Perhaps the real problem that we have with DNA is the way we are trying to use it. If we start with our own DNA then compare it with a sample that has been deposited in another place, perhaps the scene of a crime, then we can be pretty sure of the comparison between the two samples. If they match the world will be convinced that we had been present at the site even if we did not commit the crime. In recent years DNA samples of a person arrested on a motoring charge has been compared with the national DNA database and whilst an exact match has not been found sufficient similarity is present to link a previous crime to a member of the same family. Our DNA is subject to passing down both female and male lines and we pick up factors from father after father as well as mother after mother. If their are no problems with our DNA then we can say that we are decended from the earliest person who has been identified with that DNA. But which of 9 brothers or sisters? Which side of the blanket were we? Perhaps family history is a little like doing a jig-saw puzzle theirs no real value but you are very pleased with each piece you put in. But for me it keeps the mind active and you can do it without having to run after a ball. Stuart Jamieson Charani <familyhunter@family-hunter.co.uk> wrote: Mellie wrote: > DNA would only confirm (Prove) that you are of that same lineage if > there was other Proven Lineage to compare to, which as > documentation is not always available may or may not prove, DNA on > its own won't Prove anything, it has to have a comparison, and the > pro-DNA testers will have to agree with that! You're saying what I've always said. DNA can't prove anything of itself. Yet time and time again, I see people saying, or implying, that DNA testing alone is sufficient to prove a link to family way back of the same name. So just what would be required to prove (to use the word that I see so many DNA testing advocates use) my 20th century connection to a 15th century lady? I've no intention of trying to prove the impossible but I'm curious to know. -- Charani (UK) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I suggest the problem with what has been discussed recently herein is improper use, and a misunderstanding, of the term. In genealogy one is interested in "DNA Y-Chromosome" testing of Males, and "mtDNA" testing for females, and not the DNA testing that is used for criminal cases. If you read up on "DNA Y-Chromosome" testing you will find that it is also called "Junk DNA", since it has no other value than to connect up a male to another male of the same lineage. It worked for me. Ross GH Cotton, Burlington ON CAN 905)639-2929 Genealogy of the COTTON surname is my Enigma. I haven't sent an attachment if the details are not mentioned above. Check out my Genealogy Web Page at www.skylinc.net/~rgcotton GOONS member responsible for tracking the family name COTTON, #1437 Coordinator for Cotton DNA testing Project, Worldwide, See http://home.comcast.net/~cottondna/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Stuart Jamieson To: eng-shropshire-plus@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-SHROP] Changing patterns re. research Perhaps the real problem that we have with DNA is the way we are trying to use it. If we start with our own DNA then compare it with a sample that has been deposited in another place, perhaps the scene of a crime, then we can be pretty sure of the comparison between the two samples. If they match the world will be convinced that we had been present at the site even if we did not commit the crime. In recent years DNA samples of a person arrested on a motoring charge has been compared with the national DNA database and whilst an exact match has not been found sufficient similarity is present to link a previous crime to a member of the same family. Our DNA is subject to passing down both female and male lines and we pick up factors from father after father as well as mother after mother. If their are no problems with our DNA then we can say that we are decended from the earliest person who has been identified with that DNA. But which of 9 brothers or sisters? Which side of the blanket were we? Perhaps family history is a little like doing a jig-saw puzzle theirs no real value but you are very pleased with each piece you put in. But for me it keeps the mind active and you can do it without having to run after a ball. Stuart Jamieson Charani <familyhunter@family-hunter.co.uk> wrote: Mellie wrote: > DNA would only confirm (Prove) that you are of that same lineage if > there was other Proven Lineage to compare to, which as > documentation is not always available may or may not prove, DNA on > its own won't Prove anything, it has to have a comparison, and the > pro-DNA testers will have to agree with that! You're saying what I've always said. DNA can't prove anything of itself. Yet time and time again, I see people saying, or implying, that DNA testing alone is sufficient to prove a link to family way back of the same name. So just what would be required to prove (to use the word that I see so many DNA testing advocates use) my 20th century connection to a 15th century lady? I've no intention of trying to prove the impossible but I'm curious to know. -- Charani (UK) ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message