GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-11 > 1037223862


From: "James L Rader" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Re: DNA as "junk" science
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:44:30 -0800
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021113203244.00a0bba0@mail.tgis.co.uk>


A comment on the spelling issue. My ancestors were also rare in 1750
PA but there are 3 different immigrants in PA by then.

A read of the Bio I have for him online at
http://www.rader.org/casperbio.htm
will show that his name is spelled more than 10 different ways in source
records!

Another note on the concept of spelling. The people of that time did
not value spelling. The concept was not even invented yet a few quotes
to illustrate
three quotes which answer the question of How your 18th century ancestor
spelled his name

"I hope I never meet a man so narrow minded as to spell a word in only
one way" - Thomas Jefferson

"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."
-
Andrew Jackson

"I respect a man who knows how to spell a word more than one way." --
Mark Twain

What is a surname and how do you spell it ?

I hope you are having a fine day !
I am Jim Rader
Are you a Rader male? Join our DNA project, look on my website at
www.rader.org
I hope to hear from you again soon!

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Savin [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:10 PM
To:
Subject: [DNA] Re: DNA as "junk" science


>My name, however spelled, is unusual and rare in mid 1700s. There were
>families of that name or similar, living in the same neighborhoods in
mid
>1700s whose descendants today do not share common DNA. I refer to
Church and
>Civil records, not genealogical research long after the fact. The
>coincidence of time and place coupled with how the name is spelled and
(as
>well) paper documentation argues for careful scrutiny of a surprising
>negative outcome. I cannot get the testing company to go beyond "trust
me".
>And that is junk science. If you cannot or will not defend your
methodology,
>something is seriously wrong.

Dear Jim

Please share with us:

A) the total number of transmission events or father/son pairings
(actual
or estimated) so that we can measure this against the 2%-5% false
paternity
rate which is the most common figure quoted

B) the number of samples

C) the number of totally different haplotypes (ie greater than say two
steps)

thereby we can start to judge if there is a huge difference compared
with
what might be expected.

I agree that just stating "trust me" if challenged more than once does
not
build confidence. But if you have been a member of this list for
sometime
you will know that a vast majority of us seem to be "happy" enough with
our
results when compared with our own paper genealogies. Indeed I do not
recall anyone else cast such doubt and any experienced genealogist can
recall cases where paper records are obviously wrong.

Alan Savin
(author of "DNA for Family Historians")
www.savin.org/dna/dna-book.html







==============================
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
records, go to:
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237


This thread: