Re: Exact match - so it says #dna
I have no idea what is meant by "physically documented"? Do theytoggle quoted messageShow quoted text
mean a birth record stating that "X" is the biological father? To
say that such a record is more correct that a Y-DNA test seems
pretty strange, in my opinion.
We have two project members who match 67/67, though their common
ancestor was probably born about 1670-1680 (the two men's direct
ancestors were already young adults in 1730 when they left German
(one for the U.S., and the other for Hungary) My guess is that the
common ancestor in your case probably is farther back than the
--- On Thu, 1/6/11, email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Many thanks for the responses - private and public - to my question
about a Y-DNA "exact match."
It's interesting to compare the tenor of the responses here with
the kind of discline/ground rules that one finds on the newsgroup
soc.genealogy.computing. There, most of the people swear by the
It's only a fact if something is physically documented.
With that kind of basis, it's understandable that many of them
take a skeptical view of DNA for genealogical use. As a seasoned
researcher, I tend to be sympathetic to their point of view,
hence my wish to find documentation in support of whatever a DNA
test reveals. (I have another match - not labeled as exact - but
with a person who's original surname was the same as mine - and
I'm also on the hunt to find verification of that.)