As I said before I do not understand all I know about DNA! I know just
enough to be dangerous. I bought 2 books on the subject (one the Idiot's Guide)
but have not learned much from just staring at the covers! Having said that I
will say this: My concern is not so much making sure there is a match between
individuals who supposedly descend from the same "oldest known ancestor"
(although a concern, usually a documented paper trail can confirm that) but
finding someone who has absolute, positive documented proof that they descend
from a much earlier ancestor (for instance Abner the Immigrant). If we do not
have a "gold standard" we have no goal to work toward or DNA results to try and
match. I have several lines who are participating in DNA testing. In my
Wells line I share an "oldest known ancestor" with someone who has been tested
and his DNA test results show a 37/37 marker match with a participant who has
proof (paper trail that includes Bible records, wills, etc.) that he descends
from an early Wells out of Delaware. He (the participant with proof he
descends from the Delaware Wells) is our "gold standard" Although the match is
not
conclusive proof (as I understand it, and I could be wrong) we can now
begin/continue our search for documented evidence to support the theory that we
also descend from that same early Delaware Wells. Do we have any Casey "gold
standards" and if so who are they?
Vonda
In a message dated 3/17/2006 6:43:01 AM Central Standard Time,
joy_harr(a)swbell.net writes:
Maybe it's been said before, but ideally at least two Caseys need to submit
DNA to verify their very own line. In other words, if two males think they
descend from say, a John X. Casey b 1840, and their numbers DON'T match,
there may be an unknown adoption or illegitimacy somewhere in one of their
bloodlines. Then, a third male of that line should submit DNA to compare
with one of the others. The one who doesn't match might indeed not be a true
Casey or else he could just be mistaken about his research and who his Casey
ancestor really is. Or, a possibility is that they just don't match on one
of the fast-moving markers where mutations occur more rapidly. (Hope this
all makes sense! Am not a scientist.)
Am hoping for a decent match for my earliest-known: Daniel Casey ~1760 VA
then to Wilkes/Elbert Co. GA. He's already on the chart via male proxy but I
still need to get another known cousin to verify the line since we only have
one kit submitted. We do have D.A.R. paper proof on our line back to this
Daniel. Before that, unknown, though suspected.
-Joyce H.