RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: jillruss on Sunday 18 March 18 16:33 GMT (UK)
-
I think I need input from Rootschatters with more experience than me of all that DNA tests entail. Can DNA matches prove something that lack of documentation can't?
My gt grandmother Beatrice was illegitimate. She was born in 1870 in Great Marlow, Bucks, only mother's name (Eliza) on the birth certificate. I've looked for a Bastardy Order or something similar without success and, anyway, on the 1871 census Eliza's parents were passing Beatrice off as another of their own children rather than their granddaughter so probably never asked for any official financial maintenance. Eliza would only have been 15 when she gave birth.
I had wondered if the man Eliza married 7 years later might have been the father but he was even younger so unlikely though not impossible.
When my DNA matches came in, I contacted a North American lady (Lady 1) who was managing her husband's results. There was no tree but we had a 'very high confidence' of being 4th-6th cousins. I opened my tree to her and she studied it in vain. She's obviously a lady after my own heart and doesn't give up easily. We exchanged possible locations and surnames, but all to no avail.
Then I discovered that we also shared a match ('high confidence 4th-6th cousins) with another lady from North America (Lady 2). She has a small tree on Ancestry and, when I mentoned this 3rd match and that one of her few locations in UK was Great Marlow and a chap called James Aldridge to her, the original lady replied that she had already identified that Aldridge as the match between her husband and Lady 2.
This has set me off - very excitedly - thinking that Aldridge could be my missing link and the natural father of my gt grandmother! Add to the equation that James Aldridge's son Thomas was the same age as Eliza and on the 1871 census lived less than a mile from her in Gt Marlow, I surely must be onto something?
For the experts:
My match with Lady 1's husband is 46 centimorgans across 3 DNA segments
My match with Lady 2 is 33 centimorgans across 2 DNA segments
I've tried to make the above as clear as possible. Its the first time I've tried to establish a connection purely via DNA with very little documentation - but does it stand up?
Jill
-
Can DNA matches prove something that lack of documentation can't?
I very much hope so Jill since I'm in a similar situation. I can feel the answer is sooo close but I can't prove it with a paper trail though I'm not giving up yet.
-
Thanks Jill.
Given the lack of a paper trail and the liklihood that nothing exists anyway, I'm really wondering if the DNA link can stand up on its own.
Actually, I suppose I do have some kind of a paper trail in that they lived so close to each other on the 1871 census - about 6 months after the birth.
And surely the fact that it is backed up by two different DNA matches strengthens the argument?
Its so ingrained in us to seek documental evidence that the idea of a DNA match seems quite nebulous - if that's the right word! I suppose we need to retrain our brains!!
I'm certainly going to try and follow this Aldridge line back though I doubt any more info will be relevant to my gt grandmother. First thing to ascertain is whether Thomas Aldridge emigrated to Canada with the rest of his family between 1871 and 1881. I may wander over to the Canada Board and seek assistance!!
Jill
-
Thanks Jill.
Its so ingrained in us to seek documental evidence that the idea of a DNA match seems quite nebulous - if that's the right word! I suppose we need to retrain our brains!!
Jill
And yet documentary evidence isn't a guarantee of "The truth"
My illegitimate gt grandmother was married twice. On both her marriage certificates it says
father: Edward Lane. Lighterman.
I spent ages looking for this person. I've never been able to identify him. On her birth certificate the
name of the father is left blank. Mary Ann was either told that this was her father's name or she made up his name. Either way - it doesn't appear to be the truth.
DNA matches have already started to give me more leads then I could ever find using documentation. Mary Ann was born in the workhouse and the records for the years either side of her birth are no longer extant. Even her mother, given as Hannah Lane on her birth certificate may be spurious. I'm not convinced she was called Hannah.
-
This will show what you can do with DNA results. A story making headlines today about a child left to die 80 years ago
http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-43420678
-
I think its a great question. It will draw fire from all over. I understand that is not the intention and you are seeking answers to a specific search but it goes to the heart of why people do or do not trust DNA
I have always approached my DNA search by understanding that the paper record should help confirm a match. It should never be used to deny a match, as the DNA is intrinsically inside us and the paper records can be manipulated , as noted , above.
In saying that if I have a close match , as I tend to be ambivalent (for now) those more distant matches , then I shall try and pursue the paper match and look for the connection. if I cant/dont find the connection then I dont dismiss the DNA record. To me it means my search needs to take a different approach.
I also recognise even close matches can mean a side shift in thinking. I had a match and the connection ended up being 2 sisters who emigrated to Australia at different times and started families in different states. ie the connection was their parents in Scotland.
To answer the question at its most basic. Can you prove a relationship purely through DNA? Yes of course. The proof is in the DNA connection. The provided strength will determine the level
-
I think its a great question. It will draw fire from all over. I understand that is not the intention and you are seeking answers to a specific search but it goes to the heart of why people do or do not trust DNA
I have always approached my DNA search by understanding that the paper record should help confirm a match. It should never be used to deny a match, as the DNA is intrinsically inside us and the paper records can be manipulated , as noted , above.
In saying that if I have a close match , as I tend to be ambivalent (for now) those more distant matches , then I shall try and pursue the paper match and look for the connection. if I cant/dont find the connection then I dont dismiss the DNA record. To me it means my search needs to take a different approach.
I also recognise even close matches can mean a side shift in thinking. I had a match and the connection ended up being 2 sisters who emigrated to Australia at different times and started families in different states. ie the connection was their parents in Scotland.
To answer the question at its most basic. Can you prove a relationship purely through DNA? Yes of course. The proof is in the DNA connection. The provided strength will determine the level
This is more or less the conclusion I'm slowly coming to as well but its so hard to accept when there is no documentation. The very moving story that medpat mentioned succeeded mostly because different members of the prospective family took umpteen DNA tests. Can we do it with just the one?
I like what you say about DNA not lying but documents can - by manipulation or human error. I find it amazing that a great grandfather who was lost to history has now (I hope, I think!) been found.
This is the first time I've had to take the DNA link 'on trust' and I think it might take a while to realise the effect of this radical (to me) swerve in genealogy. In 10 years people reading this thread will probably chuckle at my naivety!
Jill
In the meantime, I need to discover what happened to my 'new' great grandfather!
-
After a brickwall of over 30 years duration I think it's my only chance of proving the identity of my 3 great grandfather.
-
Funnily enough, this particular 'natural' gt grandfather was never really on my shopping list!
I wish you luck with finding your 3x gt grandfather, Redroger, I have quite a few remaining brickwalls of my own so can sympathise.
I'm sure you're a seasoned DNA researcher and know this already, but I found looking at the people who shared a particular match (assuming there are some, of course) really helpful in trying to home in on the common denominator.
Jill
-
Jill, This certainly sounds like a result. I would be tempted to enter it into your tree as a strong possibility, but seek for further evidence.
This could by researching this Aldridge person, his ancestors, descendants and siblings. Then a DNA match with one of them, who also matches those you have already found, could strengthen the connectIon.
However, if he had any brothers it could have been one of them, or even his father!
Regards Margaret
-
Hi Margaret,
It does sound like a result, doesn't it - and I am entering it into my tree, though I still have that hankering after good old fashioned documentation!!
As you rightly point out it could have been his father or even his - then - 13/14 year old younger brother (the others were definitely too young) but at least I'm happy that I have the right family. I'm wondering how easy it is to find American wills. I know Thomas died in Rochester, NY in 1919 but - really - even if he left a will, would he really have remembered the baby daughter he fathered nearly 50 years previously and presumably hadn't seen since, if ever? I doubt it.
The 2 matches I share this DNA with are both descended through siblings of Thomas Aldridge but one (Lady 2 - see my original post in this thread) has less of a match and she is descended through the younger brother, but then again, Lady 1 who has more of a match is descended through one of Thomas' sisters, so perhaps the amount of common DNA doesn't really mean much here?
-
I think I need input from Rootschatters with more experience than me of all that DNA tests entail. Can DNA matches prove something that lack of documentation can't?
snip
Jill
That depends on what you mean by prove.
Neither Paper Records nor DNA can prove the parentage of a child.
For example the paper trail assumes the husband of a mother to be the child’s father unless it can be shown he did not have access to her during the relevant period.
That is not the same as proving parentage.
In a similar way a specific DNA test (not the general ones offered by genealogy DNA companies) can show the possibility up to within 99% accuracy but again that does not prove parentage.
Cheers
Guy
-
That depends on what you mean by prove.
Neither Paper Records nor DNA can prove the parentage of a child.
For example the paper trail assumes the husband of a mother to be the child’s father unless it can be shown he did not have access to her during the relevant period.
That is not the same as proving parentage.
In a similar way a specific DNA test (not the general ones offered by genealogy DNA companies) can show the possibility up to within 99% accuracy but again that does not prove parentage.
Cheers
Guy
Do you have any thoughts on when the 2 cross over and match?
Based on your 99% argument if my mother and I match on DNA then I still shouldnt put her into my family tree. Its absurd.
-
Do you have any thoughts on when the 2 cross over and match?
Based on your 99% argument if my mother and I match on DNA then I still shouldnt put her into my family tree. Its absurd.
What is absurd is when a court appointed witness watches a mother give birth to her baby and yet DNA analysis of a sample of the baby’s DNA (taken from the baby under controlled conditions) proves the baby does not match a sample (taken from the mother under controlled conditions) of its mother’s DNA held by the court and therefore cannot be his/her mother’s baby.
If you actually read what I wrote rather than reading what you imagine I wrote you will see I did not mention what you should or not add to your family tree.
What evidence a person requires to add someone to their tree is entirely up to that person.
If (as used to happen years ago by members of the LDS Church) a person wants to add another who has the same name as there ancestor and lives in roughly the same area, which is fine by me. If a person wishes to add a lineage back to Adam and Eve that is fine by me.
That does not mean I would believe their trees but if that is what they want to do that is their right.
The point I am trying to get across in my critic of DNA results is DNA science does not provide proof.
Science such as DNA is based on theory not fact and as the science of DNA expands that theory will change and develop. What many consider as fact today may be discredited tomorrow when a new more developed theory is expounded.
To answer your first question above, to me DNA is another source which I would value about the same as a transcript, useful but not necessarily accurate.
I would use it to add weight to a deduction but at the same time would look for further “evidence” to back up or rule out a supposition.
One of the biggest problems with the way DNA is used in genealogy today is many people take a DNA test and look at the results then subconsciously make the other “evidence” they have fit the DNA results.
This is the same phenomena that occur when many people find a tree online or in a book etc. they then subconsciously (confirmation bias) make the details they know fit the details of the tree in order to be able to add that tree to their lineage.
Cheers
Guy
-
You seem to have a predisposition against DNA, Guy. Not to mention a predisposition towards pedantry!
I too was sceptical about DNA tests before I 'gave in' and took the test, and, actually, for a while after the results came in. However, I am changing my mind the more fellow testers I contact and discover that the DNA does not lie. The latest is a lady connected (2x gt grandmothers are sisters) by the name Jones! I mean - JONES - that must be some achievement eh, even in your sceptical eyes!?
Have you considered testing yourself in an attempt to support your argument? You may be pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised.
Nothing personal intended - I believe in free speech and your right to your opinion. :-*
Jill
-
DNA by itself is unlikely to 'prove' your latest DNA discovery, Jill. It still needs careful research to back it up fully. But part of that careful research can include circumstantial evidence of likely places and people, as well as the DNA evidence.
After all, if you go back in your tree before census and civil registration began, your evidence is nearly always circumstantial. Mary Smith was born c 1820 in X, Kent and is living with her parents, John (a baker) and Mary Smith. Look at parish registers for X, Kent - a Mary Smith was baptised there in Sep 1819, parents John (a baker) and Mary Smith.
John Smith married Mary Brown in Y, Kent in Mar 1819.
Is this your Mary, or another Mary? Is this her parent's marriage, or is it of another couple?
In this case, with the common surnames, it is just as likely to be incorrect - with more unusual names you can be more certain. But was Mary pregnant by another man before they married?
DNA can help you 'prove' whether it is correct or not. It is another tool to help verify your paper trail, not something which can be used independently. As I said before, enter him provisionally (which you have done!) and research him backwards, forwards and sidewards, see in the coming years whether other DNA matches strengthen or weaken the connectIon.
And document your uncertainties, if you have a public tree someone is bound to copy it as fact!
Regards Margaret
-
DNA by itself is unlikely to 'prove' your latest DNA discovery, Jill. It still needs careful research to back it up fully. But part of that careful research can include circumstantial evidence of likely places and people, as well as the DNA evidence.
After all, if you go back in your tree before census and civil registration began, your evidence is nearly always circumstantial. Mary Smith was born c 1820 in X, Kent and is living with her parents, John (a baker) and Mary Smith. Look at parish registers for X, Kent - a Mary Smith was baptised there in Sep 1819, parents John (a baker) and Mary Smith.
John Smith married Mary Brown in Y, Kent in Mar 1819.
Is this your Mary, or another Mary? Is this her parent's marriage, or is it of another couple?
In this case, with the common surnames, it is just as likely to be incorrect - with more unusual names you can be more certain. But was Mary pregnant by another man before they married?
DNA can help you 'prove' whether it is correct or not. It is another tool to help verify your paper trail, not something which can be used independently. As I said before, enter him provisionally (which you have done!) and research him backwards, forwards and sidewards, see in the coming years whether other DNA matches strengthen or weaken the connectIon.
And document your uncertainties, if you have a public tree someone is bound to copy it as fact!
Regards Margaret
I have been doing this for well over a decade and am well aware of research methods and no stranger to archives and the various websites. I know when I've done all the research into a brickwall as I can. Of course I'm researching the Aldridges backwards, forwards and sideways. Yes, I agree, the future might bring up something at present unforeseeable. I am using DNA as an additional tool.
-
I realise this, Jill, no criticism intended of your research skills. :)
I was intending to indicate to Guy that DNA testing is just part of the tools we can use these days to help us 'confirm' and back up our research - or on the other hand can indicate that we may have made an error.
Regards Margaret
-
Genetic testing should be just considered another form of genealogical evidence. This evidence should be used in conjunction with other available traditional genealogical source records. I think a lot of people think that DNA technology will allow people to immediately find their lines - but their is almost always many steps involved which take time to analyze and research.
There is no doubt that some DNA tests are far superior to traditional genealogical research such as paternity tests (if done under court control as they are always done). These are way above 99.9999 % accurate and no probate record will ever approach this level of accuracy since humans are involved in creating these records (who always their own interests biasing their input). But paternity testing is an extremely limited genealogical test of father/child of living individuals.
The future of YDNA testing is extremely bright - depending on how many actually test. There are now 4,500 known YSTRs and we are approaching 1,000,000 YSNP mutations. It is estimated that every father to son will have 20 to 100 unique mutations per generation. But using all this information would really require almost everyone to test - not likely to happen as we know that not all of our cousins care about their family history that much.
The future of atDNA testing is also quite bright as well - since its very low cost and the wide net that it throws across your entire pedigree chart. Several million atDNA tests are getting be a pretty decent sample size (but most are not genealogists - it was just an impulse purchase to test medical information or geographical origins).
My parents and I have been avid genealogists - compiling nine 600 page family histories over a 30 year period - 58,000 cousins. Only a few months ago, I had a match and they challenged a marriage of two of my most elusive ancestors (surname of Hill and the person changed his first name). She sent her version where my maternal ancestor married somebody else but revealed two new ancestors for my ancestor chart - I only knew her maiden name was Reed. So with only 30 minutes of time, I sent her three death certificates of their listing her name as the mother, my ancestor as the father - different from their research. She spent 30 minutes giving me the parents of this maternal ancestor that I can document via traditional genealogy.
-
Hello jillruss,
These two ladies are 4-6th cousins, which mean you are looking for a link 5-7 generations ago (or even further, since this is based on probability estimates rather than hard and fast boundaries). Your hypothetical great grandmother's father is only 4 generations ago, so you may still be looking for a link 3 generations or more back. This might be a link through her non-paternal line, considering your ancestor and theirs' lived in the same area (i.e. your gt grand mother's mother).
DNA can be baffling. I'm sure you know that 7 generations back gives you 128 lines of descent (and the link could be still further back again). These two ladies could share a common Aldridge ancestor with each other (how far back is that ancestor?) but also relate to you on one or more separate lines not connected to their Aldridge common line or to each other. It could be just coincidence.
I am constructing my own DNA hypothetical tree based on DNA matches with over a dozen people in the US who all descend from different children of a common ancestor who emmigrated from the UK in the 1860s. I have no paper trail to show how I relate to them (somewhere in the estimate of two or three generations beforehand) and I'm hoping to someday find some DNA matches in the UK that match with the US lines in order to hone down the connection.
The only real way forward with your search is to find more DNA matches. Dealing with distant cousins, the more DNA matches you find who match each other and have a known common ancestor through separate lines, then the greater likelihood there is that their common ancestor is your relative.
I hope you find some answers.
-
You seem to have a predisposition against DNA, Guy. Not to mention a predisposition towards pedantry!
I too was sceptical about DNA tests before I 'gave in' and took the test, and, actually, for a while after the results came in. However, I am changing my mind the more fellow testers I contact and discover that the DNA does not lie. The latest is a lady connected (2x gt grandmothers are sisters) by the name Jones! I mean - JONES - that must be some achievement eh, even in your sceptical eyes!?
Have you considered testing yourself in an attempt to support your argument? You may be pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised.
Nothing personal intended - I believe in free speech and your right to your opinion. :-*
Jill
Jill I have had a deep interest and followed developments in the science of DNA since I heard that the NHGRI had sequenced human DNA back in 2003.
I also realise that although it is claimed that the human genome has been “completely sequenced I also understand that this is not accurate and there are actually gaps in the sequence which may or may not have a bearing on the results.
I also understand that DNA may be used as a tool in genealogical research as I have stated in other postings, however the question posed in this thread was -
I think I need input from Rootschatters with more experience than me of all that DNA tests entail. Can DNA matches prove something that lack of documentation can't?
The answer to that is no, DNA cannot prove something that lack of documentation can't.
It can give and indication or point the way to enable someone to draw a conclusion but it cannot prove it.
If you can be bothered to look at all of my postings on the subject of DNA you will see I have never claimed DNA lies.
If you can be bothered to look at all of my postings on the subject of DNA you will see I have stated that DNA may be used as a tool in genealogical research.
You will also see that I have stated the further back one goes with ones research there is less and less chance of a specific ancestor actually donating DNA to any particular living person. In other words the further back you go the more of your ancestors drop out of the “gene pool”.
Yes you can say I am pedantic but that is due to me studying a subject and developing a deep understanding in things that interest me to enable me to evaluate them.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy, I confess to having read some of your posts on DNA - probably not all - hence my conclusion about your views on the subject.
I don't doubt for one moment that you have read more than I have on the subject and I know from other posts that you are a deep thinking person with your own opinions. I respect that - I'm quite opinionated myself!
Having said that, DNA research may be in its infancy and flawed but at the moment its all we've got over and above the conventional methods. I too was deeply sceptical but ventured to 'put a toe into the water' and am reasonably happy with the results -so far. I hope I will be able to see through any glaring errors in the same way that I would if e.g. it was blatantly obvious that a parish clerk had made an error in a parish register or, as happened with a marriage certificate for one set of my gt grandparents, their names had been transposed; or another where the names of the fathers had been transposed. You get my point - nothing is perfect (nor probably ever will be), but we still use these tools in our genealogical research because they're there and because we can.
I hope one day you give it a whirl!!
Best,
Jill
-
Thanks Jill
-
Many new technologies are viewed with suspicion and are often viewed as inferior to "the old ways" but rapidly become acceptable.
Then there comes a point where we can't imagine how people actually managed without!