HARRIS-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > HARRIS-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116763481


From: "Gregg Bonner" <>
Subject: mismatch interpretations
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 08:04:41 -0400
References: <c0.28ea1b6b.2fc183e9@aol.com>


Whatever may be the case, there is generally a simple resolution. Usually
people end up comparing something like 7th cousins. When there is a
mismatch, one needs to test closer cousins in BOTH lines. It could be the
case that BOTH lines are incorrect. And the fact that there are several
matches in one line and the solitary mismatch in the other doesn't equate to
a demonstration that the several are correct and the one is incorrect. In my
LENTZ Project, we would have come to an opposite conclusion had the
participants' samples been returned in a different order, and if a single
particular piece of paper was not extant (i.e., in the beginning; later
samples would have still clarified the true nature of the case).

Matching samples only prove the DNA type of the MOST RECENT common ancestor
(who is already proved by paper), and says nothing about earlier
DNA-to-person correlations, regardless of claims and even regardless of
paper "proof". And mismatches say nothing at all. One needs to test closer
cousins and get a match, and therefore prove the DNA type of the matching
pair's most recent common ancestor. Then you can compare the resultant pair
of respective most recent common ancestors.

If you (or your proxy) compare to a 10th cousin and match 37/37, then you
are pretty much done. But if you have 11/12 match or worse, then you still
have work to do before you can say anything about the PRIOR generations, as
the DNA test only applies to the participants themselves, except where a
match proves the DNA type of a common ancestor.

I think it is useful for folks to take a look at the descendants chart of
Capt. Thomas Graves (see GRAVES DNA Project) to see what I mean. The chart
is color-coded to show where the common ancestors' DNA types have been
confirmed. Then you can compare across "colors" to see what is likely for
less recent common ancestors. You can even see what looks to be obvious
errors in the claimed descents of some of the participants.

Gregg Bonner
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA


> It's true that Noel Robertson's research work is most impressive, but the
> DNA from that line is so far removed from anything yet seen in the Harris
DNA
> study, that one is led to believe that it does not represent a Harris at
all,
> and that the bloodline has been diverted from it's continuity by an alien
> bloodline, or there has been a terrible mixup at the lab, or, the five
other
> reasons why a DNA result and a genealogy chart doesn't match. My Hargraves
DNA
> is much closer to the Harris DNA patterns than is Noel Robertson's cousin
and
> mine is not even close.
>
> Sincerely,
> James E. Hargraves

This thread: