On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 6:16:02 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > > CONCLUSION: DNA is worthless as a professional genealogical research tool. > > Ditto to TAF's post. You've completely misinterpreted Mrs. Mills' article. The professional genealogical community I participate in is currently worried that conclusions about genealogical relationships they reached in the twentienth century using historical documents will be overturned by new DNA evidence made available in the twenty-first century. > > Nathan ------------------------ Nathan, I respectfully disagree. The current firestorm on the Internet, from what I have evaluated, shows that even the Forensic DNA evidence is being highly challenged. I refer to, for example: Forensic DNA evidence is not infallible As DNA analysis techniques become more sensitive, we must be careful to reassess the probabilities of error, argues Cynthia M. Cale. http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-dna-evidence-is-not-infallible-1.18654 Earlier this month, the Texas Forensic Science Commission raised concerns about the accuracy of the statistical interpretation of DNA evidence, and it is now checking whether convictions going back more than a decade are safe. Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. In fact, forensic scientists have no way of knowing whether the DNA was left behind through such primary, direct transfer. It could also have been deposited by secondary transfer, through an intermediary. (If I shake your hand then I could pass some of your skin cells onto something that I touch next.)" How, then can anyone convey with any degree of honesty, that any test taken outside of the "sanitary" laboratory, can be used with any "X" degree of reputable assurance? Nevertheless, consider further, any ancestral families and their remains, or known artifacts, how they could have been "touched" by various means; "kissed" or "hugged" or had other body parts replaced, and I could go on and on; are they not to a high degree of uncertainty, constantly diluted over time and weathering, by various elements intruding, etc.? DNA "proof"? What DNA proof???

The professional genealogical community I participate in is currently worried that conclusions about genealogical relationships they reached in the twentienth century using historical documents will be overturned by new DNA evidence made available in the twenty-first century. > > > > Nathan An example of DNA overturning last century's historical-record based genealogy is Archibald Bennett's conclusion about the origin of the North Carolina Allred family (now known to be ancestral to Pres. Obama). Bennett's theories were overturned by YDNA evidence. Patchy records have been discovered, which Allred missed that corroborate the migrations revealed by YDNA analysis. Archibald Bennett is considered to be one of the top Mormon genealogists of the twentieth century. If his conclusions can be invalidated by DNA evidence, anyone's can. I summed up this discovery by the Allred Family Organization on FamilySearch's Blog "DNA vs. 1940s Professional Genealogist" https://familysearch.org/blog/en/dna-1940s-professional-genealogist/ Nathan

> An example of DNA overturning last century's historical-record based genealogy is Archibald Bennett's conclusion about the origin of the North Carolina Allred family (now known to be ancestral to Pres. Obama). Bennett's theories were overturned by YDNA evidence. Patchy records have been discovered, which Allred missed that corroborate the migrations revealed by YDNA analysis. > > Archibald Bennett is considered to be one of the top Mormon genealogists of the twentieth century. If his conclusions can be invalidated by DNA evidence, anyone's can. > > I summed up this discovery by the Allred Family Organization on FamilySearch's Blog "DNA vs. 1940s Professional Genealogist" https://familysearch.org/blog/en/dna-1940s-professional-genealogist/ > > Nathan I believe this is exactly the sort of thing Thomas Tinney is afraid of and why he is so anti-DNA. So far his arguments have sounded more like someone grasping at straws and trying desperately to suppress the use of DNA rather than making a real, evidence-based, case against it. As an amateur genealogist and historian I'm interested in going where the evidence leads, not to where I want it to lead. I'm not always crazy about where it leads, but I'd rather know the truth. I see DNA as a tool to assist me in my genealogical and historical research. It is not THE tool, but A tool to be used in conjunction with other, more traditional, tools. Peter D. A. Warwick