> Tom Morris wrote: > > > > "Greg Lovelace" <gregl@starfishnet.com> wrote: > > > > > I have been reading with some humor and some dismay all the posts > > > > My reaction wasn't quite so mixed. I was appalled by the > > closemindeness demonstrated and the argumentative > > nature of the discussion by the self appointed genealogy > > "experts." > > If one side is going to assert categorically that DNA testing will > "solve your genealogy problems", then the other side is allowed to > present cases in which DNA analysis will NOT solve "your genealogy > problem". Neither side holds exclusive rights to "closemindedness." > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> I don't think anyone involved in this discussion claimed that DNA testing would solve every problem for every person, or even one problem for every person or every problem for one person. I know I sure didn't & believe that anyone who did make that claim is a fool. I stated a case where it will help me, as well as the fact that the cost was less than most research trips that require only one overnight stay. Just like the $100 to $600 a year that folks pay for internet access, the $120 +/- for Ancestry.com census & whatever Genealogy.com charges for their services, DNA testing is another tool that is available to anyone who will take the trouble to learn what it really can or can not do for them. Many don't need that tool. Others really do but haven't realized it, yet. Others still, may have some moral, religious or other grounds for not using this tool. In the very early 1900s, many people thought the automobile was a passing fad. Others thought it was a "devil machine". Others still, didn't even know that automobiles existed. I believe that the same principles are at work here. The ONLY way that most men that are my age can come anywhere close to "proving" that their "recorded" great grandfather was the father of their paternal grandfather is through Y DNA testing of several various descendants. There HAVE been surprises doing this - either an un recorded adoption or some hanky panky going on in the late 1800s. I don't think that Y DNA testing of same surname male "recorded" or "expected" parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, etc. will absolutely "prove" that they are related, and definitely not exactly how, but if they are not related I believe it WILL "prove" that very close to 100% of the time, and that's worth something. And by the way, there is another even more controversial DNA test for "Bio geographical origin" (read as "racial origin"). Due to evidence of both Native American & African ancestors, I was among the early participants in this program that was even more expensive. It didn't "prove" anything - results indicated 100% European but with a +/- 5% error factor, but that doesn't mean that I lost all faith in 21st century science. There's a lot to be learned out there that was never heard of 20 years ago and I, for one, plan to take advantage of it. Ernie Hurst ernie5823@earthlink.net