Dear Cliff, You quoted the results of a 12-marker test. I think 12-marker tests are worthless. 25-marker tests are certainly better, but I much prefer 37-marker tests. At that level and higher (though the benefits of higher are marginal), I have distant male cousins whose research is supported by DNA -- back to about 1740. Obviously, you can't do just a DNA test -- you have to have supporting research. And yes, you have to pay up for higher marker tests, but I think you're wasting your money if you don't. So yes, I've had a positive experience with DNA testing when the participants paid for more extensive testing. The trick is getting them to pay up -- as a female descendant who can't participant, I volunteer to underwrite males' testing...when I'm able to. Mary Richardson P.S. The article that you routed us to is about National Geographic's Genographic Project, i.e., tracing the early migratory routes of humans. You are right -- this doesn't have anything to do with Y-DNA testing to find near ancestors. At 06:11 PM 7/14/2008, Cliff Lamere wrote: >I have long been skeptical about the benefits of having a DNA test done >for myself. > >Few genealogists understand much about DNA testing. I taught science for >27 years, but I could not understand how a DNA test would help me with >my family tree. I read the websites of many testing companies, but their >claims were vague and never mentioned that they would help me identify >whether or not I had correctly chosen my 4th greatgrandfather. I phoned >Family Tree DNA, but the owner could not assure me that the test could >find any ancestors for me. > >I decided that I would be wasting my money. Later, a genealogy friend >brought up the subject after he had participated in a DNA surname study >with the same company. After the test was completed, he wrote to me >saying the following. > >"I Hope you haven't been tempted to get one of those DNA tests to show >your ancestoral matches. One of my old [surname deleted] correspondents >did so. They paid $200 for it and had me send in saliva samples for >comparative analysis. Not one person of my surname turned up as a match. >My genes and theirs show up in every country in the world! It appears >all of the matches are prehistoric. They keep sending readouts of "new" >data with a handful of surnames but still no family matches. It may be >scientific but I believe they're guilty of deception." > >Take a look at the results of the surname study in which my friend >participated. > >------------------ > >"An exact 12 marker match has been found between you and another person >in the Family Tree DNA database. > >You and the other person match in all 12 loci. If you share the same >surname or variant, this means that there is a 99% likelihood that you >share a common ancestor in a genealogical time frame. If you match >another person without the same surname or variant, you still probably >share a common ancestor, but this ancestor most likely lived in the time >before surnames were adopted. > >The link below will take you to your Family Tree DNA Login. From there, >click on the "Y-DNA Matches" tab to see a list of your matches. Newer >matches will be at the top of the list. Additional emails will be sent >to you as we find new matches between you and your "genetic cousins."" > >------------------ > >That is apparently what you get for your money. Everyone on this mailing >list is probably related. Any two of us are probably "genetic cousins" >because we are both related to some unnamed person born in Europe a >thousand or ten thousand years ago or to someone in prehistoric times. >If you and I both took the test, we might learn that. Is it worth >spending money to find that out? > >The Times Union, Albany's newspaper had an article today ("Relative >Connections") that described the experience of one person who learned >about the ancient migration route of some unnamed person. He also quoted >someone who said that the mtDNA test detects only one of thousands of >ancestors. Since it tests the female line, and surnames change with >every marriage, it can't tell you a surname. If I understand correctly, >the test will not help you add anyone to your family tree. The article >will be online for seven days before you have to pay to read it. > >http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=703086&category=LIFE&newsdate=7/14/2008 > >If you have had some experience with the DNA testing, please tell us if >it helped you identify any relatives or not. > >Cliff Lamere