Re: DNA Testing for ancestry? (channel4)

Actually, I didn't confuse them, I was simply quoting a very small extract
from Else Churchill's article (some 600-700 words) which does make the
distinction between the two. However, this didn't alter her opinion that
DNA testing is "not proven". I suggest you read the full article in the
November issue of Your Family Tree.

John Cartmell...

By quoting it you make it yours - unless you specifically dissociate yourself
from the comment. The extract did confuse the two. If she elsewhere
acknowledges the difference then she has forgotten it by the time she gets to
the bit quoted. Her opinion of "not proven" is worthless unless she says what
it is that needs to be proven - and still worthless as she doesn't appear
(from you extract) to understand what tests are currently offered.

You have justified the "not proven" by making false statements. The opinion
falls as not valid.

Say why *you* think it's "not proven" and ensure that your reasons are valid
and relate to current DNA testing. Then we have a reasonable discussion.

Richard van Schaik...

And I must say that John gives a very good summary of the possible
benefits and drawbacks of this technology used in proving ancestors.