Steven Sims wrote: > After following up further, I'm convinced Y-DNA is a genuine > genealogical tool to use in conjunction with documentary evidence, > though obviously of limited application as it's only good for the > pure male line. And what happens when the documentary evidence doesn't exist? You're left with a fistful of airy fairy might bes, possibilities and perhapses that aren't worth the (modern) paper they're written on. Then there's the problem of there not being a living male on one particular branch of the family to test. Where do you go then? Into exhumation in the hope you might be able to get some DNA from the bones? What about cremations? No possible DNA there. Sorry, but I'm convinced that DNA testing is not a genuine genealogical tool at all. > While it's true that the results are statistical, they're still > useful - a multi-point mismatch pretty much disproves a close > connection, while a medium-to-high resolution full match is an > extremely strong indication of a common male ancestor within the > last few centuries "[A] common male ancestor within the last few centuries" Great!! Which century? Where? Date? Name? Place? DNA testing can't give that information, therefore, it is of no practical use. > (remember that many courts accept this as proof of paternity). That's DNA testing in connection with two living people, not between one living and one who died centuries ago. > It's illuminating to look at actual Y-DNA results alongside > associated documentary research, which can be found on the web. LOL Sorry but I don't see how it can possibly be "illuminating". > And remember that documentary evidence is not proof either - just > part of a weight of evidence. Yes Y-DNA is no magic wand, but it is > a genuine tool, so why dismiss altogether? Easy, because it is NOT a genuine tool, just a gimmick, a con that is supposed to have a magical answer to all those genealogical problems, a demolisher of brickwalls. If there is no documentary evidence to support a link between two dead individuals separated by a brickwall other than the possibility that there might be a link between them based on a DNA test, that brickwall still stands firm. Whilst documentary evidence may not be proof either, it's far more likely to be accepted in a court of law than some nebulous result from a DNA test involving long dead and undocumented alleged ancestor. I'm supposed to have connections to nobility (hasn't everyone?). Am I going to try to prove it? No. Why? Because I really don't care. There's no obvious documentary proof but some circumstantial evidence. What would it achieve if I could or did prove a descendency? Nothing. I've got better things to do with my time and money.