GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-12 > 1322843390


From: Jim Bartlett <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] No matching segments
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:29:50 -0600 (CST)


John,
I think you totally miss Mary Alice's point. Even if someone could be traced to be a distant cousin, with or without using atDNA segmements, she is not that interested in finding cousins. She is interested in fully documenting her ancestors. It's a matter of preference - where you want to spend your time in this hobby.

Your ZERO statements may be true - but no need to shout them to Mary Alice, when you don't understand her point.

The topic of this tread should tell it all - when I'm working with genetic tools, or finding cousins who share segments of atDNA with me, I, too, don't want to spend my time on those who don't have matching segments - it's my preference.
Jim Bartlett

On 12/02/11, John Lerch<> wrote:

Mary Alice,
You totally miss the point. There is a chance (albeit a very small
one) that you have ZERO matching segments with a TRUE BIOLOGICAL
SIBLING.
Over on the Genetic Genealogy Forum, David Faux has a proven (by
comparing DNA to the relevant proven matching persons) cousin (1st
cousin I think) to whom he has ZERO matches!!! So it does happen--
Just because you have no matching segments doesn't mean you're (not
"your" as in both your posts) not related.
On Dec 2, 2011, at 2:00 AM, wrote:

>
>
> To
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 19:31:38 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> From: "M. A. Farrell" <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] a problem with ATDNA testing
> To: Genealogy-dna <>
> Message-ID:
> <-
> ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>
> Nelda, you are making no sense at all to me. Just because
> someone shares a
> surname with you somewhere in time, doesn't mean they are a
> relation! I have
> great interest in and have documented so much of my family back
> even 9
> generations.
> Sorry; I am more interested in old long-dead people than I am in
> living
> 4th-5th cousins. There are a couple of exceptions to that
> statement, but at
> this time no more than two.
> You inserted in this mail, "companies.... state YOU HAVE NO
> MUTUIAL ATDNA
> measurable SEGMENTS. Again that does not make you not
> related...." Pretty
> well describes "unrelated" to me!!! There is no reason to
> start an
> investigation into a non-match when I would need to go back 200
> years, doing
> their lineage documentation, just to see if a connection could
> be made. I
> don't have time or desire to spend weeks or months on people
> whose dna match
> is so small as to not be significant. If you want to spend
> time,
> investigating everyone in the world to see if you are related to
> them, you
> must have a lot more time than I do.
> I still cannot see any useful reason to investigate persons who
> show no
> matching dna. Mary Alice

This thread: