Mary Alice, I agree with you! I can assure you that the Common Ancestors (husband/wife) that each of my atDNA matches and I agree upon, are not just surname matches, they are real people with birth, marriage, and death dates and places and, in all cases, at least two children: one child is my ancestor and the other child is the ancestor of my match. They are the same family for both of us in the same place and time. Each and every person in each of our direct lineages is a real person (incidently with a unique ahnentafel number). Almost all of these lines can also be found in trees at GEDmatch.com; FamilySearch.org; and usually other on-line sites as well as genealogy libraries. Are these 100 percent guaranteed, bet-the-farm certainties? Who can say that about any genealogy. And besides that, there could easily be an NPE in one or both of our lineages. If so - then clearly the atDNA segment we share could not have come through this line. There is always that possibility. These situations can only be uncovered by detailed Y-DNA and mtDNA testing to veryfy each and every paper link. There is also the possibliity that our shared atDNA segment came from a different Common Ancestor. In fact several of my atDNA matches and I have more that one set of known Common Ancestors - so a DNA segment could come from either one of the lines (but not both). I have now documented at least 7 sets of cousins (from first to 8th) among my ancestors. So a match with one of them in the path to theCommon Ancestor provides two possible paths for the DNA segment to come down to me. The difficulty in finding a Common Ancestor is mostly due, IMO, to not knowing all of our ancestors! At the 4th cousin level, I don't know 12.5 percent of my ancestors; at the 5th cousin level 25 percent; 6th cousin level 43 percent; 7th cousin level 58 percent, 8th cousin level 69 percent, etc. That represents a LOT of places a Common Ancestor could be hiding - maybe just beyond a brick wall, maybe well beyond that. It's no wonder we don't match many of our atDNA matches. But that won't stop me from trying ... Jim Bartlett On 11/17/11, M. A. Farrell<[email protected]> wrote: Jim, have a question for you: You wrote....."I have a long list of FF and RF atDNA matches; I email them and try to find a Common Ancestor. 37 of them and I have found a Common Ancestor, 5 of them at the 10th cousin level...." What proofs of these 'found' relationships do you require? Apparently, I am too much of a stickler for requiring to know, for sure, which persons/dates/places of the surname found, are in fact the source of some matching dna. Many matches can tell me they found a surname matching one of mine, but cannot identify the couple to the same extent that I can! Then, I am asked to confirm a relationship which may not exist. I choose not to, and am accused of not playing fairly! A random matching surname with no further matching of dates/places of birth, marriage, death, are not confirmed relationships in my mind. How about you? Mary Alice ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet [1]http://www.peoplepc.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to A[2][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message References 1. http://www.peoplepc.com/ 2. mailto:[email protected]

I love your attitude Jim! CeCe www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com www.studiointv.com ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:31:20 -0600 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] Finding Real Ancestors [was Numbers differences between FTDNA and 23 & me] > > > Mary Alice, > > I agree with you! > > I can assure you that the Common Ancestors (husband/wife) that each of my > atDNA matches and I agree upon, are not just surname matches, they are real > people with birth, marriage, and death dates and places and, in all cases, > at least two children: one child is my ancestor and the other child is the > ancestor of my match. They are the same family for both of us in the same > place and time. Each and every person in each of our direct lineages is a > real person (incidently with a unique ahnentafel number). Almost all of > these lines can also be found in trees at GEDmatch.com; FamilySearch.org; > and usually other on-line sites as well as genealogy libraries. > > Are these 100 percent guaranteed, bet-the-farm certainties? Who can say that > about any genealogy. And besides that, there could easily be an NPE in one > or both of our lineages. If so - then clearly the atDNA segment we share > could not have come through this line. There is always that possibility. > These situations can only be uncovered by detailed Y-DNA and mtDNA testing > to veryfy each and every paper link. > > There is also the possibliity that our shared atDNA segment came from a > different Common Ancestor. In fact several of my atDNA matches and I have > more that one set of known Common Ancestors - so a DNA segment could come > from either one of the lines (but not both). I have now documented at least > 7 sets of cousins (from first to 8th) among my ancestors. So a match with > one of them in the path to theCommon Ancestor provides two possible paths > for the DNA segment to come down to me. > > The difficulty in finding a Common Ancestor is mostly due, IMO, to not > knowing all of our ancestors! At the 4th cousin level, I don't know 12.5 > percent of my ancestors; at the 5th cousin level 25 percent; 6th cousin > level 43 percent; 7th cousin level 58 percent, 8th cousin level 69 percent, > etc. That represents a LOT of places a Common Ancestor could be hiding - > maybe just beyond a brick wall, maybe well beyond that. It's no wonder we > don't match many of our atDNA matches. But that won't stop me from trying > ... > > Jim Bartlett > > On 11/17/11, M. A. Farrell<[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim, have a question for you: > You wrote....."I have a long list of FF and RF atDNA matches; I > email them and try to find a Common Ancestor. 37 of them and I have found a > Common Ancestor, 5 of them at the 10th cousin level...." > What proofs of these 'found' relationships do you require? Apparently, I am > too much of a stickler for requiring to know, for sure, which > persons/dates/places of the surname found, are in fact the source of some > matching dna. > Many matches can tell me they found a surname matching one of mine, but > cannot identify the couple to the same extent that I can! Then, I am asked > to confirm a relationship which may not exist. I choose not to, and am > accused of not playing fairly! > A random matching surname with no further matching of dates/places of birth, > marriage, death, are not confirmed relationships in my mind. How about you? > Mary Alice > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > [1]http://www.peoplepc.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > A[2][email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > References > > 1. http://www.peoplepc.com/ > 2. mailto:[email protected] > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message