GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118249369


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Analysis for Conventional Genealogy vs. Deep Ancestry
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:49:29 EDT



In a message dated 6/8/2005 7:37:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
writes:

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.


Not sure this is true so much as most of us now have our personal choices as
to who to consult and we do it off-list more often than on-list. Also, some
of us are waiting to see what Charles Kerchner's log on mutation rates shows
(please send in documented lines -- whether they have no mutations over 450
years or 3 in 90 years!), whether the foray into linked mutations that has
been proposed offers additional insights into why some families seem to have
many more mutations, and whether additional markers we are waiting on clears up
the problem we have. In my case, I'm waiting on each one of these for one
or more groups.

My prediction on your questions about heritage societies? Folks who have
gotten in will be the least likely to submit DNA once you have shown there are
more than one unrelated line. And they will likely be the most resistant to
allowing DNA evidence to count, even as backup to paper trails. Just my
observation on the folks with my surname who have gotten in on what I know are
erroneous paper trails and on those whose paper trails I suspect are erroneous.
Mind you, I'm not faulting anyone for errors -- the old fashioned,
traditional genealogy was constrained by the limited time, effort and money of the
researchers, and most researchers did a wonderful job within those constraints
-- how were they to know a sister in some county in a state never mentioned in
any records would leave a will naming her brothers and their residences
which blew their "reasonable conclusions" out of the water? With the internet,
we are uncovering this sort of thing, and for common names, like WEBB, we are
finding some of those reasonable conclusions are not so reasonable once the
constraints are removed by internet sharing of documents.

Anne


This thread: