On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 03:55 PM, Dukes, Kevin wrote: > There will be many more surprises, to many of us, in the genealogical > world to come. We will have to be big enough to admit we were wrong, > and swallow our pride. The DNA does not lie. While I agree for the most part, I do think it's worth mentioning that while DNA may not "lie," the process and results of genetic testing are still subject to "human error." ;-) It's not as if no lab has ever made a mistake....or ever will again. The testing seems to me to represent a new milestone and a significant "tool" in the process of historical/genealogical research. Still, as with many other pieces of evidence, we have to acknowledge that we're making certain "assumptions." We "assume" the test was properly conducted, (no contaminations or other compromises occurred), that is was properly/correctly analyzed, and the results were correctly reported. Those are perfectly valid assumptions until evidence surfaces to bring them into question. It's not unlike our valid "assumption" that the information on our own birth certificates, or on a 1950s death certificate, is correct. Most likely it is.....but that's not a "given." So even with DNA testing, I think the accurate documentation would be something like, "According to the results of DNA testing conducting by _____ on _____ , this line does not relate to........" rather than "This line is definitely proven by DNA testing not to relate to ______." Sure as you say the latter, Murphy's Law says somebody else's DNA test is going to produce a different result. ;-) -Sandy