We've got another mess here.
The profile correctly states that the Strickland DNA Project has found that their three Y-DNA descendants of William Riley Stricklin are of the Q haplogroup, either Q-M3 or Q-BZ2744, indicating that William Riley Stricklin was of Indigenous background. So no real dispute on that particular point, even though we can't definitively say it was Q-M3 specifically. (Other male descendants, please test!)
We're also saying on this profile that William Riley Stricklin was born in South Carolina and died in Alabama. That, too, matches the (uncited) BMD info from the Strickland DNA Project. So we need evidentiary support, but it's nothing controversial.
But the we're also saying that he was the biological son of Gadi Strickland (Gadi Strickland...the display name keeps changing) of North Carolina and Georgia, whose descendants match the Matthew Strickland, Sr. line, which is definitively European.
And we're saying that he was adopted by Samuel Clayton Stricklin -- a man who was born in Virginia and died in Illinois.
Neither of those parentage scenarios adds up for William Riley, whether biological or adoptive. The Y-DNA is not a match and the geography makes the adoption theory an extraordinarily unlikely one.
Either theory needs evidence to be presented. We can establish that William Riley had either Q-M3 or Q-BZ2744 Y-DNA. But beyond that, this profile is conjecture.
