Only some of them.
You’re missing the point, which is that we don’t need ancestral DNA to identify that two individuals share a common ancestor. That’s the way in which testing within species and between species are identical, not simply analogous.
So would you dispute the Jeffersonian testing?
No, it is not. We don’t have the ancestral DNA from Jefferson.
We can do paternity testing even if the father’s DNA is not provided.
Josh, John Mercer, T aq, T Horton, et al…
I started a new thread (signal + noise = all the data) because I’m not interested in wrangling about what forensic DNA testing shows.
I’m MUCH more interested in how we test universal common descent.
Before we go there, I’m MUCH more interested in whether you are going to acknowledge your misrepresentation of Timothy’s position.
What you need is a standard in which you can say the DNA sequence observed shows common ancestry. In the Jefferson case this is established because of independent evidence of ancestry.
T claimed that the nested hierarchy was independent evidence of all life’s history and since design is not eliminated it cannot be independent evidence.
OK – my bad. You didn’t say “fully consistent.” You said “clear branching nested hierarchy signal,” which allows for noise.
Thank you.
No, no, no, Bill! You’ve got it backwards.
The DNA testing only, simply, and conclusively shows common ancestry.
What we know about the sources of one set of samples is the only connection to Jefferson.
We combine those two independent facts to conclude that the “unknowns” were descendants of Jefferson.
For example, I’m pretty certain that the test would not distinguish between Thomas Jefferson and his brother. Both still fall under common ancestry, the most certain finding here.
And the first thing they’ll do with candidate signals is look for their producers (not designers), correct? While the ID movement claims to have already detected design, but has no interest in the obvious questions that follow in real science: who, where, when, how.
Closing this topic TEMPORARILY until I can get caught up.
OK, I cleaned out much of the chatter and re-opened comments, but perhaps @pnelson is correct that a new thread is a better idea.
@pnelson, @Art @Mercer @T_aquaticus and anyone else, please limit any remaining questions and comments to clarifications on what is already here, and move on or start new threads. Thanks!
@pnelson I’ve been playing janitor instead of reading, but I will follow up with one eventually. 
Please, please do some reading in genetics…
Your reasoning process is like hearing two cooks arguing that making scrambled eggs for a family is a completely different science from making scrambled eggs for an army … because the pans are a different size.
Both tasks use EGGS.
ALL paternity tests, and ALL kinship analysis, and ALL human genome analysis involve markers (sometimes shared and sometimes not) that can only be obtained from two donors.
Setting aside mutations… markers and patterns cannot magically appear… they come from SOMEWHERE.
[Typo Corrected: “appear”, rather than “disappear”.]
And thus a process of logical deduction, no matter how many individuals are tested, is applied to the hard genetic FACTS.
How can you even concoct such a fantastic dismissal… unless you have no comprehension of how genetics work?
Specifically state the test and why the results show ancestry. What results would cause rejection of common ancestry?
There is plenty of interest and all are interesting questions. The limiting factor is the available empirical evidence.
These continual arguments from ignorance bore me.
You should just run your own blog of sophistry.
Let me help… i can request from @swamidass that i be your personal moderator. That would save us all kinds of time.
Back off from the obnoxious demands, Bill. I don’t need to “specifically state the test” for you. You can easily look it up for yourself, as there was a lot of publicity about it.
The results show COMMON ancestry (you seem to have forgotten that the putative ancestor’s DNA wasn’t used) because they share far more of the markers tested than we would expect from nonrelated people, the null hypothesis. This is true for any such test, so there’s zero need for me to specifically state anything. Only the markers differ.
The bottom line is that we are more certain that these people share a common ancestor than we are that said ancestor was Thomas Jefferson, as the latter is dependent on humans’ ability to record parentage accurately.
There is ZERO interest in who, where, when how. If you disagree, kindly present evidence of said interest.
Then why aren’t they generating any in favor of silly spinning of evidence generated by others?