Can you prove a relationship purely through DNA?

[sugarfizzle]

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

[jillruss]

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?

[Guy Etchells]

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

[DavidG02]

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.

[Guy Etchells]

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

[jillruss]

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

[sugarfizzle]

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

[jillruss]

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.

[sugarfizzle]

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