Hi Jack (and now Nelda);
A very impressive response indeed. Totally missed the point, but very impressive .
I've been a subscriber to this site for years and just sat quietly, minded my own
business, and read the postings of others with interest. Then, one day I decide to post a
little something about my family tree relating to IN. I'm sharing a response with
another subscriber, and out of the blue, here comes Nelda Percival trying to sell me some
magic pill she is hustling. Next day, John responds and tells me my Aunt's research
is fictional and my family tree is a myth.
Now his latest response to my response says he is put off by my sarcasm. Then his buddy
Nelda jumps back in and compliments his insightful reasoning, and tries to sell her magic
pills again, which have now gone on sale for the holidays.
How many readers will not post messages if they are guaranteed to have their integrity
attacked and now I suppose I'm on some DNA magic pill mailing list forever. But the
real issues are these:
Sir and Madam;
My sarcasm is due to one thing only. The arogance of the DNA scientific,
revisionist-history, magic pill crowd. Just because some distant relative of Richard
Robbins is DNA-related to Daniel Robbins from Scotland doesn't mean that there was no
Isaac Robbins from Wales and that Richard did not come from Wales. There are perfectly
logical explanations for them to both be real and correct. I'll address that in a few
moments.
Both of you are undoubtedly geniouses in your field and obviously know DNA and science
inside and out. I would never presume to put my lowly resume up against yours. In fact,
I'm just a retired career cop who never finished college. But there is a reason they
don't assign scientists as detectives. They keep scientists in the lab where they can
look at the world through a microscope and pretend that the world is black and white and
that is all there is to it. No, cops leave the real investigations for people who are not
close-minded and who seek long and hard for all of the evidence, that which proves or
disproves the apparent facts with equal importance. After exhausting all leads, only then
do they declare their findings as fact, fiction, fraud or myth. Often the "two sides
to every story" are equally right, and sometimes science leads investigators to
disregard other possible theories to the crime.
I know that DNA, if done correctly, is infallible, so you don't need to preach that
line to me. I have no argument with it. I strongly support the DNA project as a tool,
but no more than one tool, to research the family lines. You, Oprah, and Jerry Springer
are treating DNA as a magic pill that takes away the need for research. "Buy now,
while itis on sale, and we'll tell you what famous person you are related to".
The DNA project is not a non-stop shortcut to genealogy, but you treat it as the final,
undisputable proof fo something, which it is NOT. The proof of one thing doesn't
necessarily mean the disproof of all else.
You are pushing DNA as a direct flight to New York City from Los Angeles, without having
to go through the long and tedious midwest anymore. Great tool, and it does work in most
cases. But then John comes along and says not only does it skip the midwest, but the
midwest never existed and was a myth, The connection between Los Angeles and New York
worked perfectly on its first flight, therefore the midwest never existed. In your mind,
you have proven that the IN Robbins are DNA-related to Daniel from Scotland; end of story.
Isaac is therefore a fictional myth, because he doesn't compute with your microscopic
view of the world.
With great arrogance, John pronounces that the independent research of a score of branches
of the Robbins descendants is a fictional myth and posts that opinion on message boards
far and wide. To prove his point, Nelda jumps in and quotes a person named Gilpin or
something like that, who perpetuated a fraud about a coat of arms back in the 1500's.
Therefore, Nelda says, all research should be suspected of being a fraud, so go directly
to the microscope view of genealogy, which is conveniently on sale now. "But wait,
that's not all. If you're one of the first 50 callers, we'll throw in
..." John then cautions me that another ancestor might have added to my aunt's
research to be able to fill out a nice clean set of charts. How patently arrogant. No
true genealogical researcher I have ever met would stoop to such a thing. I hope you
would not do such a thing, John.
But yet, as I look at the "proof" you submitted in your respons, I see these
gems of infallible and dilligent research:
1.. "Michael's grandson claims that Michael was one of eight brothers".
Are their claims research, whereas my aunt's research is fictitious?
2.. "I doubt that Michael was born in NC as claimed above because I find Richard
was in Frederick Co., VA, court records in 1745." You doubt it? Is that infallable
research?
3.. "The modern genealogy compilers guessed that Jacob was a son of Elisha - no
reason is given." Now "guessing" is research, if it is done by someone
supporting your claims?
4.. "Richard Robbins Jr does seem a likely son, however." That certainly
qualifies as fact, and has the added benefit of saving us the time of that pesky research
that Nelda so abhors.
5.. "James may be another son but it was the sloppy combination of 2 identities
that was my first clue ..." I'm starting to detect a pattern in your research,
John.
6.. "... genealogy of a collateral Ledbetter family reported a belief that the
Overton Co., TN progenitor was Scots but nothing supporting the origin of that belief is
cited." Let me get this right. Someone else's family tree reports an
unsupported belief that ..." Now there is something you can hang your theory on.
You think my family tree is myth, but you lean on another family tree's
'unsupported belief' as factual. How do you decide whose beliefs are to be
believed? Oh, I see, just the ones your that support your theories.
7.. "Some of Michael's likely descendants would like to believe that Richard is
that posthumous child ..." Can we hear from the others who apparently feel
differently? The list of validated research goes on and on.
Here is my favorite proof, your closing argumant, so to speak; "Daniel was not
literate so how his name was spelled could be of no concern to him," You actually
know all this about a man who lived in 1614? Or is it another sweeping generality to
support YOUR theory. And "To attempt to connect Richard to Daniel via an older
generation would require the immigration of another Robinson family that also changes the
name to Robins - its just too many twists and turns to only defend the indefensible and
undocumented genealogy of the Rowan Co. Robbins family." I'm gald to see you are
being so open minded about this research thing, John.
In conclusion, I will get back to my statement that just proving something right
doesn't mean every other explanation is wrong. In my Edgington genealogy, we are told
the following story: "When George (Edgington) was attending school there at about
the age of 14, he was severely punished for some breach of discipline, and he greatly
feared that when he went home he would recieve another punishment. He thereupon went to
the dock and secreted himself on a ship bound for America. His presence was not
discovered until the ship was well out to sea, so he was taken to Philadelphia." The
point of this story and others like it is that in those times it was not unusual for a
child to have struck out on his own as a young man.
Which leads to the only question (you can even call it a hypothetical question, if you
want to) that I wish you and Nelda (seperately) to respond to;
If called under oath to answer yes or no, is the following statement true or false?:
If a son of Daniel, in Scotland, including an illigitimate son, or a son of Daniel's
son, Daniel Jr, were to have gone to Wales in the period between 1630-1650 or later, and
took up a family of his own, which family eventually left Wales for the new world, in the
early 1700's, would they have the same DNA as Daniel?
No double talk, no hum and haw; no genealogy clattering, just YES or NO. I'm sure you
will evade the question, because it would shoot down your "hoax and fictional
myth" theory that you are want to hold on to.
On the other hand, if you answer yes, then there is your possible answer as to why the
decendants of Richard, son of Isaac, would match Daniel's DNA. In your answer to me,
you stated, "Coincidentally, Daniel Jr is known to have had many children that are
not yet identified ...". In 60 years or so, it is not only possible but perhaps
totally consistent with the time for a son to have gone to Wales, fathered a son named
Isaac, who fathered Richard, Elisha, and possibly others, who came to America
independently from Daniel's other direct lineage.
If you agree that it is, in fact, POSSIBLE, perhaps this would be a good time to revise
your well hammered out position that dozens of Robbins researchers are frauds and, perhaps
there is another explanation for the DNA connections.
Welcome to the fray, Nelda.
I guess you are "IT", John
Your newest best friend
Steve Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nelda Percival" <nelda_percival(a)hotmail.com>
To: <wayne_in(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:05 PM
Subject: [WAYNE_IN] Robbins' debate
Hi,
Good write Jack....
I only have this input. When you have a debate as to whom is related to whom; YDNA is the
only answer.
It will not tell you how you are related but it will tell if you are related. It will
also disprove any assumed relationship.
I agree that to many rely on what others have written, instead of real documents when
they can be located, is not good genealogy. Unless you see for yourself, who knows
exactly what the record said. Good sourcing will allow the reader to go find your
documentation.
In the Gilpin history there is a poem that is said was writen about a man in the
1200's. amoung other things it describes his Coat of Arms. Well, with a little
research the gentleman whoses arms it is supposed to be has a completely different COA as
is shown on his grandson's tomb. The COA it describes was created in the 1500's,
by a non heir line. The poem its self has a Victoria rythm, and I found out it was written
in 1812.
But, hundreds of Gilpins sweare by it.. Until the Gilpin YDNA project it was thought all
Gilpins were related not so right now 12 men tested and two distincly different lines...
So instead of aguring go test... Right now there is a holiday price reduction at family
tree dna.
Nelda
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WAYNE_IN-request(a)rootsweb.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
message