On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:14:32 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 4:46:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > > On 01-Sep-17 1:35 AM, wjhonson wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:39:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > > >> On 31-Aug-17 12:55 PM, wjhonson wrote: > > >>> I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. > > >>> > > >>> Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. > > >> I asked if you used a paper trail and in reply you posted "I don't". > > >> > > >> Peter Stewart > > > Well I think you asked if I "establish" this by a paper trail. > > > What I'm suggesting is that instead of the paper trail being the basis, and the DNA being the additional evidence, that you flip it around. > > > > > > Make the DNA the *basis* of the tree, and the paper trail be the "additional evidence" > > > > The "this" that I asked if you established by a paper trail was > > specifically information that was preliminary to DNA analysis, i.e. who > > was descended from one of two siblings and not from the other. > > > > You wrote: > > > > "How can I tell if a snippet came through the line from Mary or the line > > from Franz???? How!!!!! Because you test people who came through Mary > > but did *not* come through Franz, and you test people who came through > > Franz and did *not* come through Mary." > > > > So are you now saying that you use DNA testing, rather than a paper > > trail, as the basis for working out whose DNA to test in order to > > exclude descendants of both siblings? How can DNA testing chase its own > > tail in this way? > > > > Peter Stewart > > I'm not saying that you use DNA to figure out who to test. > I'm saying that the DNA is used to "establish" how someone is or is not related. > > You use traditional research to determine who to test, but only the DNA can speak to whether they should be established in that tree position. > > If the DNA is negative, they should be knocked out of that tree. > Then you have to search among your matches for who should be put into that position. The verb "establish" seems to being used to mean "confirm" here, meaning a double check on whatever other evidence you might have, which is what everyone else has been saying would be a normal methodology. Of course you can also start with a DNA test and hope for a recently related match, but then you still need to work out what the results mean, and without other types of evidence (for example the situation of some adoptees) this will be impossible. (For example, looking at censuses, or even just writing to your match to ask where they live etc, is "paper trail" research.) I think every attempt to get this discussion in practical terms is showing that there is no really new approach being proposed behind all the exciting wordings about other types of evidence being useless etc. Furthermore I think the point about the above only working for recent generations and being irrelevant for medieval discussions remains valid, except in the sense which proves the point: confirming RECENT relationships, in the event your interest in medieval genealogy is driven by a need to connect to RECENT relationships.