On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:49:47 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > However if the point of your genealogy is to trace *your own* family, and after forty years of that you finally break down and take a test and discover that you were apparently adopted, then where are you exactly? There would be the point indeed, but it is NOT the point at all for most genealogists. Let me explain your position better than you have above: You are effectively saying (I will not cut and paste all the different quotes) that it is not genealogy or it is bad genealogy, and absolutely to be avoided, that we should spend any time on anyone who might not actually be a direct ancestor. You have expressed horror of this in many ways, over and over. On this basis real genealogy has never existed and still does not exist. We will need to wait for better technology. But I will just keep doing what I call genealogy. I am not too worried about researching people who possibly are not direct ancestors. In fact I like that. If you ever get to understand more about the autosomal DNA you will realize that once you get back a few generations, the ancestors you are studying (even if definitely your direct ancestors) are not more like you genetically than lots of random people with a similar geographic/ethnic ancestral mix.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:28:15 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:23:23 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:12:09 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:02:17 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > > > My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. > > > > > > > > OK, so let's take a medieval person who had only one child. That child receives exactly 1/2 of the parent's DNA and does not receive the other half. That means in 1 generation, 50% of the DNA gets passed to NO ONE. In every generation, even in a family with a dozen children, statistically some of those snippets will be lost completely. So much for that theory. > > > > > > > > Further, after 10 generations, the blocks that get passed are the same blocks passed for 30 generations, just in a progressively lower proportion of descendants - this means that two people claiming descent from Edward I may well share the same block of DNA, but it may be entirely coincidental if one of them descends from Edmund Crouchback, or Joan Fitz Roy, or Toda Aznarez of Pamplona, with the presence of this shared DNA being entirely coincidental and not due to the common descent you are trying to test. Even if you get a match, you haven't confirmed squat. > > > > > > > > I know you have it in your mind that it would be possible to reconstruct the genomes of medieval people simply by doing autosomal testing on the entire human population and using their pedigrees to extrapolate back, but such an approach would not survive the collision with hard reality. To argue that autosomal DNA testing can be used in this way because you think it should be possible is fantasy. > > > > > > > > taf > > > > > > > > > However a lower proportion, multiplied by a broader base, means the > > > same proportion or perhaps even more. > > > > So what? It isn't useful if there is no way to tell tell from whom it came. > > > > > And you are still stuck on two living people trying to compare their DNA > > > to determine if they descend from Toda Aznarez. While I'm not. > > > > No, you are stuck on a pie-in-the-sky grand across-all-time, world-spanning genome scheme that won't work and won't happen. > > > > > I'm speaking of a project which would recreate the DNA of every medieval > > > person, by testing every living person. Not just two. > > > > There are only two problems with this - first there is a finite limit to how far you can take this before the progressive loss of information with each generation, the inability to identify which parent was the source when a piece was uniquely passed to one branch, and the degree of inbreeding as you go back, very rapidly produces a quagmire. > > > > The second problem is simply that it is a pipe dream to think there will ever be such an initiative to test everyone on the planet and then serve up the data to a monstrously complex computational paradigm that compares billions of data sets, just to do something as esoteric as medieval genealogy. > > > > But that's the future (or not). In the present reality, autosomal DNA testing is completely and utterly worthless for the medieval period. Full Stop. > > > > taf > > But you can identify which parent was the source of a snippet of DNA > Not sure what you're saying there. > > The entire point of Autosomal is that you can identify from where a snippet comes. Parent? Remember the question is whether this can be applied to medieval ancestors. You have mentioned you have a personal theory about this, but as far as I can see you do not actually understand how current autosomal testing works. It has definite weak points for genealogy, though it still of course has its strong points.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 10:12:09 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > However a lower proportion, multiplied by a broader base, means the same proportion or perhaps even more. > No, the autosomal testing available now is not full sequencing. It is looking at specific known and common mutation points, and then identifying big clumps of DNA that seem to be moving together from generation to generation. No big clumps because too many generations, no ID possible.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:57:23 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > No Joe. I'm not going to argue statistics with a pidgeon. Full Stop. If you are not into statistics, then give up on genetic genealogy?

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:23:23 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:12:09 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:02:17 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. > > > > > > OK, so let's take a medieval person who had only one child. That child receives exactly 1/2 of the parent's DNA and does not receive the other half. That means in 1 generation, 50% of the DNA gets passed to NO ONE. In every generation, even in a family with a dozen children, statistically some of those snippets will be lost completely. So much for that theory. > > > > > > Further, after 10 generations, the blocks that get passed are the same blocks passed for 30 generations, just in a progressively lower proportion of descendants - this means that two people claiming descent from Edward I may well share the same block of DNA, but it may be entirely coincidental if one of them descends from Edmund Crouchback, or Joan Fitz Roy, or Toda Aznarez of Pamplona, with the presence of this shared DNA being entirely coincidental and not due to the common descent you are trying to test. Even if you get a match, you haven't confirmed squat. > > > > > > I know you have it in your mind that it would be possible to reconstruct the genomes of medieval people simply by doing autosomal testing on the entire human population and using their pedigrees to extrapolate back, but such an approach would not survive the collision with hard reality. To argue that autosomal DNA testing can be used in this way because you think it should be possible is fantasy. > > > > > > taf > > > > > > However a lower proportion, multiplied by a broader base, means the > > same proportion or perhaps even more. > > So what? It isn't useful if there is no way to tell tell from whom it came. > > > And you are still stuck on two living people trying to compare their DNA > > to determine if they descend from Toda Aznarez. While I'm not. > > No, you are stuck on a pie-in-the-sky grand across-all-time, world-spanning genome scheme that won't work and won't happen. > > > I'm speaking of a project which would recreate the DNA of every medieval > > person, by testing every living person. Not just two. > > There are only two problems with this - first there is a finite limit to how far you can take this before the progressive loss of information with each generation, the inability to identify which parent was the source when a piece was uniquely passed to one branch, and the degree of inbreeding as you go back, very rapidly produces a quagmire. > > The second problem is simply that it is a pipe dream to think there will ever be such an initiative to test everyone on the planet and then serve up the data to a monstrously complex computational paradigm that compares billions of data sets, just to do something as esoteric as medieval genealogy. > > But that's the future (or not). In the present reality, autosomal DNA testing is completely and utterly worthless for the medieval period. Full Stop. > > taf But you can identify which parent was the source of a snippet of DNA Not sure what you're saying there. The entire point of Autosomal is that you can identify from where a snippet comes.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:12:09 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:02:17 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. > > > > OK, so let's take a medieval person who had only one child. That child receives exactly 1/2 of the parent's DNA and does not receive the other half. That means in 1 generation, 50% of the DNA gets passed to NO ONE. In every generation, even in a family with a dozen children, statistically some of those snippets will be lost completely. So much for that theory. > > > > Further, after 10 generations, the blocks that get passed are the same blocks passed for 30 generations, just in a progressively lower proportion of descendants - this means that two people claiming descent from Edward I may well share the same block of DNA, but it may be entirely coincidental if one of them descends from Edmund Crouchback, or Joan Fitz Roy, or Toda Aznarez of Pamplona, with the presence of this shared DNA being entirely coincidental and not due to the common descent you are trying to test. Even if you get a match, you haven't confirmed squat. > > > > I know you have it in your mind that it would be possible to reconstruct the genomes of medieval people simply by doing autosomal testing on the entire human population and using their pedigrees to extrapolate back, but such an approach would not survive the collision with hard reality. To argue that autosomal DNA testing can be used in this way because you think it should be possible is fantasy. > > > > taf > > > However a lower proportion, multiplied by a broader base, means the > same proportion or perhaps even more. So what? It isn't useful if there is no way to tell tell from whom it came. > And you are still stuck on two living people trying to compare their DNA > to determine if they descend from Toda Aznarez. While I'm not. No, you are stuck on a pie-in-the-sky grand across-all-time, world-spanning genome scheme that won't work and won't happen. > I'm speaking of a project which would recreate the DNA of every medieval > person, by testing every living person. Not just two. There are only two problems with this - first there is a finite limit to how far you can take this before the progressive loss of information with each generation, the inability to identify which parent was the source when a piece was uniquely passed to one branch, and the degree of inbreeding as you go back, very rapidly produces a quagmire. The second problem is simply that it is a pipe dream to think there will ever be such an initiative to test everyone on the planet and then serve up the data to a monstrously complex computational paradigm that compares billions of data sets, just to do something as esoteric as medieval genealogy. But that's the future (or not). In the present reality, autosomal DNA testing is completely and utterly worthless for the medieval period. Full Stop. taf

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:02:17 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. > > OK, so let's take a medieval person who had only one child. That child receives exactly 1/2 of the parent's DNA and does not receive the other half. That means in 1 generation, 50% of the DNA gets passed to NO ONE. In every generation, even in a family with a dozen children, statistically some of those snippets will be lost completely. So much for that theory. > > Further, after 10 generations, the blocks that get passed are the same blocks passed for 30 generations, just in a progressively lower proportion of descendants - this means that two people claiming descent from Edward I may well share the same block of DNA, but it may be entirely coincidental if one of them descends from Edmund Crouchback, or Joan Fitz Roy, or Toda Aznarez of Pamplona, with the presence of this shared DNA being entirely coincidental and not due to the common descent you are trying to test. Even if you get a match, you haven't confirmed squat. > > I know you have it in your mind that it would be possible to reconstruct the genomes of medieval people simply by doing autosomal testing on the entire human population and using their pedigrees to extrapolate back, but such an approach would not survive the collision with hard reality. To argue that autosomal DNA testing can be used in this way because you think it should be possible is fantasy. > > taf However a lower proportion, multiplied by a broader base, means the same proportion or perhaps even more. And you are still stuck on two living people trying to compare their DNA to determine if they descend from Toda Aznarez. While I'm not. I'm speaking of a project which would recreate the DNA of every medieval person, by testing every living person. Not just two.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:10:28 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. OK, so let's take a medieval person who had only one child. That child receives exactly 1/2 of the parent's DNA and does not receive the other half. That means in 1 generation, 50% of the DNA gets passed to NO ONE. In every generation, even in a family with a dozen children, statistically some of those snippets will be lost completely. So much for that theory. Further, after 10 generations, the blocks that get passed are the same blocks passed for 30 generations, just in a progressively lower proportion of descendants - this means that two people claiming descent from Edward I may well share the same block of DNA, but it may be entirely coincidental if one of them descends from Edmund Crouchback, or Joan Fitz Roy, or Toda Aznarez of Pamplona, with the presence of this shared DNA being entirely coincidental and not due to the common descent you are trying to test. Even if you get a match, you haven't confirmed squat. I know you have it in your mind that it would be possible to reconstruct the genomes of medieval people simply by doing autosomal testing on the entire human population and using their pedigrees to extrapolate back, but such an approach would not survive the collision with hard reality. To argue that autosomal DNA testing can be used in this way because you think it should be possible is fantasy. taf

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 15:47:48 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > My comments are interspersed below. DR > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 1:55:32 AM UTC-6, jd...@me.com wrote: > > < Greetings Douglas > < > < Many thanks for the notes concerning our mutual ancestor, Humphrey. I will <read these with interest. > < > < Your publications have been frequently quoted to me. The experts at WikiTree < advised me that we do have at least one area of difference in the Poyntz > < ancestry. I do not know whether this is so as these experts did not produce > < any evidence. The upshot of the claim was that I was banned from WikiTree for < disagreeing with you. This was, for me, an event producing such trauma that <it is unlikely that I will ever recover. > > Dear John ~ I'm extremely sorry to hear that you were banned from WikiTree for disagreeing with me. Free enquiry is the CENTRAL focus of my scholarly pursuits. The idea that you would be banned for simply expressing an alternative view is not anything I would support. Honest scholars can disagree and still be friends. > > If you would be so kind, please forward me the contact information for the person(s) who banned you. I will address this matter personally. > > < It is probably most appropriate that I do so directly to your e-mail address > < as above? > > Yes, by all means, you're more than welcome to correspond with me privately at my e-mail address. > > > Regards > > John > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Greetings Douglas Many thanks for your observation. I entirely endorse your view that it is only by open dialogue and free discussion that any research will make progress. The next generation of our family do not want to follow on with our genealogical research. My only reason for entering my family’s research on to WikiTree was to publish the research for any and all to make any use of the data. I am not impressed by the manner in which WikiTree manages its affairs and so there is no sorrow in ceasing to have any connection with WikiTree. My comment was made with typical British humour. Having said that to use your name and reputation in the manner that it was, for me, would be unacceptable conduct. I will prepare a summary for you as the matter does have a lengthy exchange of correspondence and forward to you at your e-mail address. Please feel free to use the data as you wish. Regards John

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:01:51 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > No Joe. I'm not going to argue statistics with a pidgeon. Full Stop. > > I have no idea what you mean by "pidgeon", but I have no doubt I have taken a great quantity more statistics classes than you. > > I'm not asking to argue statistics. I'm asking you to offer a single example that proves or illustrates your point. Currently you are just stating it is possible, and offered not one example how. > Joe I seriously doubt that you are a better mathematician than am I. As to your example of two men, brothers, who have a paper trail back to a man in 1450, and identical Y results. It is meaningless. At *any* time in the past six hundred years one cuckold could have supplied two children. Or it could simply be that the paper trail is worthless, and yet the genealogy is not affected, they just belong to some *other* family. There is really *no* way to tell these cases apart from each other. None. Zero. The Y does not tell you at all, in any way whatsoever, whether the descendants are sixth cousins, second cousins, or fourteenth cousins. You really get almost no genealogical *evidence* from it at all :) And to your point of whether Autosomal DNA can tell you anything about medieval genealogy, you're wrong. I have already stated the reason earlier. Instead of asking the odds for whether a particular snippet of DNA gets passed down intact to *one* person, you need to look at whether that snippet will get passed down to *any* descendant. And then extrapolate that over the entire DNA My theory is that *every* snippet gets passed down to *someone*. You just need to test every one

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:14:23 AM UTC-7, tkom...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Leo, can you send me your genealogy records? Tom K. As others have pointed out, Leo is no longer with us. Why don't you post what you are interested in - do you have a Byzantine line you would like to confirm? We could talk about that. taf

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:46:27 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > If I make a suggestion, if there are real examples of autosomal testing, > of the sort currently available, helping medieval genealogy (not counting > helping a person check for bastards in recent generations), please start > a new thread focused only on that point? I would be interested. No new thread because there is nothing to talk about. The hypothetical usage being claimed is just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that is at odds with the actual reality. The only application of this to medieval genealogy would be to perform it on ancient DNA of identifiable medieval people, and this has not been done. Indeed, I am not aware of autosomal DNA analysis being done on any identifiable medieval people except the selective single-marker tests (e.g. eye color, hair color) done on Richard III. The only other tests of which I am aware done on identifiable medieval people have been Y and mt. taf taf

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:46:27 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:39:27 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:29:46 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > > Like I said, relying on Y matches *with* a "strong paper trail" is the > > > > quest of fools and old sponges. > > > > > > > > If you have not used Autosomal DNA to even show that you are related to > > > > your own "relatives", than you need to start from scratch. > > > > > > Given that a "strong paper trail" *without* Y confirmation has to be worse than a paper trail *with* Y confirmation, I have to congratulate you. You have now succeeded in insulting everyone who has ever done medieval genealogy, which it is utterly impossible to verify using your supposed paragon of genealogical confirmation, autosomal DNA analysis. They (we, and you) are all fools and sponges. Well done. > > > > > > taf > > > > Ta Dah! > > > > Well actually you are not correct that medieval ancestry is impossible to verify using Autosomal DNA. > > > > But leaving that aside for the moment, I am only insulting those people who are claiming to show some ancestry Y-DNA for the Smith family, or the Jones family, when they haven't even done the Autosomal DNA to show that a bastard didn't creep into the line in the past six generations. > > > > There are plenty of people who do medieval genealogy who couldn't care less what the Y-DNA tests do or don't show. > > In my opinion, Y DNA is sometimes (rarely) useful in genealogy whereas autosomal tests as they now stand are never or perhaps almost never. > > If I make a suggestion, if there are real examples of autosomal testing, of the sort currently available, helping medieval genealogy (not counting helping a person check for bastards in recent generations), please start a new thread focused only on that point? I would be interested. It's hard to argue with you because you keep moving the goalposts about. Autosomal DNA is *constantly* used in "genealogy" I expect perhaps in that first sentence you meant to say "medieval genealogy" but you only said "genealogy". One of the most commons uses for people wanting to take the Autosomal DNA test is *for* genealogy. Please try to be precise in your language

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:39:27 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > Well actually you are not correct that medieval ancestry is impossible to > verify using Autosomal DNA. Yes, it is impossible as has been explained here multiple times. > But leaving that aside for the moment, I am only insulting those people who > are claiming to show some ancestry Y-DNA for the Smith family, or the Jones > family, when they haven't even done the Autosomal DNA to show that a bastard > didn't creep into the line in the past six generations You are arguing that any recent generations are completely worthless without an autosomal test. Guess what the implications are for older generations, where no autosomal test is possible - nothing short of genealogical nihilism. > There are plenty of people who do medieval genealogy who couldn't care less > what the Y-DNA tests do or don't show. In most cases, medieval genealogy cannot be confirmed with a Y test either - We are left with the paper trail, as imperfect as it is. taf

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:56:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well actually you are not correct that medieval ancestry is impossible to verify using Autosomal DNA. > > Medieval genealogy *is* impossible using autosomal DNA tests of living individuals. Full Stop. If you have a counter example that countermands basic mathematics, we are excited to hear it. > > > But leaving that aside for the moment, I am only insulting those people who are claiming to show some ancestry Y-DNA for the Smith family, or the Jones family, when they haven't even done the Autosomal DNA to show that a bastard didn't creep into the line in the past six generations. > > Everyone understands what you are saying. We just disagree. If I have a man born in 1450 with two sons. And two people with paper trails to each of these sons through the male line have an identical Y-DNA result, it is *evidence* (like all evidence, subject to further query and discovery), that the two men have intact lines as expected. It adds *weight* to the paper trail that the father in question was the father of the two sons. I could take an autosomal DNA test as well to prove recent generations in a line back to this medieval individual, but it tells me nothing of medieval genealogy. > > > > > > There are plenty of people who do medieval genealogy who couldn't care less what the Y-DNA tests do or don't show. No Joe. I'm not going to argue statistics with a pidgeon. Full Stop.

> Well actually you are not correct that medieval ancestry is impossible to verify using Autosomal DNA. Medieval genealogy *is* impossible using autosomal DNA tests of living individuals. Full Stop. If you have a counter example that countermands basic mathematics, we are excited to hear it. > But leaving that aside for the moment, I am only insulting those people who are claiming to show some ancestry Y-DNA for the Smith family, or the Jones family, when they haven't even done the Autosomal DNA to show that a bastard didn't creep into the line in the past six generations. Everyone understands what you are saying. We just disagree. If I have a man born in 1450 with two sons. And two people with paper trails to each of these sons through the male line have an identical Y-DNA result, it is *evidence* (like all evidence, subject to further query and discovery), that the two men have intact lines as expected. It adds *weight* to the paper trail that the father in question was the father of the two sons. I could take an autosomal DNA test as well to prove recent generations in a line back to this medieval individual, but it tells me nothing of medieval genealogy. > > There are plenty of people who do medieval genealogy who couldn't care less what the Y-DNA tests do or don't show.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:43:18 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 6:40:40 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:33:04 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > > *If* those people who *think* they have a strong paper trail to Edward III have *not* done Autosomal DNA testing to even show that they are related to the grandparent or great-grandparent in that line that they purport to reach back to Edward III, then they *need* a swift kick in the head. > > > > Have a nice day. > > So are you saying that it is of the highest importance that genealogists start with recent generations BEFORE they work on older generations who might not in the end really be direct ancestors? Hmm. > > That seems to be a judgement about how to enjoy yourself, not required in order to make the research work better at finding out what really happened. Apparently you think it is important to only study people you are directly descended from? > > Well, I suppose that in reality we all enjoy a bit of animal pleasure when we know we are working on someone who we might descend from. But if we are not ignorant we of course know that it is only a probability, and these are not close relatives anyway. > > I think the only answer is the old de gustibus etc. But I can not imagine that this method could, if followed, make genealogy more enjoyable, nor more effective as a form of research. Nope. Genealogists can work on whatever they want. My family, you family, the Queen's family. However if the point of your genealogy is to trace *your own* family, and after forty years of that you finally break down and take a test and discover that you were apparently adopted, then where are you exactly? As to me, clearly you know very little about my work if you think I work on my own family. You're just throwing mud at a wall there my friend. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous most Y-DNA research is, when applied to the paper family of the tester, since that tester has not even confirmed that their paper family, is their biological family. It's cart in front on donkey and that's not the way to travel to Scarsborough.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:39:27 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:29:46 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > Like I said, relying on Y matches *with* a "strong paper trail" is the > > > quest of fools and old sponges. > > > > > > If you have not used Autosomal DNA to even show that you are related to > > > your own "relatives", than you need to start from scratch. > > > > Given that a "strong paper trail" *without* Y confirmation has to be worse than a paper trail *with* Y confirmation, I have to congratulate you. You have now succeeded in insulting everyone who has ever done medieval genealogy, which it is utterly impossible to verify using your supposed paragon of genealogical confirmation, autosomal DNA analysis. They (we, and you) are all fools and sponges. Well done. > > > > taf > > Ta Dah! > > Well actually you are not correct that medieval ancestry is impossible to verify using Autosomal DNA. > > But leaving that aside for the moment, I am only insulting those people who are claiming to show some ancestry Y-DNA for the Smith family, or the Jones family, when they haven't even done the Autosomal DNA to show that a bastard didn't creep into the line in the past six generations. > > There are plenty of people who do medieval genealogy who couldn't care less what the Y-DNA tests do or don't show. In my opinion, Y DNA is sometimes (rarely) useful in genealogy whereas autosomal tests as they now stand are never or perhaps almost never. If I make a suggestion, if there are real examples of autosomal testing, of the sort currently available, helping medieval genealogy (not counting helping a person check for bastards in recent generations), please start a new thread focused only on that point? I would be interested.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 6:40:40 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:33:04 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > *If* those people who *think* they have a strong paper trail to Edward III have *not* done Autosomal DNA testing to even show that they are related to the grandparent or great-grandparent in that line that they purport to reach back to Edward III, then they *need* a swift kick in the head. > > Have a nice day. So are you saying that it is of the highest importance that genealogists start with recent generations BEFORE they work on older generations who might not in the end really be direct ancestors? Hmm. That seems to be a judgement about how to enjoy yourself, not required in order to make the research work better at finding out what really happened. Apparently you think it is important to only study people you are directly descended from? Well, I suppose that in reality we all enjoy a bit of animal pleasure when we know we are working on someone who we might descend from. But if we are not ignorant we of course know that it is only a probability, and these are not close relatives anyway. I think the only answer is the old de gustibus etc. But I can not imagine that this method could, if followed, make genealogy more enjoyable, nor more effective as a form of research.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 11:29:46 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > Like I said, relying on Y matches *with* a "strong paper trail" is the > > quest of fools and old sponges. > > > > If you have not used Autosomal DNA to even show that you are related to > > your own "relatives", than you need to start from scratch. > > Given that a "strong paper trail" *without* Y confirmation has to be worse than a paper trail *with* Y confirmation, I have to congratulate you. You have now succeeded in insulting everyone who has ever done medieval genealogy, which it is utterly impossible to verify using your supposed paragon of genealogical confirmation, autosomal DNA analysis. They (we, and you) are all fools and sponges. Well done. > > taf Ta Dah! Well actually you are not correct that medieval ancestry is impossible to verify using Autosomal DNA. But leaving that aside for the moment, I am only insulting those people who are claiming to show some ancestry Y-DNA for the Smith family, or the Jones family, when they haven't even done the Autosomal DNA to show that a bastard didn't creep into the line in the past six generations. There are plenty of people who do medieval genealogy who couldn't care less what the Y-DNA tests do or don't show.