Thank you, Cliff, for opening this subject to discussion. Generally, I agree with you. There WAS one important result that DNA testing showed for us. But when I tried to pin down specifics, I got nowhere. The thing that the DNA testing DID show is that a genealogy written in 1902 had attached an eldest "son" to a 1708 immigrant family who was NOT a son of that family. I had suspected this (long story, irrelevant), but I had no proof. Those who believed that this eldest "son" WAS a son also had no proof, but that did not matter. Their ancestors were in this unsourced 1902 book, so they were "OK"; mine were not, so I was an "orphan". So, I paid to have a distant cousin whom I had never heard of but who was a documented descendant of my ancestor take a 12-marker test. The DNA results showed that participants descended from the eldest "son" in the book were significantly more closely related to my cousin than they were to participants descended from the other six sons of the book. Meanwhile, DNA participants descended from the other six sons were significantly more closely related to each other than they were to participants descended from the eldest "son". In deliberating as to whether I should pay to have more testing done on this line, I tried to pin down the DNA testing people about what the results mean. I was UNABLE to. So I gave it a miss. The suggestion is that 12 markers is not enough, 24 markers is better but is still not enough etc. But even if we did 144 markers or 1,728 markers or 20,736 markers or whatever, it still would not be enough for the DNA people to conclude a specific such as "These two participants are linked by a common great-great-great-great-great-grandfather." My hunch is that DNA testing IS capable of adding more value to genealogical research than it is adding at the present time. My conclusion would be, "Watch this space!" Lin Van Buren London, England Lin VAN BUREN Co-ordinator, Rensselaer County, NY GenWeb veeb.veeb@virgin.net http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nyrensse/

My point exactly! Our MAXWELL DNA results would be very difficult to interpret if we hadn't done extensive research otherwise. But since we'd done the research, the reenforcing DNA results were gratifying. One of our testers thought he was related -- heresay said so -- and one peculiar forename in our family was in his family, too. But he had one "missing generation," so he couldn't connect to us. His DNA results closed the gap. Mary At 11:52 PM 7/14/2008, Lin Van Buren wrote: >...The suggestion is that 12 markers is not enough, 24 markers is >better but is >still not enough etc. But even if we did 144 markers or 1,728 markers or >20,736 markers or whatever, it still would not be enough for the DNA people >to conclude a specific such as "These two participants are linked by a >common great-great-great-great-great-grandfather." > >My hunch is that DNA testing IS capable of adding more value to genealogical >research than it is adding at the present time....