing to be another
part of this great hobby we call genealogy.

Ira Phil Prince

Remember the last words of the dying scholar as his pupils gathered at
his bedside. "Check your references!"

anna

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av anna » 05 mai 2005 16:27:00

It seems the only thing that comes of this discussion is that we agree
to disagree. For those of us who believe the results of DNA testing
(whatever they are) are helpful to our genealogical research, we are
happy to have any help that we can find. For those who don't believe
it is of any help, you've just saved yourself $200.00. What this
discussion sheds light on is what do you expect to get out of it and is
it worth it to you? That's all. It has been an interesting discussion
and hopefully, for those who consider DNA testing, it will give you
some insight as to what you may get from the results.

Anna

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 05 mai 2005 17:37:06

anna wrote:

It seems the only thing that comes of this discussion is that we agree
to disagree. For those of us who believe the results of DNA testing
(whatever they are) are helpful to our genealogical research, we are
happy to have any help that we can find. For those who don't believe
it is of any help, you've just saved yourself $200.00. What this
discussion sheds light on is what do you expect to get out of it and is
it worth it to you? That's all. It has been an interesting discussion
and hopefully, for those who consider DNA testing, it will give you
some insight as to what you may get from the results.

For myself, it is, and has been, much more than that. It is an effort to
warn people who might have false expectations as to the value of DNA
testing and be needlessly parted from their money. The man who started this
valuable thread serves as one such example. It was just the other day that
I was reading a column, David Horowitz's I believe, about just how gullible
the American people are and how they fall for "work at home" money-making
scams etc as one example. I'd like to see him write about this.

The primary focus of these companies is *marketing* and *sales* !! Just
look at their websites such as the FamilyTreeDNA.com and keep that in
mind. Now IBM and National Geographic haved smelled all the money to be
made with this current hype. Look at their website with the animated
graphics and clickable sales links. If anyone thinks that these companies
are into this business to help people with their genealogy, I've got a
bridge for sale. Yes, the basic purpose of a business is to make a profit,
but the customer usually and hopefully gets a useful product or service in
return. In this current case, all you get is hyped expectations!

Please review this thread and especially what people who have been tested
have to say. Then additionally review the "Testimonials" at
http://www.familytreedna.com/testimonials_home.html (their best shot at
it). There hasn't been one single example presented where people have
learned anything that has helped put a family tree together. There have
been examples of people with the *same surname* being told that they might
have a common ancestor (wow! surprise!) within a certain percent of
confidence and that have gotten that warm fuzzy feeling. Everything has
been *expectations* and no concrete results and people continue to talk
only about expectations.

That's my spin on it.

Bob

Chris

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Chris » 06 mai 2005 03:32:39

MtDNA is from the mother to her children. It can only be traced via the
female line. The Military uses MtDNA to help identify those that are
unaccounted for from previous wars.
The draw back is that it won't give you a positive identifaction, it
will only tell you what you aren't. If they took my MtDNA and tested it
with this group, they would find that I didnt' match anyone here. so I
can't be related to you. BUT I did match with my mom so there is the
match.
The bad part of using this in a search with remians of those not
accounted for, is that if a person was adopted or came from a family of
no sisters. The line ends, and that is whent he real work comes in.
As for as Y-Chromosome, I have asked the advantage of it and still not
concivned that it is anything different than Mt-DNA.

Chris
Dennis Lee wrote:
RE mtDNA: I am less familiar with this one, but apparently there are

DNA elements within cell mitochondria which are passed from the
mother
to the next generation. Therefore, by comparing mtDNA, one can check

maternal linkages (even if the last generation is male...). I
understand that the comparison process is similar to that in Y DNA,
but
for different alleles obtained from a different source (cell
mitochondria DNA versus Y-chomosome DNA). But, in Western societies,

this has less applicability to genealogy research, as our surnaming
patterns are patriarchal.


Lesley Robertson

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Lesley Robertson » 06 mai 2005 09:34:03

"Chris" <my_genealogy@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:1115346759.884864.308210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The bad part of using this in a search with remians of those not
accounted for, is that if a person was adopted or came from a family of
no sisters. The line ends, and that is whent he real work comes in.
As for as Y-Chromosome, I have asked the advantage of it and still not
concivned that it is anything different than Mt-DNA.


The difference is that it follows the male line via the Y chromosome, which
only males have - it's what makes males male.. Everybody has mitochondrial
DNA. It comes from the material of the egg rather than chromosomes, which
is why it relates to the female line. However, the availablility of sisters
isn't important in victim identification provided that the maternal line is
known, and that anyone from the same female line is available. It could be
the mother, aunts, maternal grandmother or even a cousin or second cousin
that provide reference material..

The same limitations apply as with Y chromosome analysis. It'll tell you
there's a common line, but not who the common ancestor was. I suppose that
the main advantage is that little surprises are more rare in the female line
than the male - it's harder to cover the fact that there's no biological
link to a claimed mother than to a claimed father.

These commercially available forms of DNA analysis can be very useful in
carefully defined situations where other information is available - in
victim identification it's only useful once you have an idea of who the
victim might be. it was very useful, for example, when they wanted to
establish whether bones found in a forest belonged to the Romanov family.
They knew who they were looking for and could therefore select their
reference material apprpriately - in this case, people who descended by
female lines from Queen Victoria. Note that they didn't just take samples
from a single individual, but from as many as they could trace (to reduce
the chance of "surprises" affecting the results) AND that if they had not
found a match, the DNA from the bones would not have helped in identifying
the bodies.

Everything hinges on the question someone wants answered. If the question is
"Do I descend from the same line as X who has the same family name?", then
it's useful. If the question is "Who was my ancestor?" then it isn't. It's a
crude tool - it can tell you whether or not you belong to a particular
group, but not how you fit within that group.
Ultimately, it's the same as spending money on anything - folk should be
sure that they understand what they're buying, and what it will mean for
them. A lack of scientific background shouldn't matter - any decent
scientist should be able to explain things in terms you can understand, and
indeed so should whoever is trying to sell you the product.
As my ag.lab. ancestors used to say - don't buy a pig in a poke (bag).
Lesley Robertson

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 mai 2005 22:32:16

Just picked this up on another forum - you may get info you didn't want:

DNA-based genealogy test reveals infertility

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624983.200

Gjest

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 mai 2005 01:18:05

To get the straight skinny on DNA goto http://www.forensicgenealogist.info
and see Colleen Fitzpatrick's new book "Forensic Genealogy" In it she
has a large section on DNA and the mystery of it in relation to
genealogy. It is a good read. I bought it at the NERGC and could not
put it down.

Fred

anna

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av anna » 16 mai 2005 17:00:58

Just wanted to let you know that a breakthrough came for me through the
Relative Genetics Lee Family DNA Project. After years and years of my
Lee family being confused with the Lees of NC, the DNA testing proved
there was not even a close match to the NC Lees. Yesterday was posted
a 27 out of 27 marker match for my Lee family--the matching DNA comes
from the Hugh Lee line.

I am looking forward to talking to this family researcher. We will
compare information to see where our lines might overlap and to compare
sources and documentation. This is where I think the DNA testing is
valuable. I don't intend to rely on just the tests, but it points me
in the direction for my concentrated research.

Anna

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 16 mai 2005 18:54:14

anna wrote:

Just wanted to let you know that a breakthrough came for me through the
Relative Genetics Lee Family DNA Project. After years and years of my
Lee family being confused with the Lees of NC, the DNA testing proved
there was not even a close match to the NC Lees. Yesterday was posted
a 27 out of 27 marker match for my Lee family--the matching DNA comes
from the Hugh Lee line.

The above would need more explanation before it could be understood why the
stated *conclusion* is "proof". With all due respect, and please correct
me if I'm wrong, but didn't your previous posts already indicate that your
line was the Hugh Lee line? I read your previous statements as indicating
that there was confusion on the part of some researchers, but that your
own traditional research had uncovered the fact that there were multiple
Jesse's and therefore no connection to the NC Lee's.

I am looking forward to talking to this family researcher. We will
compare information to see where our lines might overlap and to compare
sources and documentation. This is where I think the DNA testing is
valuable. I don't intend to rely on just the tests, but it points me
in the direction for my concentrated research.

As you haven't even talked to that person as yet, it's hard to see how you
claim that DNA has "proved" anything except a DNA comparison between
*living* persons, not the long past dead. It's a positive step forward for
you in that you now have someone who will be responsive to comparing
research, since you had earlier complained about a lack of response from
those parties. What this does possibly highlight is an inadequacy in the
online means of comparing trees; i.e. how could 2 people who are willing to
agressively pursue research and spend $$$ on their research have failed to
have already compared notes given the available resources.

Bob

Dennis Lee

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dennis Lee » 16 mai 2005 19:38:58

anna wrote:
Just wanted to let you know that a breakthrough came for me through the
Relative Genetics Lee Family DNA Project. After years and years of my
Lee family being confused with the Lees of NC, the DNA testing proved
there was not even a close match to the NC Lees. Yesterday was posted
a 27 out of 27 marker match for my Lee family--the matching DNA comes
from the Hugh Lee line.

I am looking forward to talking to this family researcher. We will
compare information to see where our lines might overlap and to compare
sources and documentation. This is where I think the DNA testing is
valuable. I don't intend to rely on just the tests, but it points me
in the direction for my concentrated research.

Anna

Congrats, Anna...


I was hoping for a hit on this line, too, but once again I go down on
strikes.

Maybe the next guy will match me....

Dennis

anna

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av anna » 17 mai 2005 16:13:07

Sorry, Bob, that you don't feel it's a useful tool, but it works for
me, and I'm not going to rehash all the things that have already been
said.

Anna

Robert Heiling

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Robert Heiling » 17 mai 2005 21:04:12

anna wrote:

Sorry, Bob, that you don't feel it's a useful tool, but it works for
me, and I'm not going to rehash all the things that have already been
said.

That part is fine by me and post all you wish and whatever you wish. I
can't tell you what to say and what not to say. Simply don't make claims
that something is "proved" when it is nothing of the sort if you don't
want to hear from me. I don't like the potential effect it would have on
some audiences such as the ones who the OP was warning in the first
place.

Bob

Christopher Jahn

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Christopher Jahn » 18 mai 2005 02:03:48

Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in
news:4288DE46.86C2E7D6@comcast.net:

anna wrote:

Just wanted to let you know that a breakthrough came for me through
the Relative Genetics Lee Family DNA Project. After years and years
of my Lee family being confused with the Lees of NC, the DNA testing
proved there was not even a close match to the NC Lees. Yesterday
was posted a 27 out of 27 marker match for my Lee family--the
matching DNA comes from the Hugh Lee line.

The above would need more explanation before it could be understood
why the stated *conclusion* is "proof".

It's spelled S-C-I-E-N-C-E.


With all due respect, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your previous posts already
indicate that your line was the Hugh Lee line? I read your previous
statements as indicating that there was confusion on the part of some
researchers, but that your own traditional research had uncovered the
fact that there were multiple Jesse's and therefore no connection to
the NC Lee's.

I am looking forward to talking to this family researcher. We will
compare information to see where our lines might overlap and to
compare sources and documentation. This is where I think the DNA
testing is valuable. I don't intend to rely on just the tests, but
it points me in the direction for my concentrated research.

As you haven't even talked to that person as yet, it's hard to see how
you claim that DNA has "proved" anything except a DNA comparison
between *living* persons, not the long past dead. It's a positive step
forward for you in that you now have someone who will be responsive to
comparing research, since you had earlier complained about a lack of
response from those parties. What this does possibly highlight is an
inadequacy in the online means of comparing trees; i.e. how could 2
people who are willing to agressively pursue research and spend $$$ on
their research have failed to have already compared notes given the
available resources.



Yeah, it's not like "Lee" is the 24th most common in the US or that
there's something like half a million people with that last name.

Oh, wait, it IS the 24th most common surname in the United States, and
there are over a half million living people with that last name!
http://www.namestatistics.com/search.php?name=LEE

Bob, I hate to break it to you, but you're descended from a primitive
ape-like creature that lived about 8 million years ago. I won't use the
word "evolved", because I'm not sure that you have.



--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

Let him who takes the Plunge remember to return it by Tuesday.

Bob Melson

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Bob Melson » 18 mai 2005 04:02:14

Christopher Jahn wrote:
<snip>

Bob, I hate to break it to you, but you're descended from a primitive
ape-like creature that lived about 8 million years ago. I won't use the
word "evolved", because I'm not sure that you have.



Hey, gang. Get over it. This is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

As with any tool, its usefulness is dependent on the person using it and
his understanding of its capabilities and limitations.

I can't and won't debate the pros and cons of DNA testing, save to say
that it's early days for the technique and it's real utility in
genealogy remains in question. It may very well be that, as it matures,
DNA testing will prove invaluable; I'm not yet convinced that it will.
Equally, it could easily prove to be all smoke and mirrors; dunno.

In the meantime, though, for them whut wants it, great; for them whut
don't, great. Me? I'm gonna wait and see.

Bob Melson


--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net

Dave Hinz

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 18 mai 2005 07:27:04

On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:03:48 -0500, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob, I hate to break it to you, but you're descended from a primitive
ape-like creature that lived about 8 million years ago. I won't use the
word "evolved", because I'm not sure that you have.

Didn't you claim to have killfiled Bob, and yet you're replying to him?

Christopher Jahn

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Christopher Jahn » 18 mai 2005 13:43:05

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:3f05hoF4svpnU1@individual.net:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:03:48 -0500, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com
wrote:

Bob, I hate to break it to you, but you're descended from a primitive
ape-like creature that lived about 8 million years ago. I won't use
the word "evolved", because I'm not sure that you have.

Didn't you claim to have killfiled Bob, and yet you're replying to
him?

I did, and then I saw a reply to this post that caused me to take a look
at what she was responding to. I have never seen ANYONE cling to their
ignorance so stubbornly.


--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

It was a book to kill time for those who liked it better dead.

Dave Hinz

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 18 mai 2005 15:16:39

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:43:05 -0500, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:3f05hoF4svpnU1@individual.net:

On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:03:48 -0500, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com
wrote:

Bob, I hate to break it to you, but you're descended from a primitive
ape-like creature that lived about 8 million years ago. I won't use
the word "evolved", because I'm not sure that you have.

Didn't you claim to have killfiled Bob, and yet you're replying to
him?

I did, and then I saw a reply to this post that caused me to take a look
at what she was responding to. I have never seen ANYONE cling to their
ignorance so stubbornly.

In other words, you didn't really killfile him. Here, let me show you
how a killfile works:
<plonk>

Bob Hunt

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Bob Hunt » 25 mai 2005 21:24:31

I've gone there, but guess I don't understand.
"anna" <annasplace@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116259258.744770.96430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just wanted to let you know that a breakthrough came for me through the
Relative Genetics Lee Family DNA Project. After years and years of my
Lee family being confused with the Lees of NC, the DNA testing proved
there was not even a close match to the NC Lees. Yesterday was posted
a 27 out of 27 marker match for my Lee family--the matching DNA comes
from the Hugh Lee line.

I am looking forward to talking to this family researcher. We will
compare information to see where our lines might overlap and to compare
sources and documentation. This is where I think the DNA testing is
valuable. I don't intend to rely on just the tests, but it points me
in the direction for my concentrated research.

Anna

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr. » 30 mai 2005 17:38:46

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:11:23 GMT, "Jeff" <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have recently done the Family Tree Dna test and I would like to tell
anyone contemplating it, dont waste your money or your time. The results are
vague at best. They ask for MORE money to guarantee the results. And even
then they cannot guarantee anything. Like I said. Dont waste your time or
money.


Sorry for your disappointing experience. I found FTDNA very
informative. I discovered that the man who raised my father was not
my biological grandfather. My actual paternal grandfather was a man
named Chester Wilson who dated my paternal grandmother about 1919. I
now have a picture of him in his middle age. The result is some
people I thought were relatives are not and I have a whole slew of
recently discovered relatives named Wilson on my father's side. I had
the MtDNA done in addition to the Y chromosome test and it was not
nearly as helpful as the latter. I discovered my maternal lineage is
Scandinavian and I am closely related to my mother and sister. I do
believe with some investigation the MtDNA test would prove to be as
useful as the Y-test. I used it mainly to prove kinship, not find new
relatives.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
rkinserlow at cox dot net
homepage: http://www.members.cox.net/rkinserlow

Doug Chadduck

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Doug Chadduck » 30 mai 2005 17:52:54

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:11:23 GMT, "Jeff" <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have recently done the Family Tree Dna test and I would like to tell
anyone contemplating it, dont waste your money or your time. The results are
vague at best. They ask for MORE money to guarantee the results. And even
then they cannot guarantee anything. Like I said. Dont waste your time or
money.


Sorry for your disappointing experience. I found FTDNA very
informative. I discovered that the man who raised my father was not
my biological grandfather. My actual paternal grandfather was a man
named Chester Wilson who dated my paternal grandmother about 1919. I
now have a picture of him in his middle age. The result is some
people I thought were relatives are not and I have a whole slew of
recently discovered relatives named Wilson on my father's side. I had
the MtDNA done in addition to the Y chromosome test and it was not
nearly as helpful as the latter. I discovered my maternal lineage is
Scandinavian and I am closely related to my mother and sister. I do
believe with some investigation the MtDNA test would prove to be as
useful as the Y-test. I used it mainly to prove kinship, not find new
relatives.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
rkinserlow at cox dot net
homepage: http://www.members.cox.net/rkinserlow



I'm sorry and I mean no disrespect, but I just had to laugh

"I discovered my maternal lineage is
Scandinavian and I am closely related to my mother and sister."

Christopher Jahn

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Christopher Jahn » 30 mai 2005 19:01:54

Doug Chadduck <dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote in news:ZdadnRiyzaaf2AbfRVn-
2g@comcast.com:

I had
the MtDNA done in addition to the Y chromosome test and it was not
nearly as helpful as the latter. I discovered my maternal lineage is
Scandinavian and I am closely related to my mother and sister.



I'm sorry and I mean no disrespect, but I just had to laugh

"I discovered my maternal lineage is
Scandinavian and I am closely related to my mother and sister."


Well, he DID say it wasn't very useful!

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

I prefer to think of them as the Ten Suggestions.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.

Re: The Farce of Family Tree DNA

Legg inn av Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr. » 06 jun 2005 08:03:25

On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:52:54 -0700, Doug Chadduck
<dchadduck@comcast.net> wrote:


Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:11:23 GMT, "Jeff" <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have recently done the Family Tree Dna test and I would like to tell
anyone contemplating it, dont waste your money or your time. The results are
vague at best. They ask for MORE money to guarantee the results. And even
then they cannot guarantee anything. Like I said. Dont waste your time or
money.


Sorry for your disappointing experience. I found FTDNA very
informative. I discovered that the man who raised my father was not
my biological grandfather. My actual paternal grandfather was a man
named Chester Wilson who dated my paternal grandmother about 1919. I
now have a picture of him in his middle age. The result is some
people I thought were relatives are not and I have a whole slew of
recently discovered relatives named Wilson on my father's side. I had
the MtDNA done in addition to the Y chromosome test and it was not
nearly as helpful as the latter. I discovered my maternal lineage is
Scandinavian and I am closely related to my mother and sister. I do
believe with some investigation the MtDNA test would prove to be as
useful as the Y-test. I used it mainly to prove kinship, not find new
relatives.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
rkinserlow at cox dot net
homepage: http://www.members.cox.net/rkinserlow



I'm sorry and I mean no disrespect, but I just had to laugh

"I discovered my maternal lineage is
Scandinavian and I am closely related to my mother and sister."





On the maternal side, we have a list of related people, but haven't

been able to make a connection other than through DNA. It takes more
than DNA evidence to build a case for a lineage. Since discovering my
grandfather wasn't my grandfather, I was relieved to prove my mother
is my mother and my sister is my sister.

Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.
Lubbock, Texas
rkinserlow at cox dot net
homepage: http://www.members.cox.net/rkinserlow

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»