On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:03:41 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 12:19:57 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 3:07:46 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 6:31:18 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > However to *rely* on Y testing *alone* is the task of a foolish person > > > > > > ...Who quite possibly does not exist. I have in any case never heard of any person arguing that genealogists should use Y DNA alone. > > > > > > I'm saying Y *and* Autosomal > > Not Y and a paper trail > > I think that is also how I understood you. Let me re-phrase to make sure: "I have never heard of any person arguing that genealogists should, with regard to genetic testing, use Y DNA alone". > > I am saying your original comment about patriarchal people is directed against a "straw man". This patriarchal Y DNA movement is presumably living in the same virtual world where there is a big movement to ban people saying "Merry Christmas". :) We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter Clearly you don't understand my point. What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. Than what would you say

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter > > > Clearly you don't understand my point. > What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. > > Than what would you say I would say that this is the exact expected result. NO AUTOSOMAL test would or could prove 6th cousins. Even 4th cousins only have a 50% chance of being identified as "cousins" on the majority of these tests.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 12:35:51 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > > > > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > > > > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > > > > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter > > > > > > Clearly you don't understand my point. > > What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. > > > > Than what would you say > > I would say that this is the exact expected result. NO AUTOSOMAL test would or could prove 6th cousins. Even 4th cousins only have a 50% chance of being identified as "cousins" on the majority of these tests. Which shows Joe that you have no idea how to use Autosomal tests, or what they do and don't tell you. I have no idea why you bothered to respond.

WILL, What do you feel was incorrect about my statement? I have confirmed all of my great great grandparents through triangulation using autosomal DNA.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter > > > Clearly you don't understand my point. > What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. > > Than what would you say Your question is equivalent to asking "What if all 3 6th cousins took a lie detector test and it proved none of you had ever even met each other." I would say...yes, that is expected.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:34:31 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. "We hear countless times" sounds like the right way to start a straw man story. But the wording is also "apples and pears" logic. Y DNA can indeed really say something about ancient ancestors, and define groups into family tree structures as part of that. There is no such thing as a corresponding "autosomal group" in such discussions about "ancient" ancestors. Autosomal SNP testing does not look for novel mutations, it looks at old and widely shared mutations, and therefore does not look at ancient family trees structures with branches.