I know this is a "rookie" question, but can DNA evidence be used as a source document?

Question

Using DNA Evidence (2 different testing sources)

Answer 1

I think you are asking whether DNA evidence can be listed as a source on a WikiTree profile? Yes, but we have specific guidelines for citing DNA evidence.

On WikiTree, DNA is used in addition to traditional genealogical research to mark parent-child relationships as "Confirmed with DNA". Whenever a relationship is marked as "confirmed with DNA", a source citation is required to be added to the profile that details how DNA was used to make the confirmation. The DNA Confirmation Citation Maker app helps to write the source citations. It is pretty simple to DNA-confirm relationships that are third cousins or closer, and triangulation is required for more distant relationships (see: Help:DNA Confirmation).

It is important to note that DNA confirmation should be used for relationships that have already been put together with traditional genealogy (source documents etc.). DNA alone cannot tell you exactly how two people are related to each other (except perhaps for very close relationships like parent/child). Traditional genealogy is needed for that.

As an example, you can see the WikiTree profile for my grandmother. I've marked her parents as confirmed by DNA and added a source citation in the sources section.

Hope that answers your question!

Answer 2

Yes it's possible, I've managed to find the previously unknown father of my ancestor born in 1869. The only problem is that my sources are people that are still alive and chose to make a DNA test so I can't publish anytthing about it (just privately in my family).

Comments

May I ask whether the deceased ancestors of these living DNA tested people ARE on WikiTree?  Or are they only in your private tree so far?

I run into a vaguely related problem almost every time I get a new DNA match that has a triangulation prospect for my tree relationship confirmations by DNA.

I first have to put all the living tested people's linked deceased ancestors into WikiTree, and even then I can only refer to the DNA related person as say "grandchild of {{Wikibod-567|Firstname Wikibod}}", in the DNA confirmation.  In some cases I can get publically available sources to include living people on WikiTree but I still refrain from including them in WikiTree because to do so increases the possibility of Identification of a DNA tested person.

---

- Yes the deceased ancestor is in WikiTree. Connection source is a vague comment I made: "Confirmed with a DNA test."

- No, his living descendants that helped make this connection possible have not been added to WikiTree. This connection is confirmed by 8 living relatives DNA kits. 100% sure.

I've never added living people to WikiTree except my close family whith their agreement. My brother or my child are not in WikiTree  for instance.

Answer 3

No, genealogy does not recognize DNA test results as a primary source for validating a family tree. DNA evidence is used presently to supplement established practices and validate findings but not as an original primary source for a family tree. People may feel differently about this but I'm following the practices of the well-established hereditary societies in my response.

Comments

Well, it might be possible with a reasonably complete genealogical proof argument following the Genealogical Proof Standard. This still requires a lot of paper trail work and detailed analysis of all pieces of evidence and correlating everything.

Answer 4

Not even remotely a rookie question, Jerry. The general genealogy community has struggled with it for two decades, and there still isn't a simple answer.

The Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) directly addressed DNA evidence for the first time, as a separate chapter, in their slim Genealogy Standards, Second Edition Revised (2019 and 2021). Available at Amazon and elsewhere; note that Amazon shows that the version they sell is dated 2019. It isn't: if ordered, what you receive will be the 2021 edition.

I personally wish that they had gone into much greater detail about the "what" and "how" of evidence analysis for DNA, but it was a step in the right direction. As an aside, two months ago the BCG announced their first new certification in many years: Certified Genetic Genealogist.

The first paragraph in the chapter about DNA in Genealogy Standards provides a brief answer, and mirrors Doug McCallum's comment:

"Meeting the Genealogical Proof Standard requires using all available and relevant types of evidence. DNA evidence both differs from and shares commonalities with documentary evidence. Like other types of evidence, DNA evidence is not always available, relevant, or usable for a specific problem, is not used alone, and involves planning, analyzing, drawing conclusions, and reporting. Unlike other types of evidence, DNA evidence usually comes from people now living."

It isn't documentary evidence, but it is definitely a type of evidence. The catch is that the skillset for the thorough analysis and evaluation of genetic data is very different from traditional documentary evidence. Genetics is very seldom binary--seldom a yes or no proposition--and requires a solid grasp not just of the biology involved, but also of complex statistical probabilities. In my opinion, to provide truly meaningful citations for DNA evidence necessitates more than simply citing a document: an explanation of the analyses performed and conclusions drawn has to be presented.

Other researchers can't simply go look at a cited document. In many cases, they won't have direct access to the data used in DNA analysis. So it's incumbent on us to provide sufficient details about our evaluation and conclusion in keeping with the Genealogical Proof Standard. And for genetics that really can't be reduced to a simple template or formula: there are far, far too many variables.

Comments

Thank you for providing details on this topic. The first Certified Genetic Genealogist credential was recently awarded to Thomas W Jones. Anyway, he said the detailed analysis is very important and needs to be stated as clearly and concisely as possible and descendant charts to explain the relationships. If I remember correctly, he had to use DNA results from more than a dozen people to have enough information to have a reasonable proof (he was using mtDNA). There definitely isn't a one size fits all model.

---

I agree about an explanation of the analyses performed and the conclusions drawn. Indeed, I've not yet managed to write up my more complicated and interesting analyses yet because the complexity of argument is high, and I haven't yet seen fit to find the time. But, in searching for help in how to write these arguments, I was happy to stumble across this document:

https://familylocket.com/how-to-write-and-publish-a-proof-argument-with-dna-evidence/

---

Thank you for sharing that, Barry! Very useful.

Answer 5

Is this discussion specifically about autosomal DNA and should be tagged accordingly ?. As I understand it, Ydna is undeniable proof, so how is this cited in WikiTree ?. I have my greater family in NZ matched by Ydna to families in Ireland, Canada, and Australia, but so far no paper trail. Thus they connect on a Y haplogroup tree, but not a genealogy tree. Is there a way to cite this in WikiTree or any of the DTC trees ?. An anecdotal link to Wales is yet to get strong Y connections.