DNA - summary - worth it?

[Andrew Tarr]

A non-dna tree can at best only ever accurately represent the details on the documents but that doesn't mean the details themselves accurately portray biology.

It's a basic distinction, but while actual biological inheritance may be of interest to some, surely the familial upbringing which gave rise to the documents is of more relevance to the Family History ?

[Biggles50]

A non-dna tree can at best only ever accurately represent the details on the documents but that doesn't mean the details themselves accurately portray biology.

It's a basic distinction, but while actual biological inheritance may be of interest to some, surely the familial upbringing which gave rise to the documents is of more relevance to the Family History ?

Not necessarily.

You have to experience it to understand it and even then there is strong feelings of not knowing.

I am in my 70’s and only just determined that my Dad was not my Biological Father.

So 15 years of Paternal research does not represent my biological family, yes it is the family that I knew but there was never the familial bond between my Paternal Cousins or any Paternal relative.

It is difficult to explain and I am still coming to terms with not knowing my late Biological Father in person, I am only getting to know him via my New Biological Family.

Whilst paperwork does give familial lines, that is all they are, lines made up of paper.

[coombs]

A non-dna tree can at best only ever accurately represent the details on the documents but that doesn't mean the details themselves accurately portray biology.

It's a basic distinction, but while actual biological inheritance may be of interest to some, surely the familial upbringing which gave rise to the documents is of more relevance to the Family History ?

A few may disagree with that but I do not. I would still see them as family, blood or not.
For example, if the NPE was in the late 1700s, but a man stepped in and bought the child up and they shared the same surname, then I would see him as part of my family history, just not part of my genes.

[Gadget]

By only accepting the biological relationships, one is approaching genealogy in the same way that pedigrees for horses or dogs are constructed. We are social animals and the social relationships  are as important, if not not more important,  than the biological.

[melba_schmelba]

By only accepting the biological relationships, one is approaching genealogy in the same way that pedigrees for horses or dogs are constructed. We are social animals and the social relationships  are as important, if not not more important,  than the biological.

I agree. I was initially I suppose, a little annoyed, a bit dispirited when I realised a lot of the family history research I did on one line I ended up not really having a biological connection to, as revealed by the DNA. But I soon corrected myself and realised, that I was approaching it in a way, in fact, that my own ancestor would have known nothing about. They almost certainly did not know their father was not their biological father, evidenced by them using their family names and middle names for many of their children, presumably it was a secret kept by their mother for her whole life. Their father went to work and put bread on the table and kept them alive for the first 18 or so years of their life. I don't know if the father was good or bad, but perhaps he was a good and kind person. Perhaps he even had a suspicion his son was not his own but said nothing? Perhaps if they had acted differently and abandoned the wife and son, the child would never have survived to adulthood. And what of all the stories passed on and family gatherings that the son may have been part of, presumably they saw aunts and uncles, and many cousins, perhaps loved some, some not! Should we say that is all nullified because of DNA?

[Andrew Tarr]

We are discussing the old adage - it's a wise child that knows its own father ?

[coombs]

By only accepting the biological relationships, one is approaching genealogy in the same way that pedigrees for horses or dogs are constructed. We are social animals and the social relationships  are as important, if not not more important,  than the biological.

Seconded.

Say for example a woman in the 1780s got pregnant and the father fled or died, or married someone else, and the pregnant single woman married another man while pregnant, and he took the baby on as his and did all the hard work, and was married to the mother, and they shared the same surname, then I would deffo see him as family.

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

I have a few dna matches who know they grew up with a step father and it's obvious just looking at their tree that is the case. What I find baffling is why they have public results and public trees that are portraying two things, it's unclear what their motivations and aims are.
Unless a match is a close relative and the shared matches allow things to be worked out nobody benefits. It's a very different scenario when the dna reveals a wrong turn at a parent compared to an ancestor 200 years ago.

[Gadget]

We are discussing the old adage - it's a wise child that knows its own father ?

Maybe 'father' should be defined as the social term as opposed to  'genitor' - the biological term.


*sorry - I'm a bit rusty on Anthropological terms. My tutors would not be pleased