Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118241389

From: "Kenneth V. Graves" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Analysis for Conventional Genealogy vs. Deep Ancestry
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:36:29 -0400
References: <>

In my opinion (notice I didn't write IMHO), there is no question that the
name of this list hasn't been adequately descriptive for a long time. I do
not believe that it is any longer about using DNA analysis for what most
people consider to be genealogy. The areas of investigation that David Faux
listed could be fascinating to me also, but I am so over-committed to the
activities I am already involved in that I am not going to add more. I do
not at all object to others on this list pursuing those subjects, but I do
find it discouraging that some of the difficult areas of applying DNA
analysis to conventional genealogy (within the time that surnames have been
used) are of little interest to this list. I do appreciate hearing from the
two people who responded to my recent question about whether the supposed
descendants of an immigrant to Virginia in 1608 are really all his
descendants or 4 separate lines. It seemed obvious that they must be 4
separate lines, but I felt that it was important to present that conclusion
in a more objective manner. Now I have to figure out how to present that
conclusion to descendants and to the appropriate lineage societies.

My example of this Graves family may have much broader implications.
Organizations like First Families of Virginia, Colonial Dames, DAR,
Jamestowne Society, etc., etc., are not (and should not) take this kind of
DNA result lightly. If what I have found for this Virginia Graves family is
true, how about all their other lineages? How reliable are their research
procedures? How many members belong to these organizations on incorrect
lineages? Are there techniques that we could be developing that would better
allow determining exact connections? I suspect that if we tested enough
markers (perhaps including types that are not now tested) we would find that
for each transmission event there is some sort of change/mutation. Although
some of these might not have long-term stability, we might be able to find
something unique for each transmission event, allowing us to pinpoint the
exact connection with a lineage. Maybe some enterprising person could even
find a way to screen the genome for changes connected with a specific
transmission event or lineage. Is the excitement and allure of deep ancestry
just so strong for David Faux and others with similar interests that none of
that entrepreneurial effort can be directed toward "shallow" ancestry? A
problem for me (and others with similar interests) is that there is nowhere
else to go. If this list isn't interested, other lists with less
understanding of DNA will be even less helpful. David's comment of "However
this does not alter the fact that there is room for everyone on the List,
and everyone is welcome." is nice, but not helpful.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Stafford" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA upgrade to GenoProject (Deep Ancestry Debate

> David,
> You may be right. There are only a few of us who bother to answer
> genealogical questions, anyway. Ken Graves' inquiry received 2 responses,
> while an inquiry about transferring FTDNA results to NGS received too many
> to count. You can just tell those with genealogical inquiries to look up
> the answers in the archives or post them at
> Bob Stafford
> David Faux <> wrote:
> For myself and many others it is time to move on to discuss palindromes,
> the inadvertent detection of infertility via deletion of certain STR
> markers, extracting DNA from cremated bone, exploring the distribution of
> Y haplogroup I1c (I2), the migration path of M269-R1b1c, and hundreds of
> topics related to nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and population genetics
> and anthropology and archaeology and the list doesn't end - thank
> goodness. However this does not alter the fact that there is room for
> everyone on the List, and everyone is welcome.
> David F.

This thread: