tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post3208847564099311122..comments2024-02-29T06:03:35.483-05:00Comments on Canada's Anglo-Celtic Connections: Thoughts on browsing "Mastering Genealogical Proof"JDRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06471656063812824731noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-3379033814424853112013-12-22T21:27:06.024-05:002013-12-22T21:27:06.024-05:00Edward: I recognize your point and could better ha...Edward: I recognize your point and could better have phrased it as "what other kinship possibility would you suggest except biological mother and child" JDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06471656063812824731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-75932237410661690292013-12-22T20:53:15.783-05:002013-12-22T20:53:15.783-05:00Dan: As I understand it, it would depend on whethe...Dan: As I understand it, it would depend on whether the twins were dizygotic (fraternal)or monozygotic (identical). With fraternal twins you'd expect on average to find 25% sharing with an aunt. With identical twins a traditional autosomal test might not be able to distinguish which twin was the mother. I recently saw an article that found a few SNPs were different even between identical JDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06471656063812824731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-30725571575665801442013-12-22T19:19:34.703-05:002013-12-22T19:19:34.703-05:00John: While extremely remote, couldn't the rel...John: While extremely remote, couldn't the relationship in the case you described possibly be aunt and niece/nephew? The supposed mother could have a twin sister. While I agree with the point you make about incorporating DNA into any type of "Genealogy Proof Standard," I think Tony's point is that even with DNA the result is presented as a degree of confidence level rather than Dan Stonehttp://www.danstone.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-47439655018292167102013-12-22T18:30:56.215-05:002013-12-22T18:30:56.215-05:00"what other kinship possibility would you sug..."what other kinship possibility would you suggest except mother and child" ... well, you have not considered the whole concept of adoption. Marriage is a legal contract and we say it makes a family. Adoption is also a legal contact, and believe me it makes a family. There are plenty of women who have never laid eyes on their DNA, never held their DNA in their arms, never taught theirEdward Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11683538091981892955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-45404898492051594962013-12-19T08:47:06.612-05:002013-12-19T08:47:06.612-05:00Tony: If two people match exactly in mitochondrial...Tony: If two people match exactly in mitochondrial DNA and have identical DNA across one of each 22 autosomal pair what other kinship possibility would you suggest except mother and child?JDRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06471656063812824731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-12964529175959320562013-12-19T08:01:41.475-05:002013-12-19T08:01:41.475-05:00I agree with the terminology surrounding "pro...I agree with the terminology surrounding "proof", but not with the suggestion that DNA evidence can prove kinship. Just as with other forms of evidence, it can support a claim of kinship, and even allow a level of confidence to be attached to it, but it does not constitute a proof. On the other hand, it can certainly disprove kinship when there is none. This is the nature of scientific Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-14988143865145274952013-12-18T07:52:05.440-05:002013-12-18T07:52:05.440-05:00An excellent critique of a glaring problem in our ...An excellent critique of a glaring problem in our industry. I've said it before in other forums: Words Matter. <br /><br />The use of the word "proof" in genealogy has always given me pause. My degree is in Biology. In science, medicine and law, the term “proof” has been so thoroughly bastardized in the layman's mind as to be useless as a stamp of accuracy/reliability. <br /><brAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08541316737018192375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-5624919265050148422013-12-16T09:58:29.953-05:002013-12-16T09:58:29.953-05:00John,
I couldn't agree more about your point ...John,<br /><br />I couldn't agree more about your point re: DNA. DNA is far too prevalent - and powerful - to leave out of any discussion on GPS. <br /><br />But, I'm predicting that 2014 will be the year that the "DNA and the Genealogical Proof Standard" revolution begins. For example, see Debbie Parker Wayne's <a href="http://www.gripitt.org/?page_id=1147" rel="nofollow"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16196130606969369791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24066635.post-54123459482014826342013-12-16T03:14:30.500-05:002013-12-16T03:14:30.500-05:00The word "proof" is deeply problematic a...The word "proof" is deeply problematic as a description of the kinds of inferences drawn by family historians from oral and documentary records.<br /><br />Many of us understand the word to connote mathematical rigor. For example, most scientists, trained in mathematical thinking, shrink from ever asserting that a scientific theory has been proven (although disproof is entirely possiblePaul and Ronahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06693390677398282474noreply@blogger.com