tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post3036200556768528301..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Thoughts on Classical and Scientific GenealogyRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-81336056244921988052011-06-22T20:58:13.320-07:002011-06-22T20:58:13.320-07:00Some bloggers are doing a great injustice to Tamar...Some bloggers are doing a great injustice to Tamara Jones by pretending that she said that genetic genealogy (she calls it biological genealogy) is a replacement for paper genealogy.<br />I don't know what source these bloggers are using, but I don't think they read her blog.<br />I've been checking out her blog posts, and Tamara's "scientific genealogy" is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what they say it is!<br />The BCG says genetic testing is "another valuable tool in our intellectual toolbox," but the Genealogical Proof Standard does not tell us how to use it.<br />What Tamara did is very interesting: she figured out a way to use DNA tests without ever contradicting your GPS conclusions!<br />Instead of one genealogy, her "scientific genealogy" has three inter-related genealogies: your genetic tree, your paper tree and one in between that links them together. It is a unintuitive yet somehow very logical solution.<br />I think this "scientific genealogy" is an intriquing concept that deserves our serious consideration, but I am not sure that I agree with her. <br />One genealogy is more than enough trouble! ;)<br /><br />L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-24323976338916624632011-06-22T15:33:54.885-07:002011-06-22T15:33:54.885-07:00When the distant legal ancestor A's DNA is not...When the distant legal ancestor A's DNA is not tested, even multiple legal cousins' well-matched DNA results is not "clear and convincing" evidence that "A" is the common ancestor. It is evidence that there probably ~is~ a common ancestor, with no surety as to who the ancestor might be. 6th-great-gran Abigail could have had a long-term relationship with a neighborhood philanderer.<br /><br />There were assuredly many times when the woman who gave birth did not know who the child's father was.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-2725455431799450062011-06-22T00:42:10.868-07:002011-06-22T00:42:10.868-07:00I would like to state that I agree with Drew's...I would like to state that I agree with Drew's statements about the nature of science (there is a reason why everything in science comes down to "theories") and George's statements about family history.<br />I also posted on this subject at http://michaelhait.wordpress.comMichael Haithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838947327022663525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-39608544913014081192011-06-20T19:00:33.981-07:002011-06-20T19:00:33.981-07:00Wow!
'Scientific' and 'traditional...Wow!<br /><br />'Scientific' and 'traditional' genealogy would, by their nature, leave so much out of my family history. Namely, the stories of the people who mean so much to me.<br /><br />If I couldn't prove - with certainty - that my relatives and my Ancestors were connected to me, that would make their stories and lives irrelevant. Ain't gonna happen; I'll tell you right now.<br /><br />If 'Scientific' and 'traditional' genealogy are the horns of dilemma on the proverbial bull's head, then I aim for 'right between the eyes' with Family History to set the soul free and put the mind at ease.<br /><br />This argument or debate is not faith-based and it would place a lot of blended and non traditional families out of the genealogical picture completely. Ain't gonna happen in my family tree.<br /><br />Peace & Blessings,<br />"Guided by the Ancestors"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-11236291464194290822011-06-20T18:59:21.484-07:002011-06-20T18:59:21.484-07:00Wow!
'Scientific' and 'traditional...Wow!<br /><br />'Scientific' and 'traditional' genealogy would, by their nature, leave so much out of my family history. Namely, the stories of the people who mean so much to me.<br /><br />If I couldn't prove - with certainty - that my relatives and my Ancestors were connected to me, that would make their stories and lives irrelevant. Ain't gonna happen; I'll tell you right now.<br /><br />If 'Scientific' and 'traditional' genealogy are the horns of dilemma on the proverbial bull's head, then I aim for 'right between the eyes' with Family History to set the soul free and put the mind at ease.<br /><br />This argument or debate is not faith-based and it would place a lot of blended and non traditional families out of the genealogical picture completely. Ain't gonna happen in my family tree.<br /><br />Peace & Blessings,<br />"Guided by the Ancestors"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-49647928037282941012011-06-20T16:42:00.152-07:002011-06-20T16:42:00.152-07:00At some future date (not within my lifetime) there...At some future date (not within my lifetime) there will be a genealogical database of mitochondrial DNA that you can use to further prove something (or contrarily disprove something). <br /><br />If you think that classical genealogy is expensive (and it is), then the proposed scientific genealogy is astronomical. Drop $400 on DNA tests for each and every ancestor, where known, or that elusive female to female descendant to prove mtDNA. Wow!Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205797878738290997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-56282152128629286862011-06-20T15:48:37.959-07:002011-06-20T15:48:37.959-07:00I saw nothing in the original question that asks u...I saw nothing in the original question that asks us to go beyond the scope of "traditional genealogy" into this so-called "scientific genealogy" Tamura talks about. His opinions about genealogy often have nothing to do with what the rest of us think of the subject; trying to redefine "vital records", saying that marriage is not a vital event, etc. Genealogy is about learning our family history and where our people come from, not the DNA they passed down. Maybe his ideas would be more welcomed among biologists because that seems to be the subject of the day. Sometimes I think he comes up with these opinions just to start arguments.Banai Lynn Feldsteinhttp://idogenealogy.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-64749197785261966132011-06-20T15:33:38.682-07:002011-06-20T15:33:38.682-07:00What Drew mentions is a principle known as Occam&#...What Drew mentions is a principle known as Occam's Razor;<br />go with the simplest explanation that fits all the facts.Tamura Joneshttp://www.tamurajones.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-31482290862271766752011-06-20T15:28:14.809-07:002011-06-20T15:28:14.809-07:00I agree with Martin and Drew. There's doubt, ...I agree with Martin and Drew. There's doubt, and there's reasonable doubt. Even our legal system identifies this, and someone must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not to 100% absolute certainty. How can we hold genealogy to a higher standard, especially when ,as has been pointed out, we can't obtain the DNA for testing beyond a couple of generations in most cases, less in some. <br /><br />That said, the issue most of us face is getting to that Reasonable Doubt place beyond the first few generations. A preponderance of the evidence will get us there, if we can find and document it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407854481964964535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-85323207969855495112011-06-20T14:56:26.070-07:002011-06-20T14:56:26.070-07:00Bravo, Randy.
I've done Y, mtDNA, and autosom...Bravo, Randy.<br /><br />I've done Y, mtDNA, and autosomal testing and so, far, haven't proved a thing. For me, DNA testing is interesting, but traditional genealogy is fun!Toniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14688040686852110671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-49453016176374888482011-06-20T14:28:16.242-07:002011-06-20T14:28:16.242-07:00I don't think that "scientific" gene...I don't think that "scientific" genealogy would require "beyond any doubt whatsoever". That's certainly not the standard for science in general.<br /><br />Rather, science requires only that there is a theory (an explanation) well supported by the evidence, and that no alternative theory is backed by equivalent (or better) evidence.<br /><br />I think the confusion here is in the use of "science" to refer to certain aspects of biology, and "science" to refer to a process of creating and supporting useful theories. They don't mean the same thing.Drew Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12537180168534039546noreply@blogger.com