GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-01 > 0980281771


From: Alan Savin <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] A message from a skeptic
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:29:31 +0000
In-Reply-To: <3f.fa9cd47.279e6afc@aol.com>


At 00:05 23/01/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I recently posted an announcement about GENEALOGY-DNA-L on the
>soc.genealogy.methods newsgroup which elicited the response below. I'm
>forwarding it to this mailing list with the permission of the author Richard
>Pence, a cyber-friend of mine who is skeptical about the role of DNA testing
>in genealogy. I'll post some comments of my own later in a separate message,
>but I'd like to see a variety of opinions posted. Richard has subscribed to
>GENEALOGY-DNA-L but will stay in lurk mode for a while (unless of course he
>can't resist a good discussion).
>
>Ann Turner
>
>===== begin text of Richard Pence's message posted to soc.genealogy.methods:

>The author said that Prince Philip was a "descendant" of the last
>Czar of Russia (I don't think so, am I wrong?)

I did not actually say that Philip was a descendant of the Czar what I
actually said was "various descendants alive today including Prince
Philip........gave samples of their DNA which matched those of the Czar and
Czarina respectively." Look again.

>My recollection of the findings is that DNA testing was only a part
>of what was used in deciding who was in the graves. DNA testing, by
>itself, could not prove such a thing, at least at its present level
>of sophistication.

There was other evidence as well as the genetic. But as well as a common
mtDNA lineage a rare mutation called heteroplasmy was also in his mtDNA.
The odds of this mutation are many million to one. Therefore genetic
evidence alone is "beyond reasonable doubt" to use a legal phrase.


>Secondly, the article said that DNA testing "proved" that Thomas
>Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hennings' children. It did
>no such thing. What DNA testing showed - and this is all it can do
>at this point (or at least at the point the Jefferson tests were
>made) - is that Thomas Jefferson and the descendants of that slave
>descended from a common female ancestor.

Don't you mean a common MALE ancestor, it was the Y -chromosome being tested


>Which, I guess, leads me to my point: I really doubt if Brian's
>assertion that DNA testing will become an important tool for
>genealogical researchers. I simply don't think so, and for several
>reasons.
>
>First, at least at this point, DNA testing is not precise enough to
>answer the kinds of questions genealogists seek to find the answers
>to. Chasing a DNA thread can lead you up at least as many different
>trails as the knottiest genealogical puzzle already has. How do you
>know that the DNA matching evidence is actually from this person?
>You could have inherited from another widely separated person whose
>sister married an ancestor of your subject.


How do you know any genealogical evidence is of the right person. You use
it in conjunction with other collaborating evidence.


>Secondly, it seems unlikely to me that people will go around digging
>up graves as a matter of course to find out whether Titus was really
>their great grandfather. (And besides, the most elusive ancestors
>are the ones whose graves you have not found.)


No graves were dug up for the Jefferson case, the Czar's case was exceptional


>And, thirdly, it seems to me if the technology does take us to the
>level where we can determine whether this person or that person was
>an ancestor of a given person then we are in the world of a new
>science that is emphatically NOT genealogy.

But would it not still fit most people's defintion of genealogy, and
therefore still is?

I rest my case.

Alan Savin









This thread: