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.

On 01-Sep-17 11:14 AM, 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. But if the DNA can't distinguish between either Mary or Fritz as the individual's ancestor, it seems you are saying that "traditional research" - that is, the paper trail - is crucial input to your process. If the input is wrong about which of two (rather than both) siblings belong in the ancestry, then the DNA testing that follows will not make this right, the analysis will be misleading, and you are stuck with relying on the correctness of your paper trail. Peter Stewart Peter Stewart