Some of the inquiries about DNA are in regard to "proving" descent from a specific ancestor. DNA cannot do this. It can only point, not prove, and can be used to support written records. But actually even with impeccable written records AND dna evidence there is a chance everything could be totally wrong. I came up with an illustration. I was inspired by a Daniel Boone story. Seems Daniel had been away from home for two years. He came home and his wife was nursing a newborn baby. "Whose baby is that?" he asked. "Why, it's your brother's. We thought you was dead" answered his wife. Daniel only paused a moment" "Well, at least it's a Boone" he said, and to his great credit he raised the child (a girl) as his own and made no difference between her and his other children. Now, let's change the story a little: Assume the child was male. And assume that, to avoid scandal, the birth was recorded as Daniel's son. Assume further that he was so listed in all the census records, and that he was provided for in Daniel's will as Daniel's son. All written records agree. Now, several generations later, a descendent of that child is trying to join the prestigious Society of the Descendents of Daniel Boone (I just made that up). The written records are quite sufficient to prove that ancestry but just to be sure, the applicant sends DNA to the Boone study and-what do you know!-an exact match with the other descendents of Daniel Boone. Proof positive of descent from Daniel-all written records and DNA agree, since Daniel and his brother would (barring a mutation) have the same DNA. Absolute, positive proof-an impeccable paper trail with DNA verification. And wrong! But the DNA did not lie. All DNA could show is that the participants all had a common ancestor-not which specific common ancestor. This is why the Thomas Jefferson stories of his having a child with the slave Sally Hemings are flawed. Jefferson had no male descendents, so the DNA used for comparison was from a descendent of a male relative of Jefferson. So all the DNA proved is that Sally Hemings' child had Jefferson DNA-not WHICH Jefferson. Jefferson had a nephew who often stayed at Monticello; it could have been his child-or someone else's. Yes, it is possible that Jefferson did father the child, but it is certainly is not proven. Sally Hemings was related to-I believe a half sister of-Jefferson's wife, a child of a white master (Jefferson's wife's father, I think) and a slave. She resembled his wife, and after his wife's death it would have been quite natural for him to fall in love with her. If so, why didn't he free her from slavery? Because by Virginia law, she would have to leave the state in 30 days if he did! So it is possible to guess that the child might be Jefferson's but the DNA certainly does not prove it! We need to be sure we have all our ducks in a row before we draw genealogical conclusions. Roy Johnson