define confident vs dna proof

Question

I'm finding it hard to convince others that connections are strong based on volume of circumstantial evidence.  Basically, to me, it means place, time, association with others and ruling out or in based on the these circumstances - over the their lives.  Makes a voluminous profile which can be boring, but I feel confident.  I'm trying to go by the  E. S Mills process.  

What are wiki's  thoughts?  Thanks!!

PS the profile below is a mess right now, am getting it back together at the advice of a colleague.

Answer 1

I have a few thoughts.

First, the DNA confirmed button is pointless really, imho. DNA is one part of the evidence in a proof argument. It can prove some sort of genetic relationship but almost never the precise nature of that relationship. To me, a DNA confirmed button is as pointless as a census confirmed button, even triangulation, which is often just stacking anyway.

Second, "confident" is a qualitative judgment. Some people are convinced with a single paper record, others want to see a baby actually being born to be convinced. With more distant ancestors, all most of us really have are strong circumstantial arguments.

However, the fact that you've actually built a proof is more than 99% of people have done and if anyone wants to debate you on the confident button then they had better provide some negative evidence or a well-reasoned counter-interpretation of the data.

Third, I'm not really sure a profile is a proper place for a whole proof argument. I'm not saying that it's not - I'm just sometimes unsure at what point the profile becomes too bulky and unreadable. I have some profiles where I break it down much as you do but others where my proof is a couple dozen pages with maps and diagrams and arguments and I'm not sure the best way to reference it.

Comments

DNA confirmed button is pointless?

If the son of a father in a legal marriage does not have the same group in their shared YDNA profiles but the boy has the same YDNA on a 111 marker test as the mailman, you can know with exact certainty that mom had an affair with the mailman.

There are dozens of scenarios wherein DNA can prove, beyond any doubt, of ancestry.

---

That is negative evidence that would need to be addressed in a proof. However, that is DNA disproving a relationship, not DNA proving a relationship.

But DNA can only prove very close relationships beyond any doubt, such as parent-child, or prove a range of genetic relationships that would require additional paper records. However, once you get 3 or 4 generations distant, the possible range of relationships is huge and DNA is simply one more piece of evidence.

Don't mistake my comment as suggesting DNA is useless; it is very useful. The DNA Confirmed button is useless, imo.

---

I'm not talking about proving paternity with the husband, I'm saying you can prove paternity with the mailman.

DNA can also PROVE distant relationships - one can prove that they descended from their 5x paternal great grandfather, 10x, or 15x.  It can also be used to prove direct male links back to a common ancestor.

---

Certainly, parent-child relationships are easy to prove with autosomal DNA. No argument from me. Get the mailman and child to both take tests and you know beyond any doubt.

If the mailman is your 3x great-grandfather, though, it gets trickier. Did he have brothers or cousins with means and opportunity? Perhaps the husband and mailman were actually brothers and the NPE was a generation back. You need to explain the evidence and support it. The DNA alone proves nothing.

Y-DNA might be able to provide absolute corroboration from a specific male ancestor if you were to do significant SNP testing on multiple descendants on various male branches and can create a convincing tree. However, almost no one has that level of detail in a genealogical timeframe. Instead, they have a distant cousin match and, with a corroborating paper trail, they can make a case that they share a specific male relative. Without a corroborating paper trail, they can only make the case that they have a common male ancestor within some range of generations.  

Autosomal DNA can prove a genetic relationship but, except for parent-child relationships, can never prove direct descent without corroborating evidence.

If you want to use DNA confirmed as simply "I have DNA evidence" then that's fine. I just don't see the value in it.

---

If we argue semantics, we can argue that almost nothing can be proven.  A high marker Y DNA test can prove ancestry to one of the males in the line, clearly my 3x great grandfather isn't around, if only the mailman is and he has no siblings and his father is dead, he's it, 100%

"Y-DNA might be able to provide absolute corroboration from a specific male ancestor if you were to do significant SNP testing on multiple descendants on various male branches and can create a convincing tree. However, almost no one has that level of detail in a genealogical timeframe."

That might have been true 20 years ago, but not true today.  There are quit a few YDNA groups that have corroborated and disproved many lines using SNP testing on THOUSANDS of suspected and known descendants.

---

Exellent points; there does, however, have to be an acceptable international standard for genealogical research. I find many associations today trying to set their own standards and technical procedures and we will not benefit from that in the long run.

---

Thanks, Davis, I think you got he point of my concern - doing the best I can to come as close to proof by writing and linking to sources OR showing pictures when possible.  The length is the issue and bulkiness making it too boring to read.  I agree with your thoughts.

Best of all, for those who take this seriously, you are holding a calm, reassuring stance on "the best is yet to come" and "hang in there."

I had no plan to get into the DNA issue. I do use Board of Certified Genealogists standards and ES Mills and all my personally chosen testers have proved out in DNA to the extent they can, all at Big Y-500.  There are still "discussions" yet and probably always will be.

A profile is a wonderful thing to see by descendants coming after us and we need to make it presentable even with the proof links.

All of these answers hold good information and shows we all care to do the best we can.

---

This is all semantics, of course, but I'm not suggesting that nothing can be proven. I'm saying that DNA is simply another piece of evidence, that needs to be weighed along with other evidence. I've debated a couple relationships that people claimed are "proven" because of a DNA match.

Yes, if the mailman has no siblings and it was not possible for his father to be the parent of either your 3x or 4x great-grandfather then the mailman it is. However, that is using corroborating evidence and argument.

And you'll have to show me on the Big Tree where there is a tree in the genealogical timeframe, where the DNA alone proves an ancestor. I use a Y-DNA test to prove my 8x great-grandfather myself, certainly. But I also use a land indenture where he refers to my 7x great-grandfather as his son. Otherwise, it would be hard to know for sure. Did Jefferson father those children or did his nephew? They needed to make an argument for Jefferson based on available records.

I also use an autosomal DNA network as evidence in a proof for a 5x great-grandfather and a network for my wife's 7x great-grandparents.

I think in all these cases, DNA is an important or even critical part of the proof. Here, though, I can only use DNA confirmed for the Y-DNA because they decided DNA networks aren't "confirmation".

Again, I'm simply questioning the value of saying that DNA proves anything. DNA is a single piece of evidence.

---

Hi Barbara,

The DNA debate I'm having here is a bit nitpicky and probably not worth having since I'm mostly annoyed by a silly button. :)

As an aside, I had a profile where a cousin took issue with the relationship and I provided him a rough draft of my proof, which like your profile relies a lot on a preponderance of indirect evidence from primary sources and DNA, and he's a grudgingly satisfied now. If I did have my proof attached to the profile, I could have avoided the debate but, on the upside, I did get to meet a distant cousin who knew a lot of cool stuff!

---

You can't beat that!!  Have a great day!

---

"Third, I'm not really sure a profile is a proper place for a whole proof argument. I'm not saying that it's not - I'm just sometimes unsure at what point the profile becomes too bulky and unreadable. I have some profiles where I break it down much as you do but others where my proof is a couple dozen pages with maps and diagrams and arguments and I'm not sure the best way to reference it."

I would say that you want to provide enough evidence/explanation to satisfy a reasonable person of the correctness of your factual assertions, but make it as brief as possible. If doing so would would be lengthy and is already provided in an existing source, just reference the existing source. If doing so would be lengthy and and does not already exist, consider creating a free space page for it and referencing that free space page from the profile.

---

Chase, You have just answered the question regarding what the purpose of a free space profile is.  Will try that.  Do others add to it, though and make it more bulky?

Re: free space.  I have a free space profile where I hold tons of photos, images that I link into the middle of the profiles. Its for my own personal use for numerous surnames  That's the only free space I use.  Someone put a PDF in it which didn't make sense to me?  Different surname altogether.  Am I missing the point of free space pages?

Thanks for answering,

Barb

---

Barb - I have used freespace pages to: (1) Hold a transcription of a long original source for which an existing transcription didn't exist - eg one that is relevant to a number of people. (2) Hold a debunking of a popular family legend related to several different profiles. In each case, the purpose was to make textual material (versus an image) publicly available which is too long to be desirable to put in each relevant profile.

Here's an example of the second one. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:The_Legend_of_the_Ashley_Brothers

---

Perfect answer and explanation. I will start working on that.  THis has been a most interesting line of conversation, very valuable.  THe story of Lady Jane and John and William was cute!  Yes, sounds very familiar. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and thanks!  Barb

Answer 2

Accumulation of circumstantial evidence can be noted in genealogical research and is only a small factor in the overall "standard of proof". It is not, because of the volume of information, the overriding accepted standard. Primary evidence is the overall controlling factor in acceptable genealogical research. You should check with your local or national genealogical association for the accepted definition of " standard of proof. "

Comments

According to this series of articles on Family Search, the "genealogical standard of proof" does not necessarily determine whether a connection certain or uncertain. It is instead a standard for conducting research and coming to a conclusion. You can fully comply with the "genealogical standard of proof" and still come to the conclusion that the relationship is uncertain. https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/genealogicalproofstandardpart1/?icid=bl-rt-4530

---

That is true Chase; but I was responding to a specific suggestion that a connection based on only time, place and association constitutes an acceptable conclusion or specific link, and that would be wrong. I would rather stick with international standards than the interpretation of a particular company like Family Search. You can refer to many websites that have widely varying ideas.

---

Thank you Chase for that link. I just looked at it and now, by Davis and you and other, I am feeling safer about what I have done. DNA is a conversation I've decided not to become too involved with as I know I will never be able to interpret it exactly as I am not a geneticist, although I worked for 15 years in the area of hematology as a licensed medical employee.

Devil's  in the details.   Thanks to all!!  

Answer 3

Here's the wikitree link for Certain/Uncertain:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Uncertain

Basically, a data field should be marked as certain only if you are confident that the information in the data field is correct based on reliable evidence.

Here's the wikitree link for "Confident":

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Confident

This is the only level between Uncertain and Confirmed with DNA, so it can cover a broad range of levels of genealogical certainty, including when there is DNA evidence to support a genealogical conclusion but it doesn't meet the defined standards for using Confirmed with DNA.

Confident is intended to be a non-specific middle level between the specifically-defined Uncertain and Confirmed with DNA levels. The community should define the types of sources that would make a relationship Uncertain or Confirmed with DNA, but defining all the sources that could make a relationship Confident would be nearly impossible since it has to cover everything in between.