Why I am not interested in DNA

[Doug Laidlaw]

Firstly, I am a number-cruncher only when I am bored and have nothing
better to do. I always think of the man who discovered he was related
to Carthaginian sailors and was _so_ pleased. [The Carthaginians were
good as sailors, but for their army, they engaged mercenaries.]

Secondly, DNA testing has often done more harm than good. In one case,
the applicant discovered she had none of her father's DNA. In a case I
have just been reading, a couple decided to take a DNA test. It showed
that the male partner was related to a serial killer. His g-f couldn't
handle this, and left him. Maybe she was looking for a way to split,
and this was her excuse, as the comforters on social media suggested.
But in both cases, there were facts that it was better not to know. I
have enough inherited illnesses; I don't need to know about any others.

[MB]

Post by Doug Laidlaw
Firstly, I am a number-cruncher only when I am bored and have nothing
better to do.  I always think of the man who discovered he was related
to Carthaginian sailors and was _so_ pleased.  [The Carthaginians were
good as sailors, but for their army, they engaged mercenaries.]
Secondly, DNA testing has often done more harm than good.  In one case,
the applicant discovered she had none of her father's DNA.  In a case I
have just been reading, a couple decided to take a DNA test.  It showed
that the male partner was related to a serial killer.  His g-f couldn't
handle this, and left him.  Maybe she was looking for a way to split,
and this was her excuse, as the comforters on social media suggested.
But in both cases, there were facts that it was better not to know.  I
have enough inherited illnesses; I don't need to know about any others.

I suppose any knowledge is dangerous if misused. Knowing that your
father was not your father could explain a lot of things. I watched an
American programme where a lady found that out. The presenter explained
that she had been adopted, she had found her birth father but her
adoptive father was still the person who brought her up so it did not
affect her feelings for him.

Last night I watched the first of the new series of WDYTYA USA last
night, they did not use any DNA research but the subject found that his
9x Great Grandfather was Scottish and was going on about "feeling
Scottish"! I expected him to go out and try and get a deep friend Mars
bar.

On the other hand I managed to "re-unite" someone with his birth mother
after being adopted at birth nearly sixty years ago - through my DNA
test even though not that close a relative.

[Keith Nuttle]

Post by Doug Laidlaw
Firstly, I am a number-cruncher only when I am bored and have nothing
better to do.  I always think of the man who discovered he was related
to Carthaginian sailors and was _so_ pleased.  [The Carthaginians were
good as sailors, but for their army, they engaged mercenaries.]
Secondly, DNA testing has often done more harm than good.  In one case,
the applicant discovered she had none of her father's DNA.  In a case I
have just been reading, a couple decided to take a DNA test.  It showed
that the male partner was related to a serial killer.  His g-f couldn't
handle this, and left him.  Maybe she was looking for a way to split,
and this was her excuse, as the comforters on social media suggested.
But in both cases, there were facts that it was better not to know.  I
have enough inherited illnesses; I don't need to know about any others.DNA is a tool, and should be thought of a a tool and not as a

replacement for other sources used for research.

It can some times find things about your ancestors that you could find
in no other way. I have worked on my families for nearly 20 years. I
had two family connections in my 3rd great grandparents generation that
I had collected a lot of circumstantial evidence for the connection but
in all of that time I was still not sure I the connection was valid.
Some of the first DNA matches I found were to those great grandparent
which supported the circumstantial connection. I now have DNA matches
to all of my previously found documented ancestors and DNA help me add a
couple of generation to some of my families.

My wife learned of a half brother. We knew of the baby, but had no idea
who he was. DNA plus some documentation proved the connection. I have
also worked with other researcher who are trying to find their natural
family using the DNA matches.

I too find it distressing that name collectors use DNA like all of the
other sources available and add people to their trees that are not in
their families.

I find it equally frustrating to find a DNA match and find the owner has
has a couple of entries in this tree, or the tree marked private, either
way the tree is useless for some one researching their families.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Doug Laidlaw
Firstly, I am a number-cruncher only when I am bored and have nothing
better to do.

I'm not sure what that has to do with DNA, but let's go on.

Post by Doug Laidlaw
I always think of the man who discovered he was related to
Carthaginian sailors and was _so_ pleased. [The Carthaginians were
good as sailors, but for their army, they engaged mercenaries.]

Anyone who's _that_ bothered about who he's descended from that far back
- or even _much_ more recently (say two or three centuries), whether
nobility, serial killer, or whatever - has IMO a poor grasp of what's
important. Sure, it's _nice_ to find you are descended from nobility,
royalty, or someone famous; I'd be equally happy to find someone
infamous! (I've found a few rich farmers and merchants, but mostly just
Ag Lab or miner. Nobody _that_ famous.)

[I'm very dubious of any connection being found to Carthaginian sailors
(presumably as opposed to soldiers), whether by DNA or otherwise; that
far back is too far for any link to be reliable.]

Post by Doug Laidlaw
Secondly, DNA testing has often done more harm than good. In one case,

Which meaning of "often" are you using? Sure, with the huge growth in
DNA testing recently, there have been _lots_ of harmful outcomes (by
some definition of harmful); however, that's not the same as "more often
than not", which your wording _implies_, though does not say explicitly.
One could equally say that, say, penicillin "often" caused allergic
reactions, simply because of its widespread use; that doesn't mean it
didn't far _more_ often save lives.

Post by Doug Laidlaw
the applicant discovered she had none of her father's DNA. In a case I
have just been reading, a couple decided to take a DNA test. It showed
that the male partner was related to a serial killer. His g-f couldn't
handle this, and left him. Maybe she was looking for a way to split,
and this was her excuse, as the comforters on social media suggested.

Even if she wasn't, there's little evidence that such tendencies are
genetic - at least, not that stand up to scrutiny.

Post by Doug Laidlaw
But in both cases, there were facts that it was better not to know. I

Depends; some people might actually _like_ to find an infamous relative!

Post by Doug Laidlaw
have enough inherited illnesses; I don't need to know about any others.

Your choice. If there happen to be some for which preventative action is
known and well-proven, it's your choice not to know whether you've got
them until too late for the treatments to be effective.

I'm not pro or anti DNA testing; to me that's like being pro or anti the
colour blue. And certainly, it is often over-sold - both in the
genealogy field and the medical (and social, ethnological, ...). I just
take against apparent prejudice against anything based on bad
statistics.
--


(Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?)

Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one.
--
Petitions are still unfair.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions

[MB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Anyone who's _that_ bothered about who he's descended from that far back
- or even _much_ more recently (say two or three centuries), whether
nobility, serial killer, or whatever - has IMO a poor grasp of what's
important. Sure, it's _nice_ to find you are descended from nobility,
royalty, or someone famous; I'd be equally happy to find someone
infamous! (I've found a few rich farmers and merchants, but mostly just
Ag Lab or miner. Nobody _that_ famous.)

But it has been happening for years with information from conventional
sources. Best example recent was the EastEnders actor on WDYTYA who
found he was descended (allegedly) from William the Conqueror etc though
it was obviously played up for television.

There was a similar case of someone finding a connection to a Royal line
on the US WDYTYA some months ago but the well known American actress
took it much more sensibly!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by MB

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Anyone who's _that_ bothered about who he's descended from that far
back - or even _much_ more recently (say two or three centuries),
whether nobility, serial killer, or whatever - has IMO a poor grasp of
what's important. Sure, it's _nice_ to find you are descended from
nobility, royalty, or someone famous; I'd be equally happy to find
someone infamous! (I've found a few rich farmers and merchants, but
mostly just Ag Lab or miner. Nobody _that_ famous.)

But it has been happening for years with information from conventional
sources. Best example recent was the EastEnders actor on WDYTYA who
found he was descended (allegedly) from William the Conqueror etc
though it was obviously played up for television.

With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

Post by MB
There was a similar case of someone finding a connection to a Royal
line on the US WDYTYA some months ago but the well known American
actress took it much more sensibly!

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 18:24:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by MB

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Anyone who's _that_ bothered about who he's descended from that far
back - or even _much_ more recently (say two or three centuries),
whether nobility, serial killer, or whatever - has IMO a poor grasp of
what's important. Sure, it's _nice_ to find you are descended from
nobility, royalty, or someone famous; I'd be equally happy to find
someone infamous! (I've found a few rich farmers and merchants, but
mostly just Ag Lab or miner. Nobody _that_ famous.)

But it has been happening for years with information from conventional
sources. Best example recent was the EastEnders actor on WDYTYA who
found he was descended (allegedly) from William the Conqueror etc
though it was obviously played up for television.

With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

Maybe more unlikely the further your origins are from SE England or
anyone vaguely noble [sic]; the bike hadn't been invented in the 11th
century. OTOH I have a friend who is his 27th ggdaur and if I can fill
in 5 centuries between Walter Stewart, 1st Baron Kincardine and myself
then I'm her cousin.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 18:24:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by MB

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Anyone who's _that_ bothered about who he's descended from that far
back - or even _much_ more recently (say two or three centuries),
whether nobility, serial killer, or whatever - has IMO a poor grasp of
what's important. Sure, it's _nice_ to find you are descended from
nobility, royalty, or someone famous; I'd be equally happy to find
someone infamous! (I've found a few rich farmers and merchants, but
mostly just Ag Lab or miner. Nobody _that_ famous.)

But it has been happening for years with information from conventional
sources. Best example recent was the EastEnders actor on WDYTYA who
found he was descended (allegedly) from William the Conqueror etc
though it was obviously played up for television.

With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

Maybe more unlikely the further your origins are from SE England or
anyone vaguely noble [sic]; the bike hadn't been invented in the 11th
century.

Horses existed and Shanks' pony for the poor. There was also coastal and
river shipping. People moved around more than is generally realised.
Harold got his army from London to Stamford Bridge and back to Senlac
Hill in fairly short order.

Post by Charles Ellson
OTOH I have a friend who is his 27th ggdaur and if I can fill
in 5 centuries between Walter Stewart, 1st Baron Kincardine and myself
then I'm her cousin.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Charles Ellson
Maybe more unlikely the further your origins are from SE England or
anyone vaguely noble [sic]; the bike hadn't been invented in the 11th
century.

Horses existed and Shanks' pony for the poor. There was also coastal
and river shipping. People moved around more than is generally
realised. Harold got his army from London to Stamford Bridge and back
to Senlac Hill in fairly short order.

[]
That was an army, though. Although there _are_ exceptions, I continue to
be surprised how little people travelled in a lifetime; I'd say the
_majority_ of folk didn't move more than five or at most ten miles from
their birthplace. That's certainly the case for my ancestors. With
exceptions, often associated with social changes: quite a lot of mine
moved from Norfolk to Northumberland in 18xx, as mining took off.
(Although most of them then settled and didn't move much again.) Even
the coming of the railways didn't have the effect you might expect: I've
found cases where lifetime movement wasn't great, well into the 20th
century.

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
That was an army, though. Although there _are_ exceptions, I continue to
be surprised how little people travelled in a lifetime; I'd say the
_majority_ of folk didn't move more than five or at most ten miles from
their birthplace.

For the majority of people, I agree. In 1890, my great great great
grandfather, who by then was elderly and infirm, applied for a pension
from a local charity. The rector and a few other local worthies wrote
in support of the application, and one said of my ancestor "A chill some
years ago occasioned an affection of one leg which is now a bad state
which prevents him from getting more than a few yards from his home. As
a matter of fact he has never been by land further than Sowley Pond
about 3 miles distant." He lived a couple of miles from Lymington, a
small market town, and presumably that was sufficient for his needs.
He'd been a fisherman for a while, which presumably explains the
qualification "by land".

Equally, a generation earlier, one of my ancestors was born in Worcester
and moved to a village near Winchester; and her mother was born in
Chapel Allerton near Leeds in Yorkshire to a family from Dewsbury,
married in Kidderminster, and died in Worcester. So far as I know,
these were ordinary working class folk.

Richard

[MB]

For the majority of people, I agree.  In 1890, my great great great
grandfather, who by then was elderly and infirm, applied for a pension
in support of the application, and one said of my ancestor "A chill some
years ago occasioned an affection of one leg which is now a bad state
which prevents him from getting more than a few yards from his home.  As
a matter of fact he has never been by land further than Sowley Pond
about 3 miles distant."  He lived a couple of miles from Lymington, a
small market town, and presumably that was sufficient for his needs.
He'd been a fisherman for a while, which presumably explains the
qualification "by land".
Equally, a generation earlier, one of my ancestors was born in Worcester
and moved to a village near Winchester; and her mother was born in
Chapel Allerton near Leeds in Yorkshire to a family from Dewsbury,
married in Kidderminster, and died in Worcester.  So far as I know,
these were ordinary working class folk.

Still could happen much more recently. I read a book by someone who
served in WWII at a radar station on Orkney. They used to sometimes go
down to the local village where a couple of elderly ladies would do an
"Orkney Cream Tea" as they had done prewar for tourists. The two ladies
had never left their village.

[Peter]

Post by MB

Post by Richard Smith
For the majority of people, I agree. In 1890, my great great great
grandfather, who by then was elderly and infirm, applied for a pension
in support of the application, and one said of my ancestor "A chill some
years ago occasioned an affection of one leg which is now a bad state
which prevents him from getting more than a few yards from his home. As
a matter of fact he has never been by land further than Sowley Pond
about 3 miles distant." He lived a couple of miles from Lymington, a
small market town, and presumably that was sufficient for his needs.
He'd been a fisherman for a while, which presumably explains the
qualification "by land".
Equally, a generation earlier, one of my ancestors was born in Worcester
and moved to a village near Winchester; and her mother was born in
Chapel Allerton near Leeds in Yorkshire to a family from Dewsbury,
married in Kidderminster, and died in Worcester. So far as I know,
these were ordinary working class folk.

Still could happen much more recently. I read a book by someone who
served in WWII at a radar station on Orkney. They used to sometimes go
down to the local village where a couple of elderly ladies would do an
"Orkney Cream Tea" as they had done prewar for tourists. The two ladies
had never left their village.

In 1986 I was working as a Salesman of Farm Machinery here in Cornwall
in the St Austell area.
I met a lady farmer aged 80, who in the whole of her life had been out
of the County once. And that to Plymouth before the war. She hadn't
been impressed and never repeated the performance.

[MB]

Post by Peter
In 1986 I was working as a Salesman of Farm Machinery here in Cornwall
in the St Austell area.
I met a lady farmer aged 80, who in the whole of her life had been out
of the County once. And that to Plymouth before the war. She hadn't
been impressed and never repeated the performance.

These ladies had never even left the village which was very small and
more of a hamlet.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by MB

Post by Peter
In 1986 I was working as a Salesman of Farm Machinery here in Cornwall
in the St Austell area.
I met a lady farmer aged 80, who in the whole of her life had been out
of the County once. And that to Plymouth before the war. She hadn't
been impressed and never repeated the performance.

These ladies had never even left the village which was very small and
more of a hamlet.

Yes, but it's not the mobility of ladies that spreads the genes, it's
the mobility of men.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by MB

Post by Peter
In 1986 I was working as a Salesman of Farm Machinery here in Cornwall
in the St Austell area.
I met a lady farmer aged 80, who in the whole of her life had been out
of the County once. And that to Plymouth before the war. She hadn't
been impressed and never repeated the performance.

These ladies had never even left the village which was very small
and more of a hamlet.

Yes, but it's not the mobility of ladies that spreads the genes, it's
the mobility of men.

Well, either can ... (-: [Though you're probably right that ladies _did_
move about less.]

JPG
--


(Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?)

Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one.
--
Petitions are still unfair.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by MB

Post by Peter
In 1986 I was working as a Salesman of Farm Machinery here in Cornwall
in the St Austell area.
I met a lady farmer aged 80, who in the whole of her life had been out
of the County once. And that to Plymouth before the war. She hadn't
been impressed and never repeated the performance.

These ladies had never even left the village which was very small and
more of a hamlet.

Yes, but it's not the mobility of ladies that spreads the genes, it's
the mobility of men.

Well, either can ... (-: [Though you're probably right that ladies
_did_ move about less.]

Not only that, but they had less opportunity to spread their genes
around. No matter how wealthy, a woman couldn't have more than about
one child per year. A rich and powerful man could have a lot more than
that.

[Richard Smith]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes, but it's not the mobility of ladies that spreads the genes, it's
the mobility of men.

Well, either can ... (-: [Though you're probably right that ladies _did_
move about less.]

That's what I would have guessed, but it doesn't seem to be what I
actually find in my family.

Both my grandfathers, all four of my great grandfathers, and four of my
great great grandparents remained in the village in which they were
born. By comparison, neither of my grandmothers, only one of the great
grandmothers, and one of the great great grandmothers did.

Richard

[MB]

Post by Richard Smith
Both my grandfathers, all four of my great grandfathers, and four of my
great great grandparents remained in the village in which they were
born.  By comparison, neither of my grandmothers, only one of the great
grandmothers, and one of the great great grandmothers did.

Several people in my family did travel, some went to conferences, one
spent ten years in the army. Others could have travelled but nothing
showing in the records. Any of these could have fathered children but
the only way we would find out if from DNA (I have already found one
that way).

[Graeme Wall]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Charles Ellson
Maybe more unlikely the further your origins are from SE England or
anyone vaguely noble [sic]; the bike hadn't been invented in the 11th
century.

Horses existed and Shanks' pony for the poor. There was also coastal
and river shipping. People moved around more than is generally
realised. Harold got his army from London to Stamford Bridge and back
to Senlac Hill in fairly short order.

[]
That was an army, though. Although there _are_ exceptions, I continue to
be surprised how little people travelled in a lifetime; I'd say the
_majority_ of folk didn't move more than five or at most ten miles from
their birthplace. That's certainly the case for my ancestors. With
exceptions, often associated with social changes: quite a lot of mine
moved from Norfolk to Northumberland in 18xx, as mining took off.
(Although most of them then settled and didn't move much again.) Even
the coming of the railways didn't have the effect you might expect: I've
found cases where lifetime movement wasn't great, well into the 20th
century.

My wife's ancestry includes a family of vicars, they got around in the
18th and 19th centuries! Midlands, Wales, Scotland, West Country, and
that was just one of them.

Back to the point about descent from Bill the Bastard, while the general
population may not have got around much the aristocracy and their
retainers certainly did, bonking their way round the countryside,
spreading their genes far and wide.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Charles Ellson
Maybe more unlikely the further your origins are from SE England or
anyone vaguely noble [sic]; the bike hadn't been invented in the 11th
century.

Horses existed and Shanks' pony for the poor. There was also coastal
and river shipping. People moved around more than is generally
realised. Harold got his army from London to Stamford Bridge and back
to Senlac Hill in fairly short order.

[]
That was an army, though. Although there _are_ exceptions, I continue
to be surprised how little people travelled in a lifetime; I'd say the
_majority_ of folk didn't move more than five or at most ten miles from
their birthplace. That's certainly the case for my ancestors.

My grandchildren have grandparents born in England, Chile, France,
Syria and the USA. (Five!? Yes, I've been married twice). That's a
peculiarity of modern times, however, very unusual, even for the
wealthy, in earlier centuries. A very high proportion of my father's
known ancestors came from Devon.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
With exceptions, often associated with social changes: quite a lot of
mine moved from Norfolk to Northumberland in 18xx, as mining took off.
(Although most of them then settled and didn't move much again.) Even
I've found cases where lifetime movement wasn't great, well into the
20th century.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 18:24:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by MB

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Anyone who's _that_ bothered about who he's descended from that far
back - or even _much_ more recently (say two or three centuries),
whether nobility, serial killer, or whatever - has IMO a poor grasp of
what's important. Sure, it's _nice_ to find you are descended from
nobility, royalty, or someone famous; I'd be equally happy to find
someone infamous! (I've found a few rich farmers and merchants, but
mostly just Ag Lab or miner. Nobody _that_ famous.)

But it has been happening for years with information from conventional
sources. Best example recent was the EastEnders actor on WDYTYA who
found he was descended (allegedly) from William the Conqueror etc
though it was obviously played up for television.

With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

Maybe more unlikely the further your origins are from SE England or
anyone vaguely noble [sic]; the bike hadn't been invented in the 11th
century.

Nobles, and kings in particular, didn't need bicycles to get around and
spread their Y chromosomes about. If we believe the somewhat fanciful
genealogies compiled by our ancestors, William the Conqueror is my
great^30 grandfather (through two different routes). Big deal. The same
is true of virtually everyone.

Post by Charles Ellson
OTOH I have a friend who is his 27th ggdaur and if I can fill
in 5 centuries between Walter Stewart, 1st Baron Kincardine and myself
then I'm her cousin.

[MB]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

True but few of us have an identifiable link into the Royal line.

The funniest I heard was at a talk by the author A Dance Called America.
He went to the US to meet the present day Nez Perce tribe and had a
meal with them in their community hall. There were children playing in
the corner and it occurred to him that every single one of those Indian
children had a direct line back to Somerled whilst many wealthy
Americans visit Scotland hoping to find a connection to Royalty or at
least aristocracy but can only find they were descended from a poor crofter.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

This keeps coming up from time to time. There seems to be an assumption
that because we have 1024, 2048 etc ancestors in a given generation this
means 1024, 2048 or whatever different people and that at some point
this proliferating number of different people meets the proliferating
number of descendants of William the Conqueror (or Edward III, another
popular alleged ancestor).

The problem with this is that the assumption doesn't hold up. A good
many of the same surnames in both may parents' families crop up again
and again. What's more, although they came from villages only a few
miles apart there isn't much overlap between them. On my father's side
there are better medieval records and I can find a couple of surnames
going back into the late C13th; they derive from local place names.

Where there are comers-in to the area they're largely from relatively
local areas and seem to be from the same sort of background. We seem to
be largely looking at limited interchange between areas with a medieval
populations of a few hundred in various locations within a few tens of
miles.. The largest geographical moves seem to be those where a
medieval magnate was able to transplant a tenant or servant.

This pattern seems to account for Pennine communities prior to the
Industrial Revolution which finally brought in former Ag Labs. There
simply isn't the large fan out of ancestors that the William I
hypothesis requires.

OTOH those claiming descent from this or that royal or aristocratic line
usually seem to be able to count several lines of descent. That should
be a warning: William's descendants married other descendants - the
fan-out of descendants wasn't a large as required.

The one DNA result which is of some significance here is the Nature
paper of a few years ago. What that showed was what I call the big red
splodge where one of their groups (colour-coded red) covered most of
lowland England. The West country, the Pennines, Wales and Scotland
fell into a number of much more local, distinct groups. It seems to
point to relatively free movement within the splodge but less soe
elsewhere so that the William I hypothesis probably looks reasonable to
the splodgians and quite ridiculous to the rest of us.

Ian

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

This keeps coming up from time to time. There seems to be an
assumption that because we have 1024, 2048 etc ancestors in a given
generation this means 1024, 2048 or whatever different people and that
at some point this proliferating number of different people meets the
proliferating number of descendants of William the Conqueror (or Edward
III, another popular alleged ancestor).
The problem with this is that the assumption doesn't hold up.

It holds up just fine. According to Brian Sykes, approximately 50% of
men with the surname Sykes have a Y chromosome that seems to have
originated from somewhere near Pontefract. That means that 50% do not.
So where did they get theirs from? Some no doubt, from local farmers,
ploughmen etc., but you only need a small proportion to come from the
nobility for their descendants to spread all over the place. It's
vastly more likely for a noble to impregnate a farmer's wife than it is
for a farmer to impregnate a nobleman's wife.

Post by Ian Goddard
A good many of the same surnames in both may parents' families crop up
again and again. What's more, although they came from villages only a
few miles apart there isn't much overlap between them. On my father's
side there are better medieval records and I can find a couple of
surnames going back into the late C13th; they derive from local place
names.
Where there are comers-in to the area they're largely from relatively
local areas and seem to be from the same sort of background. We seem
to be largely looking at limited interchange between areas with a
medieval populations of a few hundred in various locations within a few
tens of miles.. The largest geographical moves seem to be those where
a medieval magnate was able to transplant a tenant or servant.
This pattern seems to account for Pennine communities prior to the
Industrial Revolution which finally brought in former Ag Labs. There
simply isn't the large fan out of ancestors that the William I
hypothesis requires.
OTOH those claiming descent from this or that royal or aristocratic
line usually seem to be able to count several lines of descent. That
should be a warning: William's descendants married other descendants -
the fan-out of descendants wasn't a large as required.
The one DNA result which is of some significance here is the Nature
paper of a few years ago. What that showed was what I call the big red
splodge where one of their groups (colour-coded red) covered most of
lowland England. The West country, the Pennines, Wales and Scotland
fell into a number of much more local, distinct groups. It seems to
point to relatively free movement within the splodge but less soe
elsewhere so that the William I hypothesis probably looks reasonable to
the splodgians and quite ridiculous to the rest of us.
Ian

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or
Asia in the last generation or so we're all descended from William
the Conqueror.

This keeps coming up from time to time.  There seems to be an
assumption that because we have 1024, 2048 etc ancestors in a given
generation this means 1024, 2048 or whatever different people and that
at some point this proliferating number of different people meets the
proliferating number of descendants of William the Conqueror (or
Edward III, another popular alleged ancestor).
The problem with this is that the assumption doesn't hold up.

It holds up just fine. According to Brian Sykes, approximately 50% of
men with the surname Sykes have a Y chromosome that seems to have
originated from somewhere near Pontefract. That means that 50% do not.
So where did they get theirs from? Some no doubt, from local farmers,
ploughmen etc., but you only need a small proportion to come from the
nobility for their descendants to spread all over the place. It's vastly
more likely for a noble to impregnate a farmer's wife than it is for a
farmer to impregnate a nobleman's wife.

You've not read Lady Chatterley's Lover I take it!

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or Asia
in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

This keeps coming up from time to time.  There seems to be an
assumption that because we have 1024, 2048 etc ancestors in a given
generation this means 1024, 2048 or whatever different people and that
at some point this proliferating number of different people meets the
proliferating number of descendants of William the Conqueror (or Edward
III, another popular alleged ancestor).
The problem with this is that the assumption doesn't hold up.

It holds up just fine. According to Brian Sykes, approximately 50% of
men with the surname Sykes have a Y chromosome that seems to have
originated from somewhere near Pontefract. That means that 50% do not.
So where did they get theirs from? Some no doubt, from local farmers,
ploughmen etc., but you only need a small proportion to come from the
nobility for their descendants to spread all over the place. It's
vastly more likely for a noble to impregnate a farmer's wife than it is
for a farmer to impregnate a nobleman's wife.

You've not read Lady Chatterley's Lover I take it!

I have, but it's not typical, not least because her husband was impotent.

[Ian Goddard]

According to Brian Sykes, approximately 50% of men with the surname
Sykes have a Y chromosome that seems to have originated from somewhere
near Pontefract. That means that 50% do not. So where did they get
theirs from?

For a start it's a toponym - a syke is a minor watercourse or even a
ditch so it can have arisen a number of times. The early instances are
round Huddersfield, some in the manor of Wakefield and some in the very
extensive collection holdings which formed the Honor of Pontefract but
not necessarily close to that.

Redmonds lists it as early as 1296 in Flockton. He also lists it in
1391 in Holme as "John by the Syke"; that seems sufficiently descriptive
of a habitation as to be distinct from a hereditary name from a century
earlier. In fact "Holme" in the Wakefield manorial rolls is
sufficiently vague that this Syke might well be Black Syke which is
still identifable today. If this man gave rise to an independent Sykes
surname it wouldn't be surprising if his line was much less numerous
than one with a few generations start. If Black Syke was ndeed the
place John of 1391 could even have been the same man as Redmonds' John
Sykes of Austonley in 1416 and I'd think it more likely that I'd be
descended from him than from William I.

Some no doubt, from local farmers, ploughmen etc., but you
only need a small proportion to come from the nobility for their
descendants to spread all over the place. It's vastly more likely for a
noble to impregnate a farmer's wife than it is for a farmer to
impregnate a nobleman's wife.

The fact that one line proliferated to provide half the men with that
name doesn't mean that the rest were illegitimate, nor does it mean that
those who were illegitimate were descendants of William I. It's more
likely that the father of an illegitimate child of a woman names Sykes,
at least here in the Sykes homeland, as it were, would be someone of the
same background.

The thing is that if you're going to make a sweeping statement that
we're all descended from William I the only way in which this would be
supportable would be to trace everyone's ancestry back to the C11th. As
that's not possible it's not a testable statement.

Ian

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <-***@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
Goddard <***@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Ian Goddard
The thing is that if you're going to make a sweeping statement that
we're all descended from William I the only way in which this would be
supportable would be to trace everyone's ancestry back to the C11th. As
that's not possible it's not a testable statement.
Ian

Not testable, in this case at least, I think means neither provable nor
disprovable.

JPG
--


(Where has the "treat northern Ireland differently" option gone?)

Three- (or four-) way referendum, if we _have_ to have another one.
--
Petitions are still unfair.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk #fairpetitions

[Ian Goddard]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Ian Goddard
The thing is that if you're going to make a sweeping statement that
we're all descended from William I the only way in which this would be
supportable would be to trace everyone's ancestry back to the C11th.
As that's not possible it's not a testable statement.
Ian

Not testable, in this case at least, I think means neither provable nor
disprovable.

Sort of.

My real objection is that it's not even falsifiable. To prove it false
"all" you'd need to do would be to find one individual (not excluded
under the immigrant exclusion) and trace all their ancestries back to
the C11th and show William I wasn't an ancestor.

That would be the easier option. Proving it true would be far more
difficult. It's not sufficient to show that some individuals have
William I as an ancestor, you need to show that all of them have and
with the difficulty of getting any ancestral line back to the medieval
let alone the C11th for many people that's a non-starter.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/extref/nature14230-s1.pdf
is interesting. My own experience is that in the sorts of places where
my recent ancestors came from population movement was fairly limited and
greater freedom in the medieval period seemed even less likely. In fact
some of the characteristic surnames in these villages were here in the
C14th and even in the C13th. That stability simply didn't square with
such royal descent hypotheses. And yet there seem to be people who
firmly adhere to it; could they be seeing the same thing? That paper
suggests that maybe they weren't as some parts of the country exhibit
more mixing than others.

Ian

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Ian Goddard
The thing is that if you're going to make a sweeping statement that
we're all descended from William I the only way in which this would
be supportable would be to trace everyone's ancestry back to the
C11th. As that's not possible it's not a testable statement.
Ian

Not testable, in this case at least, I think means neither provable
nor disprovable.

Sort of.
My real objection is that it's not even falsifiable. To prove it false
"all" you'd need to do would be to find one individual (not excluded
under the immigrant exclusion) and trace all their ancestries back to
the C11th and show William I wasn't an ancestor.
That would be the easier option.

Easier than tracing _everybody's_ ancestors, but still I would say
impossible in practice! (I would be extremely dubious of anyone - even
from a noble family - who claimed to have traced _all_ their ancestors
that far back. [If only from the sheer number of them - about 2^48 {less
cousin marriages} would it be? - let alone the actual research.])

Post by Ian Goddard
Proving it true would be far more difficult. It's not sufficient to
show that some individuals have William I as an ancestor, you need to
show that all of them have and with the difficulty of getting any
ancestral line back to the medieval let alone the C11th for many people
that's a non-starter.

Indeed.

Post by Ian Goddard
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/extref/nature14230-s1.pdf
is interesting.

Overwhelming (-:! Mostly way over my head; the description in words and
population figures on the first two pages (covering about 9600 BC t
about 1100) I found interesting (though not relevant to the current
discussion); beyond that, it went into analysis well beyond me.

Post by Ian Goddard
My own experience is that in the sorts of places where my recent
ancestors came from population movement was fairly limited and greater

Mine too. (Not just my ancestors, but other people I've done research
for.) With occasional exceptions - individual ones, and occasional mass
movements (a lot of mine moved from Norfolk to Northumberland over a few
decades, I think because agricultural employment in the former was
suffering from population pressure, whereas mining [with provided
housing] was taking off in the north-east) - though after the big move,
they stayed put again.

Post by Ian Goddard
freedom in the medieval period seemed even less likely. In fact some
of the characteristic surnames in these villages were here in the C14th
and even in the C13th. That stability simply didn't square with such

Surnames, of course, reflect only the male line, and only (more or less)
legitimate/accepted paternity. (They're all we've got in many cases
though, of course.)

Post by Ian Goddard
royal descent hypotheses. And yet there seem to be people who firmly
adhere to it; could they be seeing the same thing? That paper suggests
that maybe they weren't as some parts of the country exhibit more
mixing than others.
Ian

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ian Goddard

According to Brian Sykes, approximately 50% of men with the surname
Sykes have a Y chromosome that seems to have originated from somewhere
near Pontefract. That means that 50% do not. So where did they get
theirs from?

For a start it's a toponym - a syke is a minor watercourse or even a
ditch so it can have arisen a number of times.

Logically, yes, but Brian Sykes concluded that it didn't. I don't
remember why not. I have the book somewhere, so I might be able to
check.

Post by Ian Goddard
The early instances are round Huddersfield, some in the manor of
Wakefield and some in the very extensive collection holdings which
formed the Honor of Pontefract but not necessarily close to that.
Redmonds lists it as early as 1296 in Flockton. He also lists it in
1391 in Holme as "John by the Syke"; that seems sufficiently
descriptive of a habitation as to be distinct from a hereditary name
from a century earlier. In fact "Holme" in the Wakefield manorial
rolls is sufficiently vague that this Syke might well be Black Syke
which is still identifable today. If this man gave rise to an
independent Sykes surname it wouldn't be surprising if his line was
much less numerous than one with a few generations start. If Black
Syke was ndeed the place John of 1391 could even have been the same man
as Redmonds' John Sykes of Austonley in 1416 and I'd think it more
likely that I'd be descended from him than from William I.

Some no doubt, from local farmers, ploughmen etc., but you only need a
small proportion to come from the nobility for their descendants to
spread all over the place. It's vastly more likely for a noble to
impregnate a farmer's wife than it is for a farmer to impregnate a
nobleman's wife.

The fact that one line proliferated to provide half the men with that
name doesn't mean that the rest were illegitimate,

Of course not, and it's not what I said. It's not that the rest were
illegitimate, but that the rest have each at least one "non-paternity
event" (as Sykes rather coyly put it) in their direct male line.

Post by Ian Goddard
nor does it mean that those who were illegitimate were descendants of
William I. It's more likely that the father of an illegitimate child
of a woman names Sykes, at least here in the Sykes homeland, as it
were, would be someone of the same background.
The thing is that if you're going to make a sweeping statement

It's not my "sweeping statement". Everyone familiar with population
genetics agrees that when enough time has passed either everyone living
is descended from a particular person (with, as I said, exceptions for
recent immigrants from distant places), or no one is. In the case of
William I the "no one is" option is sufficiently unlikely to be set
aside.

Post by Ian Goddard
that we're all descended from William I the only way in which this
would be supportable would be to trace everyone's ancestry back to the
C11th.

That's not how it's done. It's a matter of statistical analysis.

Post by Ian Goddard
As that's not possible it's not a testable statement.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's not my "sweeping statement". Everyone familiar with population
genetics agrees that when enough time has passed either everyone living
is descended from a particular person (with, as I said, exceptions for
recent immigrants from distant places),

What's enough time? What's recent and how distant? Where do Huguenots
fit into this? Or C13th Flemings?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
or no one is. In the case of
William I the "no one is" option is sufficiently unlikely to be set aside.

Or no one? Really. We know that there are some traceable descendants
of William I so is this supposed to prove that on some statistical
assumption that everyone is?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

 that we're all descended from William I the only way in which this
would be supportable would be to trace everyone's ancestry back to the
C11th.

That's not how it's done. It's a matter of statistical analysis.

There are a couple of comments on that. The first is that statistics
deals with probabilities. You're claiming certainty, not probability.

Secondly, a given statistical analysis assumes a particular model.
AFAICS your analysis depends on lack of mating. Geography provides
restraints as does social stratification. Not complete restrains,
granted, but restraints. What evidence is there for these restraints
being insufficient to be negligible in the time-frame?

You're stating a hypotheses. What test do you propose for such a
hypothesis?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It's not my "sweeping statement". Everyone familiar with population
genetics agrees that when enough time has passed either everyone
living is descended from a particular person (with, as I said,
exceptions for recent immigrants from distant places),

[]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
or no one is. In the case of William I the "no one is" option is
sufficiently unlikely to be set aside.

Or no one? Really. We know that there are some traceable descendants
of William I so is this supposed to prove that on some statistical
assumption that everyone is?

I suspect that's just taking account of cases where a certain person had
no children. (Or, less so, Oliver Cromwell having no male ones, so
anyone _with the surname Cromwell_ claiming descent from him - unless
they can _show_ their working - is suspicious.)

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

 that we're all descended from William I the only way in which this
would be supportable would be to trace everyone's ancestry back to
the C11th.

That's not how it's done. It's a matter of statistical analysis.

There are a couple of comments on that. The first is that statistics
deals with probabilities. You're claiming certainty, not probability.

It's allied to entropy. I once saw an animation (part of physics on the
OU, or something like that) of a brick being dropped onto flat ground;
the energy of the impact travelled outward in the movements of the
molecules in the ground. The commentary explained that the random
movements of molecules could, in theory, just happen to converge in such
a way that the process could be reversed, _without_ breaking any of the
laws of physics: nevertheless, bricks lying on the ground do _not_
spontaneously leap into the air. Statistics and probability do work such
that when something is sufficiently likely or unlikely, then for
_practical_ purposes, it will or won't happen.

(I agree with you that the Bill Conc hypotheses aren't at that level of
certainty yet - though my _feeling_ is that
we're_*mostly*_descended_from_him [or anyone else, certainly of the
ruling class of that time] _is_ likely to be true. Certainly, 2^4x well
exceeds the population of the country then [and the planet, by a huge
extent]: 2^20 is around a million. [So the _present_ population of the
planet is "only" about 2^36.])

Post by Ian Goddard
Secondly, a given statistical analysis assumes a particular model.
AFAICS your analysis depends on lack of mating. Geography provides
restraints as does social stratification. Not complete restrains,
granted, but restraints. What evidence is there for these restraints
being insufficient to be negligible in the time-frame?

I agree that they counter the simple progression hypotheses. But it is a
big step from saying they account for only a tiny proportion of births,
to saying that such births eventually "breed out" (i. e. disappear); on
the contrary, provided such genes survive two or three generations (I
can see that "the squire's bastard" might not find a wife [though might
still do some fathering!] - but if he does, I don't think the taint
would survive much beyond a couple of generations), they should
propagate like any other.

Post by Ian Goddard
You're stating a hypotheses. What test do you propose for such a
hypothesis?

You're stating the obvious counter-hypothesis. What test ... (-:

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ian Goddard

According to Brian Sykes, approximately 50% of men with the surname
Sykes have a Y chromosome that seems to have originated from somewhere
near Pontefract. That means that 50% do not. So where did they get
theirs from?

For a start it's a toponym - a syke is a minor watercourse or even a
ditch so it can have arisen a number of times.

Logically, yes, but Brian Sykes concluded that it didn't. I don't
remember why not. I have the book somewhere, so I might be able to
check.

Having now found the book (Adam's Curse), I have now had a look. In
brief, what he found was that the Sykes men from Flockton and those
from Slaithwaite have the same Y chromosome, therefore all are
descended from Henri de Sike. Take that as you will -- I've seen
stronger arguments.

[Evertjan.]

... have the same Y chromosome

Nonsense.

People don't have "the same Y-chromosome".

They all have SNP "snip" and larger differences.

, therefore all are descended from ... .

So why is it certain they aren't only descendent of his father,
but not of him?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Evertjan.

... have the same Y chromosome

Nonsense.
People don't have "the same Y-chromosome".
They all have SNP "snip" and larger differences.

, therefore all are descended from ... .

So why is it certain they aren't only descendent of his father,
but not of him?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Evertjan.

... have the same Y chromosome

Nonsense.
People don't have "the same Y-chromosome".
They all have SNP "snip" and larger differences.

, therefore all are descended from ... .

So why is it certain they aren't only descendent of his father,
but not of him?

All of what you say is correct, but don't fight with me about it. It
wasn't my argument, as I made clear.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[..]
All of what you say is correct,

Ah, that feels like a first, thank you!

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
but don't fight with me about it. It
wasn't my argument, as I made clear.

I never fight persons in a discussion, Athel,
I just fight arguments,
and don't think the value of an argument
ever depends on who is saying it.

Fighting arguments is called "discussion",
and such discussion is a good way to learn.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[..]
All of what you say is correct,

Ah, that feels like a first, thank you!

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
but don't fight with me about it. It
wasn't my argument, as I made clear.

I never fight persons in a discussion, Athel,
I just fight arguments,
and don't think the value of an argument
ever depends on who is saying it.

Yes, but the question wasn't "did all of today's Sykeses descend from a
unique progenitor?" by "why did Bryan Sykes think they did?", and it
was the latter question I had promised to address.

Post by Evertjan.
Fighting arguments is called "discussion",
and such discussion is a good way to learn.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or
Asia in the last generation or so we're all descended from William the
Conqueror.

This keeps coming up from time to time.  There seems to be an assumption
that because we have 1024, 2048 etc ancestors in a given generation this
means 1024, 2048 or whatever different people and that at some point
this proliferating number of different people meets the proliferating
number of descendants of William the Conqueror (or Edward III, another
popular alleged ancestor).
The problem with this is that the assumption doesn't hold up.  A good
many of the same surnames in both may parents' families crop up again
and again.  What's more, although they came from villages only a few
miles apart there isn't much overlap between them.  On my father's side
there are better medieval records and I can find a couple of surnames
going back into the late C13th; they derive from local place names.
Where there are comers-in to the area they're largely from relatively
local areas and seem to be from the same sort of background.  We seem to
be largely looking at limited interchange between areas with a medieval
populations of a few hundred in various locations within a few tens of
miles..  The largest geographical moves seem to be those where a
medieval magnate was able to transplant a tenant or servant.
This pattern seems to account for Pennine communities prior to the
Industrial Revolution which finally brought in former Ag Labs.  There
simply isn't the large fan out of ancestors that the William I
hypothesis requires.
OTOH those claiming descent from this or that royal or aristocratic line
usually seem to be able to count several lines of descent.  That should
be a warning: William's descendants married other descendants - the
fan-out of descendants wasn't a large as required.
The one DNA result which is of some significance here is the Nature
paper of a few years ago.  What that showed was what I call the big red
splodge where one of their groups (colour-coded red) covered most of
lowland England.  The West country, the Pennines, Wales and Scotland
fell into a number of much more local, distinct groups.  It seems to
point to relatively free movement within the splodge but less soe
elsewhere so that the William I hypothesis probably looks reasonable to
the splodgians and quite ridiculous to the rest of us.

Have you taken the 14th century into account?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
With possible exception of people who've immigrated from Africa or
Asia in the last generation or so we're all descended from William
the Conqueror.

This keeps coming up from time to time. There seems to be an
assumption that because we have 1024, 2048 etc ancestors in a given
generation this means 1024, 2048 or whatever different people and that
at some point this proliferating number of different people meets the
proliferating number of descendants of William the Conqueror (or Edward
III, another popular alleged ancestor).

Or the entire population of the country.

Post by Ian Goddard
The problem with this is that the assumption doesn't hold up. A good
many of the same surnames in both may parents' families crop up again
and again. What's more, although they came from villages only a few
miles apart there isn't much overlap between them. On my father's side
there are better medieval records and I can find a couple of surnames
going back into the late C13th; they derive from local place names.

Doesn't need _much_ overlap. Let's say 5 miles; 20 generations thus gets
you 100 miles, 40 gets you 200. That probably gets most of England to
somewhere that Bill Conk was sewing oats.
[]

Post by Ian Goddard
This pattern seems to account for Pennine communities prior to the
Industrial Revolution which finally brought in former Ag Labs. There
simply isn't the large fan out of ancestors that the William I
hypothesis requires.

How can we know? Much before 15xx, records just don't exist for ordinary
folk; I'm not sure when surnames became common, but somewhat after
Bill's time, by quite a bit. And as I've said above, the fan-out doesn't
have to be far, given long enough.

Post by Ian Goddard
OTOH those claiming descent from this or that royal or aristocratic
line usually seem to be able to count several lines of descent. That
should be a warning: William's descendants married other descendants -
the fan-out of descendants wasn't a large as required.

His official/acknowledged ones might have stayed within the aristocracy,
perhaps. But he - and his (male, at least) descendants (fanning out to a
fair number) - probably impregnated more than their wives.

Post by Ian Goddard
The one DNA result which is of some significance here is the Nature
paper of a few years ago. What that showed was what I call the big red
splodge where one of their groups (colour-coded red) covered most of
lowland England. The West country, the Pennines, Wales and Scotland
fell into a number of much more local, distinct groups. It seems to
point to relatively free movement within the splodge but less soe
elsewhere so that the William I hypothesis probably looks reasonable to
the splodgians and quite ridiculous to the rest of us.

Hmm.

Post by Ian Goddard
Ian

John

[Ian Goddard]

My position on this is very simple: do I have a question which needs DNA
to answer it? So far, no; nor do I envisage how I might find one.

Ian

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard
My position on this is very simple: do I have a question which needs
DNA to answer it? So far, no; nor do I envisage how I might find one.
Ian

You don't _know_ that you don't.

How might it arise? Well, one example: say, by conventional research,
you have a "brick wall" where you know you are descended from one of two
people (similar or same name, born in similar location on similar date).
DNA might - especially combined with degrees of match to other people
descended from those two people, but where the other researchers do know
which one they're descended from (or from ancestors of the two) - show
you which one you are. Or are not.

Plenty of other examples.

However: there is a _lot_ of pressure to take DNA tests, I agree: and,
though they've come down a lot, they're still quite a lot of money IMO.
If you don't feel the need to do one, e. g. you still have plenty of
conventional research that's yielding results, there's no need to give
in to the pressure. It's certainly not the case that it's something any
genealogist should do, despite the way some people talk (and even apply
moral blackmail).

FWIW, my experience: I can't remember why I took one, now - probably
just curiosity, a special offer, and the _hope_ that it'd help with some
of my "brick walls". It hasn't done the last; responses from matches
I've tried to contact haven't been _that_ high; and I _have_ met (some
in person!) some moderately close cousins I hadn't previously been aware
of, and I've enjoyed meeting them.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Ian Goddard
My position on this is very simple: do I have a question which needs
DNA to answer it?  So far, no; nor do I envisage how I might find one.
Ian

You don't _know_ that you don't.
How might it arise? Well, one example: say, by conventional research,
you have a "brick wall" where you know you are descended from one of two
people (similar or same name, born in similar location on similar date).
DNA might - especially combined with degrees of match to other people
descended from those two people, but where the other researchers do know
which one they're descended from (or from ancestors of the two) - show
you which one you are. Or are not.

I can't begin to formulate a question which would require DNA to solve
any of my existing brick walls and I say that as a sometime forensic
biologist.

A long time ago I worked out from a geographical approach that there
must have been at least four separate origins for my surname. I learned
that US workers had arrived at the same conclusion from DNA studies. I
understood they were going to send me a test kit to see which of theirs
fitted mine but they didn't. However, that's their problem, not mine
and they may have sorted it out by other routes.

Ian

[MB]

Post by Ian Goddard
My position on this is very simple: do I have a question which needs DNA
to answer it?  So far, no; nor do I envisage how I might find one.
Ian

It is the sort of thing that you might only find out through a test.

I found a half-sister through conventional means, we had not knowledge
until we were told and I managed to find her. If we had not been told
then we would never have known but it is the sort of thing that might
have been found through DNA.

I found one very close match through DNA (on the other side of the
world). The person did say that one of his family did not know who her
father was. Through comparing information, we are very sure that it was
one of my ancestors which would fit with the DNA evidence. You can be
never be sure but but there are several things which tend to confirm it
is very likely.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by MB

Post by Ian Goddard
My position on this is very simple: do I have a question which needs
DNA to answer it?  So far, no; nor do I envisage how I might find one.
Ian

It is the sort of thing that you might only find out through a test.
I found a half-sister through conventional means, we had not knowledge
until we were told and I managed to find her.  If we had not been told
then we would never have known but it is the sort of thing that might
have been found through DNA.
I found one very close match through DNA (on the other side of the
world).  The person did say that one of his family did not know who her
father was.  Through comparing information, we are very sure that it was
one of my ancestors which would fit with the DNA evidence.  You can be
never be sure but but there are several things which tend to confirm it
is very likely.

In my world a scientific test is something you conduct against a
hypothesis. I don't have any hypothesis where I can see DNA as a means
to test it.

Most "testing" seems to be mere fishing expeditions and I don't see the
point of throwing money at that.

Ian

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2019 02:59:07 +1000, Doug Laidlaw

Post by Doug Laidlaw
Secondly, DNA testing has often done more harm than good. In one case,
the applicant discovered she had none of her father's DNA. In a case I
have just been reading, a couple decided to take a DNA test. It showed
that the male partner was related to a serial killer. His g-f couldn't
handle this, and left him. Maybe she was looking for a way to split,
and this was her excuse, as the comforters on social media suggested.
But in both cases, there were facts that it was better not to know. I
have enough inherited illnesses; I don't need to know about any others.

That is the thing that DNA is most useful for -- DISproving a
relationship. But the further back you go, the less relable it is
likely to be. You can't go round exhuming old bodies just to discover
whether you are or are not related to them, and how do you know that
the body under the stone is the one whose name is on the stone anyway?

[MB]

Post by Steve Hayes
That is the thing that DNA is most useful for -- DISproving a
relationship. But the further back you go, the less relable it is
likely to be. You can't go round exhuming old bodies just to discover
whether you are or are not related to them, and how do you know that
the body under the stone is the one whose name is on the stone anyway?

A negative match can be useful. We always suspected one person born in
the early 19th Century was illegitimate. Not fairly certain this is
true because he no DNA relationship to people descended from his
"father" but is related to others through his mother.

One of the reasons that I did the test was that there are many people
with my surname in Cumberland and always wondered whether we are linked
to them. Unfortunately not found any on the various DNA sites. Most
with the name tend to be Americans claiming descent from a 17th Century
immigrant to the USA - they never seem to be descended from a humble
person who went there in the 19th Century!

[Peter]

Post by MB

Post by Steve Hayes
That is the thing that DNA is most useful for -- DISproving a
relationship. But the further back you go, the less relable it is
likely to be. You can't go round exhuming old bodies just to discover
whether you are or are not related to them, and how do you know that
the body under the stone is the one whose name is on the stone anyway?

A negative match can be useful. We always suspected one person born in
the early 19th Century was illegitimate. Not fairly certain this is
true because he no DNA relationship to people descended from his
"father" but is related to others through his mother.
One of the reasons that I did the test was that there are many people
with my surname in Cumberland and always wondered whether we are linked
to them. Unfortunately not found any on the various DNA sites. Most
with the name tend to be Americans claiming descent from a 17th Century
immigrant to the USA - they never seem to be descended from a humble
person who went there in the 19th Century!

Someone once observed that the ship the "Mayflower" had a tonnage of
20,000 tons burthen with a passenger list of 2,000. This would be to
accomadate all of the later 20th centuary claims of descent from a
passenger on board.
PeteFJ