Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg and Nancy Whitlock
To: Mark and Gary
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:30 PM
Subject: DNA
This is a nice DNA site I found while researching my Jordan line.
Greg Whitlock
http://jordannctoal.homestead.com/DNAindex.html
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/tn/madison/newspapers/west-tnwhig.txt
WEST TENNESSEE WHIG
VOLUME 3 NUMBER 5
FRIDAY NOVEMBER 29,1844
JACKSON,TENNESSEE
October 29,1844.
STATE OF TENNESSEE,HENRY COUNTY_OCTOBER RULES_1844--
Thomas CHILDRESS & Jeremiah CHILDRESS )
vs )
Sarah CHILDRESS,Guilford J.CHILDRESS ) PETITION FOR SALE
ArtitinKIRKLIN;formerly Artitin CHILDRESS ) OF
Alfred SWIFT, Anthony SWIFT,& Louise SWIFT,) REAL ESTATE heirs of
Pleasant CHILDRESS, dec'd )
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/tn/madison/newspapers/madison1831.txt
THE SOUTHERN STATESMAN
VOLUME 1 NUMBER 3
FEBRUARY 19,1831
JACKSON,TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE;FEBRUARY 11,1832--Several unpleasant and fatal accidents happened
among our colored population during the week.A free man was found on Cedar
street,frozen to death,probably in conquence of exposure during
intoxication.A slave belonging to Mr.Matthew WATSON was killed by falling
of a shed under which he was setting. A slave belonging to the estate of
the late John CHILDRESS,in contest with another slave on Water Street near
the river bank,was knocked down the precipice about 30 feet perpendiculsr
and received a blow upon the head of which he died on Sunday last.The
negro,Harry,by whom he was thus thrown down,has been tried and convicted of
manslaughter,and sentenced to be branded and receive thirty nine lashes.
Hi,
I recently subscribed to this list and have been reading the DNA postings concerning the Childress/Childers family. I find this all very interesting.
At this point I am not sure which of these families my ancestor is part of.
My great great grandmother was Elizabeth Childers/Childress. She was from the Franklin County and Clarke County area of Georgia.
Below is the info I have on Elizabeth.
She was born around 1835-1837, possibly in Franklin County Georgia. I find her in 1850 in the Franklin County GA household of Thomas W. Childers. Thomas Childers was born about 1811. Thomas Childers married Milley Vickery in Franklin County GA in 1832. Milley was the daughter of Aaron Vickery and Millie Dodson. In 1850 the Childers family lived next door to Elias Sanders and his wife Mary Carter Sanders. Some of the Sanders children also married Vickery's.
In 1856 Elizabeth Childers married Tilman Henry Carter in Clarke County GA. Tilman was the grandnephew of Mary Carter Sanders. Tilman and Elizabeth had several children, one of which was a son, Nathan Noah Carter. Nathan was born in 1866 and died in 1924. His death certificate lists his mother as Elizabeth Childress.
Thomas W. Childers apparently died before 1880. In the 1880 Census I find his son listed in Clarke County GA as Thomas R. Childress and his mother Milley Childress is in this household.
This Childers/Childress family may also have connections to Elbert County GA.
Does anyone on this list know of this Childers/Childress family or can any of you point me in the right direction as to which family this Thomas W. Childers came from.
I would think that since in the earlier records that they are listed as Childers, that they were in fact Childers'. But, who knows.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: <Pigsmont(a)aol.com>
To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: {not a subscriber} Re: Childress DNA
I have two questions about this DNA situation.
Why don't you have a separate list dedicated to questions and concerns about
the Childress DNA, since we women are excluded from the group?
If, as someone said, the DNA goes back 20 generations, why does the person
have to presently carry the name Childress/Childers? What if the person is
named Smith but has a grandmother named Childress?
Peggy
Dan and Lyn
I concur with your comments regarding Gary and Marks efforts on the behalf
of the Childress family.
Also thank to you for you comments regarding your first child. As a parent
of adopted children, I know that it took brave decisions by folks like
yourselves to allow folks like my wife and I to become parents. Also it is a
statement as to how easy it is to create a new DNA group within a given
surname.
J Childress
Looking for info on my maternal gg-father Gus Lee CHILDRESS. He shows up on
1930 census in Swayne township, Mississippi County, AR, 41 years old, born in
Tennessee. Believe he had a brother named Grover, also in Swayne township in
1930. Looking for birth and death dates, parents, etc. I believe Gus died in
Mississippi County, AR sometime after 1930. Gus was married to Carrie
BRADFORD, who died before 1920 also in Mississippi County, AR., and he was also
married to Bertha ? Any info will be appreciated.
My CHILDRESS line comes down through David(TN)> Goen(MS)>
H.K.W(MS/GA).> Emma Alexandra/Faye CHILDRESS(MS/GA)..my maternal
Grandmother who m. Andrew Jackson CLOUD(GA).
Her brother, Albert Wylie CHILDRESS, had three sons, William(Bill)
Wilder, Albert Wylie, Jr., James Warren and a daughter, Carol Blanch
CHILDRESS.
The three sons were all career Armed Forces men, as was their father.
As to which Branch , I forget who was where. But they had sons who
married and I believe had sons.
These are the CHILDRESS' I looking for to enroll in the CHILDRESS/CHILDERS
DNA testing. I am willing to share the cost.
Does anyone on this -List have these men as relatives or know how I
may contact them? If so, I would appreciate a direct email to:
fuzdawg(a)metrocast.net
I have emailed my sister for info. as she kept in touch with the
CHILDRESS cousins for a long time, but have no idea when I may get an
answer. So thought I'd try the -List and see if there are any more
relatives out there with the same CHILDRESS line.
Thank you for any help ,
--
Betty Faye (double first name, ole Suth'n custom)
in NH...don't ask.
"You can take the gal out of the South, but you can't take the South
out of the gal!"
Researching:
Paternal: HOLT, LINDSEY, CARSWELL, MATHIS, TURNER, TUCKER,
RUTHERFORD;
Maternal: CLOUD, CHILDRESS, HARMON, WHEELER;
Also: PLUMMER
The one who was looking for more info on Dabney Clark Childress,
(b. 1860- d. 23 Jan . 1940)
Death: 23 Jan 1940 in Washington, DC
Family:
Spouse:
Burruss, Mollie E.
b. abt. 1859 Caroline Co., Va
d. 2Dec. 1938 Washington, DC
Father: Burruss, William Harris
Mother: Campbell, Elizabeth Peatross
Children:
Childress, Elmer T. d. Aft. 1938
Childress, Eva
Childress, Edwin
Anybody and Everybody,
I am trying to track down some possible DNA donors with the
Childress/Childers surname.
Does anybody have an e-mail address of a Childress/Childers surnamed person
that meets the following criteria:
I am looking for the Male descendants who carry the Childress/Childers
surname of
1) Benjamin Childress (m. Ann Jopling) line or
2) Joseph Childress, Jr. (m. Mary - - -) resident of Amherst/Kanawha Co.,
Va.
3) Childresses from Boone Co., Grant Co., Pendleton Co., KY.
Thank you
Gary
Not quite true. At least as far as the site where we become male or female.
That is were we are testing. Besides the X and Y there are numerous so
called sex-linked chromosomes.
Traits that are passed on predominately by one sex or the other. But we are
just looking at the Male Y site in this study
J Childress
Well it was a rainy day here in VA today, so based on discussions of clans,
I decided to see just how many variations were in the 1850 Virginia census.
There are at least 14 different spellings. Blame it on pronunciation,
spelling, lack of education or what have you. As I stated before the best
DNA testing can do is establish groups. We have to do the rest.
Here are the variations I found:
Childer
Childers
Childra
Childred
Childres
Childress
Childreth
Childrewss
Childrey
Childreys
Childris
Childrses
Childry
Childrys
Regards,
Steve Stevens
Hi Gary,
After watching the messages here for the past few weeks, I, for one, want to
thank you for all your research and hard work on this project. I believe I
remember a quote from you, something about "not paid enough..." and I agree!
I want you to know that Dan and I are glad to be participants. We hope to
gain knowledge, and possibly something about his ancestors. If possible, we
wanted to rule out lines that are not necessary for us to research so that
our time will be spent where it might do the most good.
If, by chance, we learn "nothing" from this experience, we are hoping that
by participating, and sharing his DNA, we might be helping some of our
descendents to unravel what is yet to be discovered.
In conclusion, I just want YOU, and your brother, to know that you have
supporters out here who are maybe not as verbal as some others, and still,
very definitely in your corner! Keep up the good work.
Patiently waiting, =o)
Dan and Lyn Childress
(By the way, 35 years ago we placed our first son up for adoption. He was adopted by a family with no relation to Childress, Childers, or any other spelling close to that. He remains, our son, with our DNA. If he were to test his DNA, the spelling of his name would not matter in the least. He would still be descended from the same progenitor. <smiles>
Gary, I believe you pointed out in one post that there were some who
participated and chose to keep the results to themselves. Is this true? If
so, would it not be possible to post results without saying who they were
but give the lineage and raw data results since this is a "group" test or do
they get their results and then share with the group?
Regards,
Steve Stevens
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark and Gary [mailto:London2001@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 12:28 AM
To: CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [Childress-L] Re: Childers-Childress DNA
Hello Bill,
The earliest traced ancestor will be the next addition to the Family
Association Web page. I don't have the purported lineages of all the
various participants sorted out yet...it is a work in progress...and is more
work than progress at this point.
All my best
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Trott" <WTROTT(a)houston.rr.com>
To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: [Childress-L] Re: Childers-Childress DNA
This will be my ONE AND ONLY e-mail concerning the Childers-Childress
DNA Project.
Surnames and bickering aside.
It appears to me that you have developed three groups who are totally
unrelated
Would it be asking too much to tell the list who is the earliest traced
and documented ancestor of each group? This may not be possible because
of the small number of persons in a group; it would be too easy to
figure who was in that particular group.
Bill Trott
I once read
"He who does not have a thief or a murderer or a bastard in his family
tree was sired by a lightening bolt."
==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
Unsubscribe by writing ONE & ONLY ONE word UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail to either
Childress-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
or Childress-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at London2001(a)earthlink.net
==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
View the archives of PREVIOUS POSTINGS to the CHILDRESS list at
http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl
This will be my ONE AND ONLY e-mail concerning the Childers-Childress
DNA Project.
Surnames and bickering aside.
It appears to me that you have developed three groups who are totally
unrelated
Would it be asking too much to tell the list who is the earliest traced
and documented ancestor of each group? This may not be possible because
of the small number of persons in a group; it would be too easy to
figure who was in that particular group.
Bill Trott
I once read
"He who does not have a thief or a murderer or a bastard in his family
tree was sired by a lightening bolt."
Hello Bill,
The earliest traced ancestor will be the next addition to the Family
Association Web page. I don't have the purported lineages of all the
various participants sorted out yet...it is a work in progress...and is more
work than progress at this point.
All my best
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Trott" <WTROTT(a)houston.rr.com>
To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: [Childress-L] Re: Childers-Childress DNA
This will be my ONE AND ONLY e-mail concerning the Childers-Childress
DNA Project.
Surnames and bickering aside.
It appears to me that you have developed three groups who are totally
unrelated
Would it be asking too much to tell the list who is the earliest traced
and documented ancestor of each group? This may not be possible because
of the small number of persons in a group; it would be too easy to
figure who was in that particular group.
Bill Trott
I once read
"He who does not have a thief or a murderer or a bastard in his family
tree was sired by a lightening bolt."
==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
Unsubscribe by writing ONE & ONLY ONE word UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail to either
Childress-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
or Childress-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at London2001(a)earthlink.net
I see this whole thing as being way to complicated for it's intent. I
believe the original intent was to test DNA to substantiate the groups
derived from the clan of CHILDRE-CHILDERS-CHILDREY-CHILDRES-CHILDRESS-etc.
If not then it should have been. The first step supposedly was "who is your
last clan ancestor you can PROVE in your line. Second step was to test DNA
to see if the groups were inter-related and if so how.
Anyone setting up permanent camp in one group or another set themselves up
to find out that this may not be so.
Now let's cut the bitching crap and take the raw data and establish the DNA
lines and take the genealogy lines to see what matches and what doesn't.
I'm not sure why all this bickering is going on except that it is now
perceived by some that this testing had preconceived results. DNA tells us
who is possibly related to whom and does not lie if done correctly.
Genealogies do lie if not done correctly. I only wish I were a direct
descendent so I could have the test done. I would be absolutely joyful to
find another true cousin out here.
Quit the bitchin, and find a relative and let's get some real quantitative
raw data to analyze!
One other thing, of those tested how many were black and how many white? I
have never seen this listed here. Wouldn't it be funny as the devil if
someone in this group found out they had a white guy in the wood pile?
Regards,
Steve Stevens
-----Original Message-----
From: Con Childress [mailto:cchldrss@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 6:16 AM
To: CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [Childress-L] A question
Mark and Gary,
Forget the list issue. There is a more important question.
It is no longer clear to me as to what you hope to
accomplish with this project. I assumed that the number one goal was to
establish a Childers vs Childress baseline distinction. At this point
that hasn't been accomplished. In fact I don't even see any sign of the
use of a control to establish this. Since no Childers who took the test
(or you) have responded to my challenge to show that they have an
established Childers lineage then I think they all have a person bearing
the name Childress in their ancestry or just don't know. If that is the
case then group one must be considered the Childress group and the
question as to what they were originally is totally unresolved. A
bigger question is whether it is resolvable at all using this DNA. To
be able to do so you must have an established Childress or Childers who
you have DNA for. Without one you are only going to involve yourself in
circular reasoning. And I certainly don't see one. And no, I won't buy
that group 2 is the Childress group without proof that group 1 is the
Childers group.
As for utility in separating lineages within the Childress
group, since there is only one mutation present in the sample that
doesn't look very promising either. But then haven't I already raised
the question of resolution with you? I think the Y-chromosome mutation
rate is too low for this to be a useful tool within groups.
As to what group 2 and 3 represent, who knows at this point?
Con
Mark and Gary wrote:
>I am explaining how the lists emerged...from the input sought on this
forum.
>You should have gotten involved when it mattered. I was soliciting input.
>
>The DNA project is not part of Rootsweb. It is a private effort to examine
>DNA. I chose to structure the discussion of the project results on
>Rootsweb, (it perhaps should have been a different forum).... but the
>results are actually given directly to the participants by mail and by
>private access to the Web Pages at the testing Laboratory..... None of the
>results have to be posted anywhere....and in fact some of the participants
>don't want to have their results posted to any web sites and I will respect
>their right not to have their results posted anywhere. You'll have to
wait,
>I'll have to wait, to see if they give me permission to publish their
>results anywhere. I may change from Rootsweb over to Yahoo or some other
>forum in the future if the number of testing parties gets very large and
the
>DNA discussion becomes very burdensome. These Rootsweb lists are too hard
>to access FAQ, frequently asked questions, and there needs to be ways to
>educate as well as post.. simultaneously.
>
>As far as DNA discussions go, you should take a look at
>GENEALOGY-DNA-L(a)rootsweb.com and see how technical and boring their
posting
>get and how much do you really care to know about DNA.
>
>I want as many people to submit DNA as possible and the testing parties
will
>be respected in how they want to discuss their private results.
>
>In any event, Rootsweb doesn't merge lists....they don't even let lists
>change their purpose....
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Con Childress" <cchldrss(a)mindspring.com>
>To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 1:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [Childress-L] A question
>
>
>Mark and Gary,
> Sorry, but I don't buy your arguments. DNA data is just
>like any other data. It can be useful or cloud the issue. It does not
>stand alone and must be viewed in context to have any meaning at all.
> That context can best be dealt with by involving the larger group
>rather than just those who participated in having their DNA tested.
> Since all the posts on the DNA list are available in the archives
>anyone can read them and are now doing just that and are then posting
>comments to the Childress-L list. As you can see the interest goes
>beyond just the participants. Everyone on the Childress-L lists needs
>to become sufficiently aquainted with DNA data anway since that will be
>part of the database of the future. Might as well start now. As for
>esoteric scientific discussions, forget it. Leave that to the
>scientific literature. It is not going to happen on this or any other
>DNA list in any meaningful way. Even in scientific journals use of DNA
>data has been plagued with exactly the same problems you fear and are
>now witnessing here. Education is the only answer. Let's get everyone
>involved. Merge the lists. Maybe a little more understanding of the
>issues will get rid of some of the snide comments being made. This can
>only be done through involvement not exclusion.
>
> Con
>
>PS When are details on the participants lineages going to be posted
>with the DNA data? The DNA data is not interpretable by itself beyond
>identifying which participant belongs to which group -- i.e. you just
>divided up the participants into groups. So? This in no way identifies
>the groups themselves in a broader context nor their relevance. No
>surprise that we are getting wild speculation and nonsense comments as a
>result.
>
>
>
>Mark and Gary wrote:
>
>
>
>>You wrote: "It would make a lot more sense to do all of this on this
list."
>>
>>
>>Con,
>>Regarding your question about 2 lists...your point is well
>>
>>
>taken....however,
>
>
>>early on, one of the pre-testing parties discovered by being on other DNA
>>lists that those who took the test, and who had a vested interest, and who
>>had done detailed research on their lineage and who were trying to figure
>>out what it meant, resented strangers from telling them who they were and
>>"declaring" them "such and such" before the testing party had "absorbed"
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>data and worked to discourage new people from taking a DNA....so a slight
>>pause was built into the process. It was resolved that those who have
>>actually taken the test have a forum just for themselves where they could
>>sort out amongst themselves, a small group, what their first reaction was
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>the data...and "absorb" the news...before one saw one's name all over the
>>internet.....Right now, the DNA forum is open to those who take the DNA
>>test....and the Childress-L list is where there is the largest public
>>discussion....at least that was the basis driving the 2 lists.
>>
>>Also the small DNA list, in theory, could be a forum where greater and
>>greater scientific discussion could take place...for example, everybody
who
>>takes the test has a "haplogroup" (different than "haplotype" DNA
pattern).
>>A haplogroup is a larger club to which the DNA belongs and crosses into
>>other surnames who share the same haplogroup and gives insight into where
>>your ancestors came from 10,000 years ago .....such as out of Africa, the
>>Mideast or Europe....or sub-divisions of those regions. A Haplogroup
>>discussion is sort of a last look into the haze of genealogy of where your
>>trail goes...But the discussion would have to talk about which Allele
>>
>>
>Values
>
>
>>mean what and it can be very boring for those not interested in the
>>
>>
>subject.
>
>
>>You have to get involved in very scientific analysis...reading the current
>>scientific literature and latest findings.. and it is only relevant to
>>
>>
>those
>
>
>>who have a DNA test score to compare it to......There are also other DNA
>>tests that researchers may want to take to track the maternal line
>>(non-Childress/Childers surnames) and the forum could share basic
>>
>>
>scientific
>
>
>>knowledge.....The Childress-DNA forum is for scientific emphasis and
>>technical terms.
>>
>>Because of the repeating nature of most lists....as the same questions
come
>>up over and over.... the veterans start to concentrate only on narrow
>>details (and stop posting in response to repeating questions or leave the
>>list altogether) and the newcomers and generalists want a starting place
>>for entering the discussion....so lists start to spit into 2 groupings
>>anyway....and having a DNA forum allows growth in technical and trivial
>>detail while the Childress-L surname forum permits a standard place to get
>>standard questions from the broadest possible membership. I have
>>expectations that the Childress-L lists postings with 200 members will far
>>exceed the DNA lists postings with about 25 members currently. Currently,
>>to join the DNA forum requires the party to bring some DNA...
please....we
>>need more DNA. Please find somebody in your lineage who will donate their
>>DNA.
>>
>>Raw data is going to be posted to the Family Association Web site and will
>>be updated periodically. The archives of all Rootsweb postings to any
list
>>are viewable at http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl.
>>
>>
>Use
>
>
>>the names of the testing parties as a starting place to find postings on
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>DNA forum. The names of the testing parties are given on the Family
>>Association web page www.Childers-Childress.com.
>>
>>Gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Con Childress" <cchldrss(a)mindspring.com>
>>To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:20 AM
>>Subject: [Childress-L] A question
>>
>>
>>Dear List,
>> Why do we need a separate DNA list? I've noticed that some are
>>indirectly answering on the DNA list my request for genealogical data on
>>this list. It would make a lot more sense to do all of this on this list.
>>
>> Con
>>
>>
>>==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
>>Unsubscribe by writing ONE & ONLY ONE word UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail to either
>>Childress-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
>>or Childress-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
>>Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at London2001(a)earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
>>View the archives of PREVIOUS POSTINGS to the CHILDRESS list at
>>
>>
>http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
>Unsubscribe by writing ONE & ONLY ONE word UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail to either
> Childress-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
>or Childress-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
>Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at London2001(a)earthlink.net
>
>
>==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
>Unsubscribe by writing ONE & ONLY ONE word UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail to either
> Childress-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
>or Childress-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
>Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at London2001(a)earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
Unsubscribe by writing ONE & ONLY ONE word UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail to either
Childress-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
or Childress-D-request(a)rootsweb.com
Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at London2001(a)earthlink.net
Con,
You write: It is no longer clear to me as to what you hope to accomplish
with this project.
ANSWER: to learn whatever DNA can teach
You write: I assumed that the number one goal was to establish a Childers vs
Childress baseline distinction.
ANSWER: DNA can't show that. DNA can show only if two people share a common
ancestor in the past 40 generations...and even that is only a probability.
You write: At this point that hasn't been accomplished. In fact I don't
even see any sign of the use of a control to establish this. Since no
Childers who took the test (or you) have responded to my challenge to show
that they have an established Childers lineage then I think they all have a
person bearing the name Childress in their ancestry or just don't know.
ANSWER: DNA can't replace paper research. DNA is DNA. Paper research is
paper research, good bad or otherwise...faulty or not faulty. DNA only
shows if two living people have a common ancestor in the past 40
generations.
You write: If that is the case then group one must be considered the
Childress group and the question as to what they were originally is totally
unresolved.
ANSWER: DNA doesn't say what the name or spelling or pronunciation of a
name was in Group One, Group Two, or Group Three Haplotypes (DNA patterns)
for their progenitors. DNA says that the 3 groups had different
progenitors. Those in Group One are related to each other, those in Group
Two are related to each other, and those in Group Three are related to each
other. None of the members in any group are related to any of the members
in other groups. DNA doesn't say anything about the surnames or spellings
of each group (Haplotype).
You write: A bigger question is whether it is resolvable at all using this
DNA.
ANSWER: Subtleties of surname spellings are not resolvable by DNA. You may
speculate, you may assign probabilities to speculation, you may have a good
basis in paper research for supporting speculation but better words are
"probability", "reasonable assumption", "opinion".
You write: To be able to do so you must have an established Childress or
Childers who you have DNA for.
ANSWER: It is impossible to define the word Childress or Childers with DNA.
DNA only tells you who amongst the testing parties are related. If you want
to define the word Childress or Childers it requires more adjectives derived
from paper research...the performer formerly known as Prince....the
Childress formerly known as Childers formerly known as Chyldrs formerly
known as "hey you". Accepting the limitation of DNA however does not
preclude trying to find a useful pattern in the paper records. It may yet
emerge that the earliest records in Group One Haplotype are using the name
Childers and that the name varriations in spelling in Group One Haplotype
flow from Childers to Childress and maybe most in the 1800's when some
English standardized spelling was underway....but that remains for paper
research, by family genealogists who can find evidence in the paper records.
DNA is silent on the issue of surname. It is useful to have more definitons
of the surame. When this Project started there were basically two
pronunciations and largely two major spellings. The DNA Project shows that
that is not enough categories.
But the DNA has been useful in the conjecture Mark and I are doing:
For example, in Group One Haplotype, do all/most/any Childress and likewise
do all/most/any Childers share some pattern in their history, some pattern
in their ancestors that is still evidenced by the spelling of their name.
Are the Childress in Group One any closer related to each other than to the
Childers in Group One Haplotype? In Group One Haplotype can paper research
shed any light on why there are some many differences in how the modern
descendants spell their names in Group One Haplotype. Are these name
evolutions unrelated or related events.
If they are independent name evolutions in Group One should we see
independent name evolutions in Group Two and Group Three also and if not why
not.
For example, another use of the DNA results might be to exclude paper
records belonging to one Haplotype (DNA pattern) which should not be used
by another Haplotype in their research. In Group Two and Group Three
Haplotypes does the name's spelling of "ress" point to a different event
unrelated and independent of Group One Haplotypes spelling of "ress".
If these questions can't be answered at all it won't be by DNA. It will
require paper research. DNA does however suggest several ways, alternative
ways, to organize the trail of Paper Records to be consistent with the DNA
and that is important or at least interesting to ponder.
You write: Without one you are only going to involve yourself in circular
reasoning. And I certainly don't see one.
ANSWER: I'm not sure I understand.... But you have been posing questions
that DNA can't solve and wasn't meant to solve. But any hypothesis or
speculation about what might have been has to be consistent with both the
DNA and paper records. DNA actually shows very little and many people think
it shows more than it does.
You write:And no, I won't buy that group 2 is the Childress group without
proof that group 1 is the Childers group.
ANSWER: DNA can't answer this question...DNA says only that you share a
common ancestor in the past 40 generations. Any lengthy discussion is going
to have to start defining the meaning of Childers and Childress, name change
Childress, etc. and other qualifiers, pre-1700 Childers in Group One
Haplotype, or post 20th century name, other adjectives, specific lineages,
sub lineages, Pleasant "Childers" and sub-lineage Nathaniel "Childress" for
example in Group One Haplotype. Group Two and Group Three have their own
unique definition independent Group One and each other. A Group Two and
Group Three Childress is not the same as a Group Two Childress so defintions
are in order when referring to Childers v Childress. The DNA tests to date
say there are 3 different Haplotypes for people in this DNA
Project....that's all it says.....Regarding the word "proof", that word is
very subjective in genealogy especially in the 1700's and earlier....words
like "reasonable assumption" or "likelihood" or "greatest probability" are
about as close as one is going to get to "proof".
You write: As for utility in separating lineages within the Childress
group, since there is only one mutation present in the sample that doesn't
look very promising either. But then haven't I already raised
the question of resolution with you?
ANSWER: I don't know if I understand the question. Group Two DNA prsently
has 2 people who have a paper trail and common ancestor in 1780 verifiable
by records. DNA didn't find that most recent common ancestor...paper
research did, DNA confirms it and defines its Haplotype pattern.... and
prior to 1780, Group Two ancestors are identicle since the start of life on
earth. DNA showed that Group Two had a different story about its history
than the other Haplotypes......that was one of two possible outcomes..the
same or not the same as the other groups. The DNA will help eliminate of
records used by other Haplotypes which will be very helpful. And the
mutation in Group Two between the 2 members so far must have happen after
1780 and that may help in identifying when other branches of Group
Two...branched. In fact both members of Group Two may be mutations away from
some other non-mutated lineage which may emerge.
You write: I think the Y-chromosome mutation rate is too low for this to be
a useful tool within groups.
ANSWER: There is an increasing demand among genealogist to get more
expansive tests. The current 25 marker test has limitations. The 37 marker
test is available now to try to see if it can help separate related
matches... There is a demand for a 100 marker test....and some
mathematician calculated that for DNA to resolve all the questions of
genealogists for each generation of their ancestors for 40 generations, the
test would have to examine 25,000 markers at a cost of $10 per maker. Also
there may be people who want to take the 12 marker test for $99 just to see
which Group Haplotype, 1 ,2, or 3, they fall into and decide later if they
want to upgrade to more markers.
You write: As to what group 2 and 3 represent, who knows at this point?
ANSWER: DNA show that Group Two has a different progenitor that Group One
and Group Three.
DNA shows that Group Three has a different progenitor than either Group One
or Group Two. They are stand alone lineages unrelated to the other groups.
Gary