How is it that this test can be accurate and apply only to the males - I realize I have little or no knowledge about how DNA testing results are judged but it seems a bit ridiculous to pursue this down through the males when no matter what the surname no one can be absolutely sure the person he knows as a male parent is actually the one who impregnated the mother. It does not seem possible to me for a strictly male line to be always pure. The surname has nothing to do with it either, I have family members who carry the surname but were adopted, we know that but not everyone does. We have others who use the surname of the mother because they were born out-of-wedlock but who's bloodline information is just as reliable as if they were carrying the surname of the biological father. I do know that orthodox Jews do not use the bloodline of the male parent to trace their lineage, but instead use the bloodline of the mother. One has only to look at the lineage of Mary's son Jesus in the Bible to see that line is traced through her, not through any male parent, the possibility that the male parent is not the biological father is accepted as fact. Please refrain from starting a big controversy here, I am just trying to understand the reasoning. Agnes C. On 12/15/04 1:04 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Mary Harbinson" <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:46:04 -0800 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Only Males > > This can only be done by a Male in the family. It is said they tried to keep > this gene pure and were very selective as to whom they married. I am just > getting more info on this myself. I was not expecting to find this at all. > > ______________________________