20 March - Brad Argent, Ancestry: Genetic Communities & DNA: How you think about your origins

[Doug Laidlaw]

· Today DNA tests go beyond detailing ethnic background; they can also reveal Genetic Communities, i.e. the people, places and migration paths in your family story.

Exactly what is said here:

http://zitscomics.com/ for 28 November 2016,

and exactly why I am not interested.

Doug.

[Doug Laidlaw]

Post by Doug Laidlaw

· Today DNA tests go beyond detailing ethnic background; they can
also reveal Genetic Communities, i.e. the people, places and migration
paths in your family story.

http://zitscomics.com/ for 28 November 2016,
and exactly why I am not interested.
Doug.

Genealogy used to be about quality, about finding documentary evidence
to support claims.

Now quantity is far more important. DNA won't tell me who my ancestors
were. Only records can tell me that. But DNA can give me hundreds for
a number-cruncher to add. A person on my tree spent the money, did the
necessary, and got two contacts. An unsolicited recommendation said
that the person shared DNA with "Carthaginian Sailors" of Roman History.

MyHeritage tells me that I can add a dozen relitaves to my family tree.
It won't let me add anybody else until I have accepted all 12. But
those 12 come from a "World Family Tree," a collection of personal trees
no better than my own, and probably not as well researched. The Golden
Rules on AFTC Magazine say that we should never trust another person's
research, especially when it claims that I am a direct descendant of a
Scottish Viscount.

Sloppy research can save a lot of trouble. I contribute to the Ryerson
Index, now approaching 6 million records. They are evidence, not
guesswork. Maybe the whole team of over 100 genealogists is wasting its
time?

Doug.

[Fran]

Post by Doug Laidlaw

Post by Doug Laidlaw

· Today DNA tests go beyond detailing ethnic background; they can
also reveal Genetic Communities, i.e. the people, places and migration
paths in your family story.

http://zitscomics.com/ for 28 November 2016,
and exactly why I am not interested.
Doug.

Genealogy used to be about quality, about finding documentary evidence
to support claims.
Now quantity is far more important. DNA won't tell me who my ancestors
were. Only records can tell me that. But DNA can give me hundreds for
a number-cruncher to add. A person on my tree spent the money, did the
necessary, and got two contacts. An unsolicited recommendation said
that the person shared DNA with "Carthaginian Sailors" of Roman History.
MyHeritage tells me that I can add a dozen relitaves to my family tree.
It won't let me add anybody else until I have accepted all 12. But
those 12 come from a "World Family Tree," a collection of personal trees
no better than my own, and probably not as well researched.

Well put. As a budding genealogist many years ago, I learned never to
trust anyone else's research when given a copy of someone's work to
"help me get started". This person was said to be a "marvellous
researcher". In a pig's ear's she was! it didn't take me more that two
checks on two "facts" to throw her stuff out.

The Golden

Post by Doug Laidlaw
Rules on AFTC Magazine say that we should never trust another person's
research, especially when it claims that I am a direct descendant of a
Scottish Viscount.
Sloppy research can save a lot of trouble. I contribute to the Ryerson
Index, now approaching 6 million records. They are evidence, not
guesswork. Maybe the whole team of over 100 genealogists is wasting its
time?

Never, ever think that. A very valuable and wonderful contribution to
the world of real genealogy is the Ryerson. I 'dips me lid' to a great
team.