GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-01 > 0980259847


From: "HEALY, CHARLES E [AG/1000]" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] A message from a skeptic
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:24:07 -0600


As a genealogist, scientist, and sometimes curmudgeon myself (my kids and
grandkids call me "grump" rather than gramps, and with good reason), I agree
wholeheartedly with Richard Pence's thoughts. Try as we might, scientists
and genealogists alike, it is very difficult to remain totally objective
when we so very much want answers to our questions.

In the process, there is a tendency for many of us to become very subjective
in our outlook and to accept very preliminary "evidence" as proof that
something is 100% fact when it may not be. In fact, further evidence may
show that it is totally false. In any case, and unappealing as it is, it is
much more accurate to talk in terms of the probability that something might
be correct. With regard to genetic genealogy, we are very early in our
understanding of things, and broad-sweeping statements of "fact" really do
seem out of order, IMHO.

Chuck Healy

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:05 PM
To:
Subject: [DNA] A message from a skeptic


I recently posted an announcement about GENEALOGY-DNA-L on the
soc.genealogy.methods newsgroup which elicited the response below. I'm
forwarding it to this mailing list with the permission of the author Richard

Pence, a cyber-friend of mine who is skeptical about the role of DNA testing

in genealogy. I'll post some comments of my own later in a separate message,

but I'd like to see a variety of opinions posted. Richard has subscribed to
GENEALOGY-DNA-L but will stay in lurk mode for a while (unless of course he
can't resist a good discussion).

Ann Turner

===== begin text of Richard Pence's message posted to
soc.genealogy.methods:

Both Brian and Ann are cutting edge genealogists, so I probably am
getting in over my head here. However, that never stopped me before
....

First, an earlier message in today's mail from this NG referenced an
article on the topic of DNA and the "family historian." This
article, apparently by a noted UK genealogist, gave an overview of
where we are on DNA testing and analysis. It also demonstrated
clearly the high level of misinformation on DNA that is out and
about.

The author said that Prince Philip was a "descendant" of the last
Czar of Russia (I don't think so, am I wrong?) and that testing his
DNA and others against bones and other remains found in a mass grave
in Russia "proved" that those in the grave were the Czar and his
family.

My recollection of the findings is that DNA testing was only a part
of what was used in deciding who was in the graves. DNA testing, by
itself, could not prove such a thing, at least at its present level
of sophistication.

Secondly, the article said that DNA testing "proved" that Thomas
Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hennings' children. It did
no such thing. What DNA testing showed - and this is all it can do
at this point (or at least at the point the Jefferson tests were
made) - is that Thomas Jefferson and the descendants of that slave
descended from a common female ancestor. You can rely on other
evidence, genealogical, historical or otherwise, to form your
opinion on this question and, if you choose to believe Jefferson
fathered one or more of the children of Sally you can be secure in
the knowledge that it is not genetically impossible. Any claim to
the contrary is not factual.

I spent several years early in my life editing scientific
publications at two major research universities and can flat-out
tell you that some very strange inferences are being drawn for some
rather modest tests and examples, such as the two cited above.

Another is the test "proving" most or all of us are descended from
one, two or three (depending on who you listen to, perhaps more)
women who lived many thousands of years ago. This is no doubt true,
but from a genealogical point of view it proves nothing at all. We
knew before we started that we were descended from a woman who lived
many thousands of years ago. We just didn't know who she was. And
we still don't. <g>

Which, I guess, leads me to my point: I really doubt if Brian's
assertion that DNA testing will become an important tool for
genealogical researchers. I simply don't think so, and for several
reasons.

First, at least at this point, DNA testing is not precise enough to
answer the kinds of questions genealogists seek to find the answers
to. Chasing a DNA thread can lead you up at least as many different
trails as the knottiest genealogical puzzle already has. How do you
know that the DNA matching evidence is actually from this person?
You could have inherited from another widely separated person whose
sister married an ancestor of your subject.

Secondly, it seems unlikely to me that people will go around digging
up graves as a matter of course to find out whether Titus was really
their great grandfather. (And besides, the most elusive ancestors
are the ones whose graves you have not found.)

And, thirdly, it seems to me if the technology does take us to the
level where we can determine whether this person or that person was
an ancestor of a given person then we are in the world of a new
science that is emphatically NOT genealogy.

After all, the "gene" in genealogy is not derived from the word
"genetics." Its root is, I believe, a Greek word having to do with
"family."

A curmudgeon's viewpoint, I'm sure, but there it is.

Regards,
Richard






==============================
Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1
Source for Family History Online. Go to:
http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

This thread: