Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Yes, I agree the DNA evidence doesn't prove there's no relationship. The question is unanswered, as you say.
I don't agree with your dismissal of the evidence, though. Even circumstantial evidence can show which possibilities are ruled out. And provided circumstantial evidence is scrutinized carefully for its plausibility and how it fits with the general context, it can help build a picture of what actually happened. Interpretations of DNA evidence need to be plausible not only in a DNA framework but also in a real-life-scenario framework.
You're correct that there's no documentation on the origins of 122167, 21419, or 19490, but there's convincing (to me) circumstantial evidence that 26541 descends from Edmund Pace of Surry Co NC.
The irony is that while many of the lineages posted on the DNA site claim to be documented when they're not, the lineage posted by 26541 says that the link to David Pace is "unverified", when in fact it has been proved, by David Pace's will. It's not proved that David Pace was a son of Edmond Pace of Surry Co, however. I find the circumstantial evidence convincing, but it's still only circumstantial.
I take your point about it being more probable that the single mutation donors fall into Group 3A.
James Blair
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/pace/messages/4160.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|