Byron: I see your Hill group is having a great discussion on DNA - pro as well as con Being a "Hill" listmember (still can't find my Robert J. Hill), but eventually success will pop up. As to DNA, I am a co-coordinator of a Jackson DNA Group Project - we do not have as many members as your Hill Group (97 ascompared to your 250 (more Hills in the ole US than Jacksons); however we have a success rate of matching members at 52% with subgroups ranging in size from 2 to 7 per subgroup. With not only with new members joining every week, but also those new members have a good chance of finding a match. The above shown percentage relates to a combination of Y-DNA as well as mtDNA (male as well as female matches) I invite you to visit our website at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Jackson - Since I maintain the website, I can relate to you first hand that members keep their fingers crossed for a match - Just had another day before yesterday - she was elated! DNA vs. Research - Byron was correct, DNA confirms your research - Within our project, it is suggested that members submit their ancestral lineage from their most recent deceased ancestor to their earliest ancestor - some do, some do not, and some will email me that to date their do not know anything regarding their GRANDFATHER, and hope they can find a match. Others will email me that they were on tract to their lineage, until they reached the 1700s and what they were GIVEN was all wrong. However, with groups helping each other, many now have been corrected - giving documental proof. The key to good Research is an EXCELLENT PAPER TRAIL on each generation (preferably including all siblings within each generation) - DNA & GOOD RESEARCH go hand in hand, each coming to the same conclusion just using a different pathway. Many times I have heard the same argument that DNA does not prove a thing (from those who have not found a match) - - It most certains proves or disproves your research. Many will argue for their research...Do they: Have documental records of birth, death, dates, places, each decade of census records, chancery court records, Bible Records, Native American application/Card Records, burial records, military records, etc. etc. - - or was the information picked up online or from someone else who didn't have the documents on hand and didn't furnish same or someone "told them so" - Is DNA expensive?- It sure isn't as expensive as good documental research. You want (or should appreciate) primary documentation (DNA) to support ;your Good Research - you deserve it - you have worked hard to obtain those documents (If you haven't spent years doing your family's history, DNA won't solve a thing - you may match, but your match may be a brother to one of your ancestors that your match did not have, but your DNA will still match - the lineage is there, one just has to research it out. Another thing about DNA - You may NOT MATCH YOUR OWN SURNAME, but an entirely different surname - This is something that you may not realize during your research - Byron and I worked together to help one of my Jacksons who MATCHED a Hill surname in Tennessee - MANY time I have seen this happen within our website - as you glean through, you find it true - Yes, more research is needed - it could be from adoption, or parents were killed and the youth was raised by the mother's sister who married and had an entirely different surname as ASSUMED that new surname - or YOUR MALE SURNAME was a frequent visitor making weekly trips across town or whatever (Have one within our group who did that - he did not have any children by his wife - but had eleven children by his "consort" - the children were raised using HER SURNAME. All documented with very precise Bible and Court House Records in which he provided funds for each child! That specific member had a blast tracking it down - he knew there were children (handed down by the elder family members - even knew their first names), but not one showed up on any census records. DNA and Genealogy together is one of the most fascinating, intriguing adventure you'll ever encounter. To each of you - I say good luck in your research & tie it in a nice big bow with DNA Evyonne Andrews Eddins evonandrews@sbcglobal.net

Evyonne, this is an excellent and reasoned post. Thank you for contributing it. There is no substitute for primary documentation. A tree found on the internet or on ancestry.com MAY provide guideposts, but could be utterly filled with garbage. I referred in a previous post to my NORMAN family. I am also a CARTER descendant, from Robert "King" Carter of Virginia, a famous and wealth man who left many children and even more descendants. A few years ago, a man with a Norman surname contacted the Carter group, because he had done his Y chromosome analysis only to find him matching with the Carters and not with the Normans. We still don't exactly know why, but further research shows "Norman's Ford" on the Rappahannock River next to King Carter's land. Which Carter male fathered Mr. Norman's male ancestor? We don't know yet, and may never know, but the DNA tells a different story than the surname and the family Bible. --- Evyonne Eddins <evonandrews@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Byron: > > I see your Hill group is having a great discussion > on DNA - pro as well as con > > Being a "Hill" listmember (still can't find my > Robert J. Hill), but eventually success will pop up. > > > As to DNA, I am a co-coordinator of a Jackson DNA > Group Project - we do not have as many members as > your Hill Group (97 ascompared to your 250 (more > Hills in the ole US than Jacksons); however we have > a success rate of matching members at 52% with > subgroups ranging in size from 2 to 7 per subgroup. > With not only with new members joining every week, > but also those new members have a good chance of > finding a match. The above shown percentage relates > to a combination of Y-DNA as well as mtDNA (male as > well as female matches) > > I invite you to visit our website at > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Jackson - Since > I maintain the website, I can relate to you first > hand that members keep their fingers crossed for a > match - Just had another day before yesterday - she > was elated! > > DNA vs. Research - Byron was correct, DNA confirms > your research - Within our project, it is suggested > that members submit their ancestral lineage from > their most recent deceased ancestor to their > earliest ancestor - some do, some do not, and some > will email me that to date their do not know > anything regarding their GRANDFATHER, and hope they > can find a match. Others will email me that they > were on tract to their lineage, until they reached > the 1700s and what they were GIVEN was all wrong. > However, with groups helping each other, many now > have been corrected - giving documental proof. > > The key to good Research is an EXCELLENT PAPER TRAIL > on each generation (preferably including all > siblings within each generation) - DNA & GOOD > RESEARCH go hand in hand, each coming to the same > conclusion just using a different pathway. > Many times I have heard the same argument that DNA > does not prove a thing (from those who have not > found a match) - - It most certains proves or > disproves your research. Many will argue for their > research...Do they: Have documental records of > birth, death, dates, places, each decade of census > records, chancery court records, Bible Records, > Native American application/Card Records, burial > records, military records, etc. etc. - - or was the > information picked up online or from someone else > who didn't have the documents on hand and didn't > furnish same or someone "told them so" - > > Is DNA expensive?- It sure isn't as expensive as > good documental research. You want (or should > appreciate) primary documentation > (DNA) to support ;your Good Research - you deserve > it - you have worked hard to obtain those documents > (If you haven't spent years doing your family's > history, DNA won't solve a thing - you may match, > but your match may be a brother to one of your > ancestors that your match did not have, but your DNA > will still match - the lineage is there, one just > has to research it out. > > Another thing about DNA - You may NOT MATCH YOUR OWN > SURNAME, but an entirely different surname - This is > something that you may not realize during your > research - Byron and I worked together to help one > of my Jacksons who MATCHED a Hill surname in > Tennessee - MANY time I have seen this happen within > our website - as you glean through, you find it true > - Yes, more research is needed - it could be from > adoption, or parents were killed and the youth was > raised by the mother's sister who married and had an > entirely different surname as ASSUMED that new > surname - or YOUR MALE SURNAME was a frequent > visitor making weekly trips across town or whatever > (Have one within our group who did that - he did not > have any children by his wife - but had eleven > children by his "consort" - the children were raised > using HER SURNAME. All documented with very precise > Bible and Court House Records in which he provided > funds for each child! That specific member had a > blast tracking it down - he > knew there were children (handed down by the elder > family members - even knew their first names), but > not one showed up on any census records. > > DNA and Genealogy together is one of the most > fascinating, intriguing adventure you'll ever > encounter. > > To each of you - I say good luck in your research & > tie it in a nice big bow with DNA > > Evyonne Andrews Eddins > evonandrews@sbcglobal.net > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HILL-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message >