I could not agree with John more!!!! The other major problem also includes lack of records from which to put families together, not to mention errors in the transcribed records, not to mention the number of assumed connections.... In our Coats DNA project we have found at least 3 or 4 unrelated Coats lines out of SC, we thought they were all related because they were there about the same time...but without documentation how would you tell? We've also found that some connections in print form didn't match in the DNA project....so the DNA projects are really worth their while...also focuses your research!! But as John says, the old research has just made things more complex i.e. if several of the same named lived in the same area about the same time, they were all assumed to be related, but when you try to check the references or documents, there just isn't anything to support, say those 16 kids, Thomas and Mary had....so where did all those kids come from...in a lot of cases they were guessed at...but once published boy, it's hard to break that wall again...:) Also in the old research, a lot of times they didn't distinquish the difference between say, Johns, they were just lumped all together... I also had an ancestor married twice and each wife named a son William...so he had two sons named William...now without the Bible record, we'd probably never have figured that out... So the up shot is: if you don't have a DNA record, you should get one...someday, that will be the only way to determine family relationship...the records for those early years are getting so old a lot of the archives will not make microfilm copies etc....and it is really getting expensive...SS applications from $7.00 to $47.00 dollars I think it was... But for $99.00 you can plug instantly into a group!!! and then focus your research after that if you wish!!! Family Tree DNA is here: http://www.ftdna.com Charlotte Coats Digital Archive http://www.rootsquest.com/~coatsfar ----Original Message Follows---- From: "John R. Clarke" <jclarke@rose.net> Reply-To: GAJEFFER-L@rootsweb.com To: GAJEFFER-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GAJEFFER] DNA Tests at FamilyTreeDna Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:30:35 -0400 Margie, We did it and the results surprised me. My research said my DANIEL line was probably out of the Thomas DANIEL the First of IOW County, VA line and it was not. In fact, it really surprised me with its results and it has thrown a lot of DANIEL lines in disarray because these lines were built on the research of others and this mess was all wrong. I guess you might say, my DANIEL bunch were in locations they never should have been located and with no strong links to those folks with whom they are 25/25 marker matches with - descendants of Capt. William DANIEL (1625-1698) family of Middlesex County, VA. I will tell this list the same things I told the DANIEL list -- DNA is the only definitive proof of a family relationship, these days and research not backed up with DNA is useless in my opinion. The problem is folks re-used so many given names in the early Colonial Period a lot of these folks have been assigned, incorrectly. I do not think these errors occurred in later periods (AFT 1850) but early (before 1800). Once you go down the wrong road, it is hard to get back on track, as we have all found out. I am not saying these folks that wrote these family histories did not do the best they could with the information they had in hand, they did, but there is only so much you can do with primary source information and a lot of what you do in your research is a "guess, at best." DNA takes the guesswork out of it by showing you, exactly, who you are related to. I also believe that only 25/25 marker matches should be even looked at as family in the Colonial American timeframe. I know that others will say that "one or two markers off are still family" and they are correct but they do not say "when you shared a common ancestor" and that is what you want to know. Statistically, with a 25/25 marker match to an identical surname means you have a 90% chance of sharing a common ancestor in the Colonial American time frame (14.4 generations) with someone's whose DNA matches, perfectly, that of your line. Any match less than 25/25 means you probably shared a MRCA (most recent common ancestor) before the Colonial American time frame. One marker off means you probably shared a MRCA in the 12th century and 2 markers off means you probably shared a MRCA in the Dark Ages. The actual figures used by FamilyTreeDNA is a 25/25 marker match means you have a 50% probability to share a MRCA in the past seven generations. However, statisticians will not even look at probabilities less than 90% to establish relationships, which is why I used this figure - 14.4 generations. John R. Clarke Thomasville, GA _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

If anyone ever starts one on the Hadden family I have several relatives that are ready, willing and able to donate. Please let me know. Thanks, Margie Puckett King ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlotte Coats" <coats@hotmail.com> To: <GAJEFFER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [GAJEFFER] DNA Tests at FamilyTreeDna > I could not agree with John more!!!! The other major problem also includes > lack of records from which to put families together, not to mention errors > in the transcribed records, not to mention the number of assumed > connections.... > > In our Coats DNA project we have found at least 3 or 4 unrelated Coats lines > out of SC, we thought they were all related because they were there about > the same time...but without documentation how would you tell? We've also > found that some connections in print form didn't match in the DNA > project....so the DNA projects are really worth their while...also focuses > your research!! > > But as John says, the old research has just made things more complex i.e. > if several of the same named lived in the same area about the same time, > they were all assumed to be related, but when you try to check the > references or documents, there just isn't anything to support, say those 16 > kids, Thomas and Mary had....so where did all those kids come from...in a > lot of cases they were guessed at...but once published boy, it's hard to > break that wall again...:) Also in the old research, a lot of times they > didn't distinquish the difference between say, Johns, they were just lumped > all together... > > I also had an ancestor married twice and each wife named a son William...so > he had two sons named William...now without the Bible record, we'd probably > never have figured that out... > > So the up shot is: if you don't have a DNA record, you should get > one...someday, that will be the only way to determine family > relationship...the records for those early years are getting so old a lot of > the archives will not make microfilm copies etc....and it is really getting > expensive...SS applications from $7.00 to $47.00 dollars I think it was... > > But for $99.00 you can plug instantly into a group!!! and then focus your > research after that if you wish!!! > > Family Tree DNA is here: http://www.ftdna.com > > Charlotte > Coats Digital Archive > http://www.rootsquest.com/~coatsfar > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "John R. Clarke" <jclarke@rose.net> > Reply-To: GAJEFFER-L@rootsweb.com > To: GAJEFFER-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [GAJEFFER] DNA Tests at FamilyTreeDna > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:30:35 -0400 > > Margie, > We did it and the results surprised me. My research said my DANIEL line > was probably out of the Thomas DANIEL the First of IOW County, VA line and > it was not. In fact, it really surprised me with its results and it has > thrown a lot of DANIEL lines in disarray because these lines were built on > the research of others and this mess was all wrong. I guess you might say, > my DANIEL bunch were in locations they never should have been located and > with no strong links to those folks with whom they are 25/25 marker matches > with - descendants of Capt. William DANIEL (1625-1698) family of Middlesex > County, VA. > > I will tell this list the same things I told the DANIEL list -- DNA is > the only definitive proof of a family relationship, these days and research > not backed up with DNA is useless in my opinion. The problem is folks > re-used so many given names in the early Colonial Period a lot of these > folks have been assigned, incorrectly. I do not think these errors occurred > in later periods (AFT 1850) but early (before 1800). Once you go down the > wrong road, it is hard to get back on track, as we have all found out. > > I am not saying these folks that wrote these family histories did not do > the best they could with the information they had in hand, they did, but > there is only so much you can do with primary source information and a lot > of what you do in your research is a "guess, at best." DNA takes the > guesswork out of it by showing you, exactly, who you are related to. > > I also believe that only 25/25 marker matches should be even looked at > as family in the Colonial American timeframe. I know that others will say > that "one or two markers off are still family" and they are correct but they > do not say "when you shared a common ancestor" and that is what you want to > know. Statistically, with a 25/25 marker match to an identical surname > means you have a 90% chance of sharing a common ancestor in the Colonial > American time frame (14.4 generations) with someone's whose DNA matches, > perfectly, that of your line. > > Any match less than 25/25 means you probably shared a MRCA (most recent > common ancestor) before the Colonial American time frame. One marker off > means you probably shared a MRCA in the 12th century and 2 markers off means > you probably shared a MRCA in the Dark Ages. The actual figures used by > FamilyTreeDNA is a 25/25 marker match means you have a 50% probability to > share a MRCA in the past seven generations. > > However, statisticians will not even look at probabilities less than 90% > to establish relationships, which is why I used this figure - 14.4 > generations. > > John R. Clarke > Thomasville, GA > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > > ==== GAJEFFER Mailing List ==== > If you wish to unsubscribe from the GAJEFFER mailing list, use GAJEFFER-l-request@rootsweb.com or GAJEFFER-d-request@rootsweb.com if you are on the Digest list. > > ============================== > You can manage your RootsWeb-Review subscription from > http://newsletters.rootsweb.com/ > >