Dark Snyper Lord 666
09-21-2020, 02:03 PM
i can think of some benefits distinct to either one, but please, list them out. detailed genealogical study has NO drawbacks that I am aware of.
obvious immediate drawback of giving away your dna is that certain ahem groups will retain that information forever, potentially even affecting your descendants' existence in ways we can't yet fully imagine. however i believe someone has clearly recognized this potential.
your local library almost certainly has ancestral research sites usable, i even use them via my library from my home computer. i have never paid any money for this research.
im obviously a proponent of detailed genealogical study, i see its accuracy in that i've mapped out about 200 ancestors with branches ranging back between as low as the mid 1800s to as long ago as 1550 births. it is not poorly researched wishful thinking, but only original source confirmed, often doubly by family/christening/birth/marriage/residence/census documents etc. different countries have different strengths and weaknesses in genealogical resources. for example my weakest branch is the irish side because the central family records building in dublin was destroyed during the revolution. meaning its basically done, no more research possible on that side beyond what I already have. despite that, i have very clear results back to the early 1800s. some documents ive found are really fascinating and i've truly gotten to know some of these ancestors with interesting lives.
now, the main claim against genealogical research' accuracy in determining your ethnic makeup is something along the lines of "but WHAT IF your one ancestor before your oldest one found was from AFRICA or china??". That is remotely, but technically possible. However, even if that was the case in the absurd case of 5 out of ~200 ancestors listed, that would only change what you are by 2.5%. in a somewhat more realistic 1 or 2 out of 200, that would add 0.5 to 1% of inaccuracy to your identity claims. basically nothing.
the benefits i am actually interested in regarding DNA results are on the wider and much older population movements and perhaps illnesses and things to do with my body itself.
by researching genealogical records however, you can look at ages of death and even causes of death from mid 1800s up in many cases for many ancestors, something DNA results cant show.
I'm not attempting to dismiss dna testing and its results, but I believe anyone really interested in this kind of thing should have at least done a basical genealogical study. So, what are some benefits of DNA testing and how/why do you disregard its risks?
obvious immediate drawback of giving away your dna is that certain ahem groups will retain that information forever, potentially even affecting your descendants' existence in ways we can't yet fully imagine. however i believe someone has clearly recognized this potential.
your local library almost certainly has ancestral research sites usable, i even use them via my library from my home computer. i have never paid any money for this research.
im obviously a proponent of detailed genealogical study, i see its accuracy in that i've mapped out about 200 ancestors with branches ranging back between as low as the mid 1800s to as long ago as 1550 births. it is not poorly researched wishful thinking, but only original source confirmed, often doubly by family/christening/birth/marriage/residence/census documents etc. different countries have different strengths and weaknesses in genealogical resources. for example my weakest branch is the irish side because the central family records building in dublin was destroyed during the revolution. meaning its basically done, no more research possible on that side beyond what I already have. despite that, i have very clear results back to the early 1800s. some documents ive found are really fascinating and i've truly gotten to know some of these ancestors with interesting lives.
now, the main claim against genealogical research' accuracy in determining your ethnic makeup is something along the lines of "but WHAT IF your one ancestor before your oldest one found was from AFRICA or china??". That is remotely, but technically possible. However, even if that was the case in the absurd case of 5 out of ~200 ancestors listed, that would only change what you are by 2.5%. in a somewhat more realistic 1 or 2 out of 200, that would add 0.5 to 1% of inaccuracy to your identity claims. basically nothing.
the benefits i am actually interested in regarding DNA results are on the wider and much older population movements and perhaps illnesses and things to do with my body itself.
by researching genealogical records however, you can look at ages of death and even causes of death from mid 1800s up in many cases for many ancestors, something DNA results cant show.
I'm not attempting to dismiss dna testing and its results, but I believe anyone really interested in this kind of thing should have at least done a basical genealogical study. So, what are some benefits of DNA testing and how/why do you disregard its risks?