To John and all, I certainly appreciate the value of Y chromosome DNA testing and realize what a benefit it will be to some, but I am not a "Sweet" yet I am as much a Sweet as all the rest of you. My grandmother four generations ago, 1Brown, 2Spitsbergen, 3James Dyer, 4Lyman Dyer, 5Jeremiah Dyer and his wife, 5Patience Sweet, dau. of 6Jeremiah Sweet of Providence Co., RI. makes me just as closely related as if I were the grandson of Benjamin Sweet, the son of Jeremiah Sweet, rather than Patience Sweet, the daughter. And yet, Y-Chromosome testing leaves me out in the cold. For a male with a Sweet surname who can not connect, I understand that this would be very helpful, but is there any way of connecting for the rest of us? Ken Brown Michigan Also, has anyone considered that a Sweet surname does not necessarily connect one biologically to any Sweet family? Some may be unexpectedly surprized. ----- Original Message ----- From: <jchbn@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu> To: <SWEET-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:13 PM Subject: Re: Sweet family DNA project/this is a male thing > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Classification: Query > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/HBRBAIB/1195.1.1.1.1.2 > > Message Board Post: > > Bruce mentioned mitochondrial DNA. True, that is something > females have, but it wouldn't be appropriate for a Sweet > study. Suppose your mother or grandmother was a Sweet: you > could test your mtDNA, knowing that you got it from your > mother (and from *her* mother before that), but the chances > are that your mother's mother's mother was *not* a Sweet. > In short, there is nothing about a mitochondrial signature > that marks it as Sweet DNA. In contrast, the Y chromosome > is passed more-or-less unchanged from father to son, right > down the line, and every member of that line is named Sweet > (or Swett or whatever). This means that any living male > Sweet can stand as DNA proxy for his earliest known Sweet > ancestor. By comparing the Y DNA signatures, we can tell > which Sweet lines are related to each other and which are > not. This is something that conventional genealogical > research can (and should) do, up to a point, but DNA testing > can take us past the "brick walls" on any and all lines at > the same time. The more testees who participate, the more > information can be obtained. > > John Chandler > > > ==== SWEET Mailing List ==== > Visit Daisy's Sweet Home Page! > http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/sweet.htm >

Ken wrote: > I certainly appreciate the value of Y chromosome DNA testing and realize > what a benefit it will be to some, but I am not a "Sweet" Well, for that matter, neither am I, so my desire to participate has to be sublimated into the form of organizing the DNA study. We all do what we can. > yet I am as much a > Sweet as all the rest of you. My grandmother four generations ago, 1Brown, > 2Spitsbergen, 3James Dyer, 4Lyman Dyer, 5Jeremiah Dyer and his wife, > 5Patience Sweet, dau. of 6Jeremiah Sweet of Providence Co., RI. makes me > just as closely related as if I were the grandson of Benjamin Sweet, the son > of Jeremiah Sweet, rather than Patience Sweet, the daughter. And yet, > Y-Chromosome testing leaves me out in the cold. For a male with a Sweet > surname who can not connect, I understand that this would be very helpful, > but is there any way of connecting for the rest of us? Yes, but it's a little indirect -- your task, should you accept it, is to reach out and call that cousin of yours (who *is* a male Sweet and who *does* trace back through the male line to Jeremiah Sweet) and convince him that it would be a good idea to join the DNA project. The fact is that this sort of DNA testing doesn't tell you anything about yourself, since the markers tested have no genetic function at all. The only thing interesting about these markers is that they vary from person to person, so you *can* learn something by comparing your results with someone else, i.e., whether or not you are related. Of course, there are times when people match up by sheer coincidence, but by comparing only with people who share the same surname, you can be pretty confident that a match is a relative. In any case, a non-match is not a (biological) relative. > Also, has anyone considered that a Sweet surname does not necessarily > connect one biologically to any Sweet family? Some may be unexpectedly > surprized. That's true. It does happen sometimes, but far less often than you might expect. I hear (modern) stories of systematic blood tests of newborns and their parents that indicate truly astonishing levels of mismatch between the babies and their supposed fathers -- as high as 10%, and that's just the percentage who can't possibly be related. If that kind of nonpaternity rate were extended into the past, it wouldn't take long for every family to be completely scrambled. Fortunately, most families do match up, and these surprises are relatively rare. John Chandler