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