Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118249522

From: (David Faux)
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Analysis for Conventional Genealogy vs. Deep Ancestry
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:52:02 +0000


The plain fact is that I posted a series of missives about DAR, SAR and Loyalist lineages, about my own discovery of the haplotype of a Loyalist ancestor, about the way in which I was able to ascertain which of us Fauxes have the ancestral haplotype. Please don't use me as an example of someone who has no interest in genealogy and DNA since the evidence speaks for itself.

I have said this before but all the genetics stuff, genealogical and deep merge seemlessly so I can bounce from one topic to another in the blink of an eye. I have noticed that those who expect answers to their own questions tend not to offer comments to others who are struggling. Why should this be so. Why don't you and Bob and John B. take the weight off the shoulders of others who have done this in the past but wish to expand their horizons. Why do you expect that we who have played this role in the past should forever be locked into this mold. I would like to see less complaining and more proactive work to put forward your agenda but this can only be done if you and others are willing to step in and assist the newbies. 3 years is enough for me and perhaps other old timers. Someone needs to step into our shoes. You and the others who want answers to questions must begin offering answers to newbies and in that way the balance will begin to be tilted back to the "sh!
allow / genealogical ancestry" agenda to offset the present empahsis on the "deep ancestry" component. Did John B. or Bob offer a response to your question, and if not, why.

David F. .

-------------- Original message --------------

> 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.
> Ken

This thread: