On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:08:13 +1000, Kerry Raymond wrote: > I think a DNA match of this nature is pretty much the same as the age old > problem of what do you do when you find the right name in the right place > at the right time. For example I know that all Rebetzkes in Australia are > related, so I hoover up any data connected with that name. But that doesn't > mean that when I encounter a Rebetzke in the records that I can correctly > locate that person in my family tree. What I can do is stick them in my > database and start collecting information on them until their place in the > tree eventually reveals itself. > > So it seems to me that DNA matches are much the same. There is a high > probability that they are related, so you hardly want to forget about them. > But you still have to plug away and collect the birth, marriage, death > information etc that leads to working out what that relationship might be. You've summed up perfectly there. This is exactly why there is no use or purpose for DNA in genealogy as far as I'm concerned. OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or 6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they are related. People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). Like you, I hoover up (love that phrase :)) ) all mentions of the family I'm doing a one name study of. All mentions get added to the database with notes as appropriate until such time as I can link them to the correct part of the family.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:11:27 +0000, Charani <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> wrote: >On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:08:13 +1000, Kerry Raymond wrote: > >> I think a DNA match of this nature is pretty much the same as the age old >> problem of what do you do when you find the right name in the right place >> at the right time. For example I know that all Rebetzkes in Australia are >> related, so I hoover up any data connected with that name. But that doesn't >> mean that when I encounter a Rebetzke in the records that I can correctly >> locate that person in my family tree. What I can do is stick them in my >> database and start collecting information on them until their place in the >> tree eventually reveals itself. >> >> So it seems to me that DNA matches are much the same. There is a high >> probability that they are related, so you hardly want to forget about them. >> But you still have to plug away and collect the birth, marriage, death >> information etc that leads to working out what that relationship might be. > >You've summed up perfectly there. This is exactly why there is no use >or purpose for DNA in genealogy as far as I'm concerned. > >OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but >can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or >6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving >to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they >are related. People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) >but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). Several people, including me, have the line of a 1655 immigrant proven beyond reasonable doubt to several families today. But only two of his three sons descendants are traceable. My own line is about two links short of the third son who could be my gggg grandfather. I can't get there from here except in theory that can't be proved or disproved. If I DNA match someone known to be from that line, and the MRCA is 6-8 generations away, I have the line except for 2 generations. And I have a good idea where to look for the links. I have also traced two other lines (for 5 generations) within two generations of my earliest proven ancestor. So, I view a match of DNA to any of these lines as all I need to limit my search. All I need to know is whether there is a link to an earlier proven genealogy and DNA is my only chance. Without that I am dead in the water because the paper trail does not exist and theories are not proof Where is the flaw in my logic? Hugh

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:11:27 +0000, Charani <SGBNOSPAM@mail2genes.invalid> wrote: > You've summed up perfectly there. This is exactly why there is no use > or purpose for DNA in genealogy as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that's what they were saying. It lets you rule in (or out) a genealogical link, but doesn't specify WHAT the link is. I'd say that physical evidence of a link, has use and purpose in genealogy. > OK, so two people may "know" they are related because of the DNA but > can they *prove* it with a paper trail? If the paper trail stops 5 or > 6 generations back, then they are going to have a tough time proving > to the vast majority of people in their respectives families that they > are related. And if the DNA does _not_ match, then they've saved a bunch of time. > People will believe what they can see (a paper trail) > but not believe what they can neither see nor understand (DNA). Far as I know, DNA is what convinced the Thomas Jefferson descendants to accept the Sally Hemings link.