Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just the facts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jim Barrett View Post
    Of these 7 matches, have they tested to 67 markers? If so you might want to upgrade to see if the match still holds up.



    If the admin has taken advantage of the material provided by FTDNA it is easy for the admin to set up a public website and group the project members based on Haplogroup and/or other information. It provides a modal value for each group. If the project surname is your surname and since you do have matches with other project members I'm sure you do belong in the project. As I stated before you probably do share a common ancestor with other members of the group. I don't know how he can be certain you descend from one of three men and not some ancestor of theirs unless there is an unusual mutation that the group has that doesn't show up before these three brothers.



    If you have said, I missed where your paternal line is from. With mentions of "immigrant brothers that came to Pennsylvania in 1682" you should be able to trace your line back from your grandfather using census records. We have census records taken every 10 years, 1890 missing, back to 1850 that list family members. Your "local" public library may have free access to these. Do a little research on your own. Go back as far as you can then contact the members you match. See if they can connect to the ancestor you find.
    I have trouble understanding what the Admin means sometimes. I copied and pasted an email he sent me. I only removed our last name so as to remain private.


    Hi *******

    There's no doubt whatsoever that you belong in the project, and are descended from the Chester County, Pa., family represented in the project's Cluster 4.

    The only question is whether you descend from the immigrant brother Thomas through his son Joseph, as ********* found most probable but by no means certain, or whether your descent is instead through another John in North Carolina, from the line of the immigrant brother Francis, which now appears more likely than it may have earlier, based on the value 19 you have at marker YCA-IIa, and which is characteristic of all known Francis descendants.

    The problem is that the right ********* have not yet been tested to determine whether the marker change from 19 to 17 first occurred in Thomas himself, or didn't appear until his son Anthony, all of whose known ******** descendants carry it. If it was present in Thomas, then the Joseph to whom your line is now attributed would also have carried it. That would rule out descent of your "19" line from him--but we just don't know yet.

    For further testing we need a ******** descended from either Thomas's sons Thomas (twin to Joseph) or William, or from a line more certainly descended from Joseph than yours is..

    Sorry I can't be more definite at this point. I'm currently preparing an article on where we are for the Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, hoping it might inspire other ********* to be tested who can help put the questions to rest.

    Comment


    • #32
      There are several of my matches that are tested at 67 or 111 markers. But im only tested at 37. There are many last names in our project. There are even several last names in the cluster I am in.

      Comment


      • #33
        [QUOTE= quote removed [/QUOTE]



        Im talking about on the YDNA project list and the emails they send back and forth. Not on this public forum.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 507 View Post
          There's no doubt whatsoever that you belong in the project, and are descended from the Chester County, Pa., family represented in the project's Cluster 4.

          The only question is whether you descend from the immigrant brother Thomas through his son Joseph, as ********* found most probable but by no means certain, or whether your descent is instead through another John in North Carolina, from the line of the immigrant brother Francis, which now appears more likely than it may have earlier, based on the value 19 you have at marker YCA-IIa, and which is characteristic of all known Francis descendants.

          The problem is that the right ********* have not yet been tested to determine whether the marker change from 19 to 17 first occurred in Thomas himself, or didn't appear until his son Anthony, all of whose known ******** descendants carry it. If it was present in Thomas, then the Joseph to whom your line is now attributed would also have carried it. That would rule out descent of your "19" line from him--but we just don't know yet.

          For further testing we need a ******** descended from either Thomas's sons Thomas (twin to Joseph) or William, or from a line more certainly descended from Joseph than yours is..

          Sorry I can't be more definite at this point. I'm currently preparing an article on where we are for the Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine, hoping it might inspire other ********* to be tested who can help put the questions to rest.
          Okay, I'm beginning to understand. As I suggested before, maybe there was a difference in results that was making him place you where he has. If most of the group matches at 37 or 67 markers and only a few have the value of 19 for YCA-IIa then it is logical to assume your more recent ancestors are in the group with that value.

          I don't think he is trying to get you to order anything. He is saying that more people from the lines need to be tested to be sure when/where this change occurred. This is a common method used in genetic genealogy. If you know of fourth or fifth cousins then they could be good additions to the project. From what you have told me you don't know these people.

          If I were your admin I would suggest two things. Number 1, and the most important in my opinion, would be to work on your paper trail. Dig into census records. Depending on where your family was located look for birth and death records, look for obits, look for deeds, look for church records and look for estate records. Number 2 would be to upgrade to 67 markers. Watch for a sale and do the upgrade then. I believe April 20 is DNA Day. There might be a one day sale then. Go to your myFTDNA website and click on the button near the top right for ordering additional test. See what the upgrade would cost today and do it again on April 20 to see if the price has changed. Watch this forum. Any time there is a sale someone mentions it somewhere in the forum. Since I'm not your admin I'll suggest one other thing - give your admin a break - I don't think he/she is trying to mislead you or rip you off.

          Comment


          • #35
            I agree about the paper trail. The thing that makes it so difficult is that names are so common. There are likely 50 people with my grandfathers name in my state alone, not counting the whole US. But i feel like he is a good starting point since i am fairly confident he was my grandfather. If i suspected someone to be my second or third cousin , is there a test that could prove that ?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 507 View Post
              I agree about the paper trail. The thing that makes it so difficult is that names are so common. There are likely 50 people with my grandfathers name in my state alone, not counting the whole US. But i feel like he is a good starting point since i am fairly confident he was my grandfather. If i suspected someone to be my second or third cousin , is there a test that could prove that ?
              Autosomal tests find all 2nd cousins and > 90% of 3rd cousins. Family Finder would do that. Half second and half third cousins of course would share less DNA and the prob of finding them would go down so just need to keep that in mind if they're half not full.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by katerennie4 View Post
                Autosomal tests find all 2nd cousins and > 90% of 3rd cousins. Family Finder would do that. Half second and half third cousins of course would share less DNA and the prob of finding them would go down so just need to keep that in mind if they're half not full.

                So if both me and the other person took the family finder test then FTDNA could tell us for certain that we share a great grandparent ?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 507 View Post
                  So if both me and the other person took the family finder test then FTDNA could tell us for certain that we share a great grandparent ?
                  If you share 2 great-grandparents, the chance of them detecting the relationship is over 99%. If you share 2 great-great grandparents the chance of them detecting the relationship is about 90%. If you just share 1 great-grandparent, the % is probably about a 95% chance Family Finder will detect the relationship. Not foolproof, but very good odds.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 507 View Post
                    I agree about the paper trail. The thing that makes it so difficult is that names are so common. There are likely 50 people with my grandfathers name in my state alone, not counting the whole US. But i feel like he is a good starting point since i am fairly confident he was my grandfather. If i suspected someone to be my second or third cousin , is there a test that could prove that ?
                    I understand the problems, but knowing the year of birth will narrow that down a lot. Do you have copies of birth and death certificates for your father and his father?

                    If you stay with all male lines the Y-DNA test will give you a very strong indication of a shared common ancestor but it will not tell you how far back.

                    Family Finder doesn't require the "all male line". It will provide a probable degree of relationship, but will not tell you through which line.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 507 View Post
                      I believe there are more inaccurate family trees floating around out there on the internet than accurate family trees. I have been tested at 37 markers, My predicted haplogroup is I2b1, and i have very few concrete facts to start a family tree on my paternal side. I'm fairly certain of my father and grandfather but not much past that. What is the best way to get started ? Not using speculation and guess work. Just facts. How much can DNA testing really do ?
                      As a long time genealogist, single surname researcher, I would tell you to do the genealogical paper trail research yourself and not rely on any of the family trees that have been published online.

                      When the paper trail research has been done correctly on your tree, does the
                      DNA testing make so much more sense to you!
                      I have 4th and 6th cousins Y DNA tested from my tree and proven to be a genetic match to me. When you do the paper trail research correctly on your family tree, then it does not matter which male cousin from any branch of the tree is being tested, and does not matter if he is a 1st cousin or 10th cousin, all the men of that surname from your tree should ALL be a Y DNA match to one another.

                      And when I say the tree being done correctly means you have done the reseach and collected every possible paper record on every individual from that tree and have copies of those records in YOUR hands as your proof of kinship!

                      Here is a little trick that I do. When I find trees online and I want to see if that tree author is a serious genealogist or a name collector, I will email that tree author and ask them for a random record from that tree.
                      If that tree author replies that he / she does not have copies of that specific record, then they are a name collector not a genealogist / family tree historian.

                      9 times out of 10 when I email any family tree author who has published or republished a tree online, I find they do not have copies of the records in their hands, telling me they are name collectors not genealogists / famliy tree historians.

                      A good genealogist / family tree historian will have all their paper records scanned in to digital format and will be able to email you a copy of any specific record when asked of them. Most genealogists are willing to share, not all but most will if they have those records in hand.

                      Let me put it this way, I have nearly 700 birth, marriage, death certificates on my Lock tree, and when I am asked for a copy I can in a moments notice send that individual a digital copy of any one of those records.
                      When I email those family tree authors, 9 times out of 10 I am told they do not have such records, making them a name collector not a serious genealogist / family tree historian. They copy and steal from everyone else and are not a true genealogist in any sense of the term.

                      Do the paper trail research yourself so you know it is being done right the first time.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Here is a free web site that has millions of vital records databases and digital copies of the records that you can get started with.

                        https://familysearch.org/

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Be Careful With Family Search.

                          Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
                          Here is a free web site that has millions of vital records databases and digital copies of the records that you can get started with.

                          https://familysearch.org/

                          Yes, the vital records are helpful, however, the IGI records are just plain useless which are filed by the Mormon missionaries in haste to fulfill their obligations.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Zaru View Post
                            Yes, the vital records are helpful, however, the IGI records are just plain useless which are filed by the Mormon missionaries in haste to fulfill their obligations.
                            In using familysearch you need to differentiate between the information uploaded from users' trees (dubious quality) and the scanned and transcribed vital records (high quality). They have a high volume of original records scanned and use reliable transcribers so there is a lot of useful information on there if you know how to find it. Their search engine can be irritating though.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
                              As a long time genealogist, single surname researcher, I would tell you to do the genealogical paper trail research yourself and not rely on any of the family trees that have been published online.

                              When the paper trail research has been done correctly on your tree, does the
                              DNA testing make so much more sense to you!
                              I have 4th and 6th cousins Y DNA tested from my tree and proven to be a genetic match to me. When you do the paper trail research correctly on your family tree, then it does not matter which male cousin from any branch of the tree is being tested, and does not matter if he is a 1st cousin or 10th cousin, all the men of that surname from your tree should ALL be a Y DNA match to one another.

                              And when I say the tree being done correctly means you have done the reseach and collected every possible paper record on every individual from that tree and have copies of those records in YOUR hands as your proof of kinship!

                              Here is a little trick that I do. When I find trees online and I want to see if that tree author is a serious genealogist or a name collector, I will email that tree author and ask them for a random record from that tree.
                              If that tree author replies that he / she does not have copies of that specific record, then they are a name collector not a genealogist / family tree historian.

                              9 times out of 10 when I email any family tree author who has published or republished a tree online, I find they do not have copies of the records in their hands, telling me they are name collectors not genealogists / famliy tree historians.

                              A good genealogist / family tree historian will have all their paper records scanned in to digital format and will be able to email you a copy of any specific record when asked of them. Most genealogists are willing to share, not all but most will if they have those records in hand.

                              Let me put it this way, I have nearly 700 birth, marriage, death certificates on my Lock tree, and when I am asked for a copy I can in a moments notice send that individual a digital copy of any one of those records.
                              When I email those family tree authors, 9 times out of 10 I am told they do not have such records, making them a name collector not a serious genealogist / family tree historian. They copy and steal from everyone else and are not a true genealogist in any sense of the term.

                              Do the paper trail research yourself so you know it is being done right the first time.
                              I appreciate your input and advice. I have death certificates and birth certificates of several ancestors. Pictures. Letters. Power bills. Land deeds. Bibles. Census records. But my point is that none of this proves anything. They are records that can be very very flawed. I am also somewhat dissapointed in the YDNA test I took because i wanted Concrete evidence. Facts. Not speculation. I have 2 exact matches on 37 markers and about 8 or 9 matches on 36 of 37 markers. Several have my last name but several don't. None are from anywhere around my part of the country either. I am from Georgia. All my matches are from Pennsylvania or the Pennsylvania area. But the project coordinator keeps insisting I belong in the project and he knows for certain who I am descended from based on the YDNA test results.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 507 View Post
                                I appreciate your input and advice. I have death certificates and birth certificates of several ancestors. Pictures. Letters. Power bills. Land deeds. Bibles. Census records. But my point is that none of this proves anything. They are records that can be very very flawed.
                                I guess I do not understand your reasoning, there is no better evidence then the vital records, birth, marriage, death records.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X