I encourage everyone to become knowledgeable of DNA, and not become overly trusting in advertising claims where the words seem to be exactly what you're seeking. One cannot read a brochure and count on one's expectations being met. One must read and obtain a basic understanding of current genetic DNA analysis to effectively merge expectations with existing capabilities. Additionally, if you take exception to what I write, then send me the details to prove your point so that I am persuaded. Genetic DNA analysis is still new and expanding. Although different aspects of genetic DNA can be identified and grouped, the qualified experts are not in agreement, and some greatly disagree with associated statistical assumptions and/or conclusions. There are clearly some aspects that seem beyond doubt --reflect that the Earth is round and not flat-- yet specific genetic conclusions and/or assumptions are not measurable as scientific facts. There are many instances where genetic DNA analysis will solve some macro-level problems, and there are pointers and/or indicators that seem to be valid in resolving some larger micro-level problems. Remember that much more is unknown than is known concerning genetic DNA analysis

I define "classical genealogy" as the alignment of known biological parents, with their biological children, and their biological paternal and maternal ancestors, in a linear fashion, so as to identify each person, by name and their exact ancestral lineage. I define "classical research" as the discovery and analysis of recorded historical information from all sources from which one makes conclusions to specify parents, siblings, and grandparents for each generation. All sources include any relevant evidence (written or oral), and these sources should be multiple and supporting, or can be stand-alone if other evidence for or against isn't available. Anyone who says that you must have an official record as proof is a fool!

I realize that there are other genealogy related reasons why DNA analysis is important (medical and legal), but those reasons have little to do with classical genealogy, except in cases where known DNA is available on both ends of a line from which to prove a genetic link, but not necessarily prove a specific lineage to that person unless it is either supported by available DNA in each generation, or by a proven official record of genetic linkage.

Although DNA analysis is multifaceted, genealogy currently only uses two types:  mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and Y-Chromosome DNA (Y-Line).

mtDNA passes on to every mother's biological children (male & female). But, only daughters can pass on mtDNA to her children and fathers make no contribution to the mtDNA of their children. Although sperm does contain mtDNA, the quantity is tiny (50-100) compared to the woman's egg (maybe 100,000). During conception, few male mtDNA get through to the egg, the few that do get through are probably diluted, and surviving male mtDNA are intentionally destroyed; there are some scientists who prudently espouse the position that while this should be true, there may be instances where it isn't, and if such instances exist, they cannot be included in conventional genetic DNA science, and it is currently impossible to identify such an instance within the DNA strand. Thus, if one has a known ancestral lineage, with mtDNA available in each generation, then one can prove a maternal lineage (mother's line).

	The mtDNA signature does not vary between generations (mtDNA is identical, but the sequencing can vary). If an ancient female's mtDNA is known, and it matches known mtDNA for someone living today, then we know with certainty that the ancient female is related on their maternal side, but, the match provides no clues concerning the lineage in each generation that links them together -- nothing at all!
	The mutation rate for mtDNA isn't exactly known, and even within the range of mutation rates, it's known that specific families can have increased or even decreased mutation rates outside the believed normal ranges. Practically, most of us know of the 5,000 year old ice-man found frozen in the ice high in the mountains in Northern Italy. His mtDNA is said to match that of a woman who lived about 15,000 years ago who lived in the area around Venice, Italy. If that mtDNA analysis is correct (the means by which her mtDNA was proven), then the ice man is her biological grandchild. Likewise, if your mtDNA signature matches hers, then you too are the maternal grandchild of the 15,000 year old woman, but absolutely nothing is known about the connecting generations unless mtDNA is available from each generation, or an official record exists to prove parentage for generations where mtDNA isn't available.
	What good is mtDNA for classical genealogy? First, if it's available for a questionable generation, then it can prove a maternal lineage to that specific person. Second, it can provide a known start point, in unlinked past generations, by which once can search forward for links to the present. Before mtDNA, classical genealogists could only search backward to reveal early ancestors. They could pick someone from the past and work forward, but successes would only be by accident because there was no previous means by which to select a factual early start-point. Both of the above are significant improvements to classical genealogy, but connecting the present with the known past still requires either classical research, or mtDNA from each linking generation in order to identify the persons in each generation. Otherwise, the only result is that one can prove a maternal relationship between two people, but nothing else.

Y-Line DNA passes from father to son, but the Y-Line signature changes slowly over time. Thus, male relatives, with an unbroken male lineage back to a common ancestor, share the same or similar Y-Line markers.

What good is Y-Line DNA for classical genealogy?

First, if Y-Line DNA is available for the ancestral male in question, it can prove that the two persons are related. And, if the DNA of the ancestral male's wife is available, it can determine whether or not you are their grandchild, or are related on the paternal side. That, combined with mtDNA, provides a total picture of you and your relationship to that ancestral family. There is additional analysis, based upon the number of matching Y-Line markers, but that has to do with the probable number of generations back to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA), but has nothing whatsoever to do with identifying the lineage between the start points and the MRCA.

Second, one can prove there is a relationship between two males of the same surname who are living today (example Joe Smith in Florida, and John Smith in Washington), but it cannot tell you anything about the specific lineage that created the relationship. However, it does provide knowledge for the classical researcher that was not previously available, in that the researcher may now include the other person in the pool of names of known relatives that must be connected via other means (DNA and/or classical research). Note: I specified in the second point that it applied to two males of the same surname. In most cases, that's a correct statement, however, names can be changed, and women can have affairs. For example, Sue is pregnant and is married to John Smith. But she is having an affair with Tom Jones. Sue is pregnant by Tom, but doesn't intend to divorce John, so she has the baby, and since Sue and John were still having sex, John thinks the baby is his and the baby is named Tom Smith. That is a scenario whereby two men of different surnames would have the same or similar Y-Line DNA markers, yet not share the same surname, but have a common male ancestor with the Jones surname.

What About Cave Men? From my reading, there are several instances whereby sufficient cell structure has survived in Neanderthal man remains that have been carbon-dated to between 15,000 and 100,000 years old. And, the mtDNA was adequate for analysis, with some specimens being quite good. From known modern man mtDNA, compared to Neanderthal man mtDNA, and chimpanzee mtDNA, some rather startling results seem apparent. Read the analysis yourself for your own understanding and conclusions, but I read that the undisputed conclusion within known science is that modern man could not have come from Neanderthal man, because the required information is significantly outside the realm of the possibly. The same conclusions were reached concerning chimpanzees and Neanderthal man, whereby the parameters are closer for man and chimpanzees than for Neanderthal man and either of them. Very interesting is that among the Neanderthal man specimens, they were all sufficiently similar within their own genetic DNA to show a genetic lineage; this adds credence to the other analysis concerning man and chimpanzee.
 

Mitochondrial-Eve? This title, and it is used frequently, is perhaps a very poor choice of words. Its implication, by words alone, draws a hasty conclusion that we're talking about the Eve of "Adam & Eve". It is possible that the biblical Eve could be the mitochondrial-Eve, but it's impossible to say that mitochondrial-Eve is the biblical Eve. The term is simply supposed to mean the most recent common ancestor, on the maternal side, of all humans alive on earth today.

DNA Profiling: Recently, I've seen some claims concerning genetic profiling whereby a racial profile is claimed to be possible. Specifically, after this analysis, the results are supposed to specify the percentage of racial diversity for one's total ancestral history. Example: 25% European, 5% American Indian, and 70% Middle Eastern. This is advertised as accurate, however, I have only seen one instance of claims and nothing in broad use, and therefore am skeptical at this point (Mar 2006). On a side note, I personally first saw and heard this said by Oprah Winfrey on her TV show. When Oprah's blood was analyzed, it supposedly reflected 0% (zero) Western European or in other words "no white" blood, to which she pronounced "That's Good!" -- Such a shame, as another Racist who is anti-White is now officially recognized! I haven't watched her show since.

Standards: While reviewing the various DNA analysis offerings, I noticed that there is no standard for evaluating the methodology for determining the timeframes in reference to the most recent common ancestor. Or more plainly, the analysts use whatever method that they feel is a more accurate means. Resultantly, one currently gets different results from any or all of the DNA testing facilities, unless a common facility is used, and it may be using techniques that are espoused only by their facility. This indicates that to me that there will soon be a standards organization for DNA analysis, just as there is for electrical and electronic (IEEE) and many others, whereby those who provide services concerning DNA analysis will be required by law to adhere to these standards. New and evolving standards would be required to submit them to this board to determine if they are based upon sound and reliable processes and procedures that provide common results regardless of the facility performing the analysis. This new organization would set the standards based upon the best reliability standards available with current technology, then set return meetings whereby they would evaluate technology and/or analysis evolutions to determine if the upgrading the standards is prudent and in the best interest of the customer.

My bottom-lines: