GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136652746


From: "Roberta J. Estes" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Genealogy Paper Trails vs. Y-DNA Testing
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:52:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <00b501c61398$05596820$4d423947@YOURF8387228BF>


In my Estes study where we were trying to determine if the Moses Estes in SC
was descended from the immigrant ancestor, the first person I tested did
have a relatively solid genealogy (on paper - can't speak for research
methods etc.) and did not match the Estes line DNA. So my first thought of
course was that the Moses in SC was in fact from another, unrelated, line -
probably a separate immigrant as was reported in that old book. However,
subsequent testing from two other lines descended from Moses did match the
Estes DNA - so this case was complicated by both faulty old genealogy and a
non-paternal event that happened to occur in the first test subject.
Murphys law applies here - but the lesson of never jumping to conclusions
even with evidence from a reliable source (DNA doesn't lie) without some
additional evidence is valuable.

Roberta

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Goff [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genealogy Paper Trails vs. Y-DNA Testing

Bill,

Generally accepted paper trails not "proven out" by DNA could be due to two
things, as I see it and as you noted:

1) non-paternity event/s: there was a lot of discussion on the List about
the proper terminology and what this really means. I'm using this term in
the broadest sense. From studies I've seen quoted on this List and from my
own calculations, this amounts to 5% or less per generation. If you go to
Robert Tarín's non-paternity calculator, you can see how the percentages
pile up with each passing generation. At a rate of 3% per generation and
eight generations, about 22% of all persons DNA-tested will disagree with
the paper trail.

2) bad papertrail: a "generally accepted" papertrail is not necessarily a
good one. I've had personal experience correcting a genealogy through heavy
source citation only to have some people continue accept the bogus
papertrail without source citations. While item #1 above is not preventable
by those living today, item #2 is our responsibility.

Thanks,

Phil Goff


----- Original Message -----
From: "billdenney" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:33 AM
Subject: [DNA] Genealogy Paper Trails vs. Y-DNA Testing


> Has anyone looked at what percentage of generally accepted paper
> genealogies for surnames dating back to say the early 1700's have not been

> "proven out" by Y-DNA analysis so far? Obviously there are a lot of
> variables here (quality of the genealogical research, non-paternity
> events, etc.), but I'm curious to know an approximate casualty rate for
> the paper trails.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill Denney


==============================
Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx





This thread: