Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1109963527

From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Tinney surname back to 4000 B.C.
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:12:07 -0500 (EST)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <> (

Tom wrote:
> As noted heretofore, "The Tinney Surname study,
> back to 4,000 B.C.", only attempted to online
> some information as found in record sources

I have a hard time seeing how any of this thread so far is relevant to
our group. We are all genealogists, but our focus here is on DNA.
When our discussions slide over into topics of "pure" genealogy,
history, archeology, and so on, this is always started by a DNA issue.
I'm still waiting to hear even the slightest hint that you are posing
any DNA-related issues for the Tinneys. Please get to the point! If
you are wondering what kind of DNA study you could do, given the
genealogical information at your disposal, it would be very helpful to
say so up front, so that we can start thinking about your question,
instead of wondering what you're getting at.

> I further stated, in Open and Closed Genealogy
> and DNA population LIMITATIONS, that:
> Accurate and verifiable genealogical pedigrees
> allow possible consideration of DNA samples
> in a "closed" population evaluation, whereas ...

Sorry, but that's just not true. The whole concept of a "closed
population" is strictly confined to forensics, where the persons
involved can all be subpoenaed (or exhumed) if necessary. You
can take it as a given: all discoveries we make through DNA testing
are always subject to the proviso "assuming our pedigree information
is correct" -- and one of the key points we face is the fact that
DNA discoveries can show that our pedigree information was NOT
correct after all. Obviously, there are varying levels of
confidence: high for the links that we know of personally, but
gradually diminishing as we proceed into the past. One of the
frequent goals of DNA studies is to test the accuracy of the
researched pedigrees.

> I assumed
> there was the same level of maturity on this list, one
> that could also dispassionately evaluate genealogy

As I stated above, we're not here to evaluate genealogy theoretically.
We're here to test genealogy experimentally (and perhaps expand it)
using new tools, namely, DNA studies. If you want advice on how to
test your genealogy using the new tools, you need to indicate what
kind of testing you have in mind. If, instead, you want to discuss
the validity of these tools, you need to get technical because the
tools themselves are entirely technical.

John Chandler

This thread: