But what about the DNA?

I guess the best place to start is by quoting from the first few lines of a brilliant and massive article, written by Jack Taylor, in an attempt to explain all the meanings of DNA results.  It goes like this:

"DO NOT READ FURTHER if you're hoping to substitute DNA for traditional genealogy, based on documents and records. DNA cannot tell you your ancestors' names or where they lived and can only estimate a probable range of time in which they might have lived.  DNA helps focus documentary research; it can't replace it. You should know genealogical time frames and standards. Always, answers to the meaning of matches involve probabilities – statistics"

  Right away--if any company is telling you that a specific person is a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA), then they are full of it.  DNA testing simply cannot do this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 So what about the "5 matches" that Courtney mentions in the comments section?  (Thanks, Courtney!  You've been a great help--I have a neat posting forthcoming with some new information about the Huggins line that I found solely because of your comments!)

As Jack Taylor's preface above shows, there are really only two 'rules'  to keep in mind:
1)  DNA testing always deals in probabilities, not specifics.
2)  A DNA result without a paper trail is almost useless.  (I will explain why I say "almost" later).
 
   In the case of Jacob Huggins of Orange Co NC, father of Jacob Douglas Huggins Jr who married Susanna Ward, here is the paper trail ( if we can call it that) of proof that he's the son of Jacob and Francis Cooper Huggins of Onslow Co NC:
    A)  They have the same name.

  That's all.  Not another scrap of evidence has ever been offered to support this claim.

   B) In response, we have shown dozens of documents, date conflicts, time and place contradictions, literacy conflicts, etc. that demonstrate that the Jacob Huggins in Orange Co (father of Jacob Douglas Huggins) cannot be the son of Jacob and Frances Cooper Huggins of Onslow Co.

   I would simply contend that descendents of Jacob Douglas Huggins deserve better.  They deserve a genealogy that is real--one that is documented and demonstrable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So...what about the 5 matches? 
There is a corollary to Rule #2 that says this:
 2a)  A DNA 'match' is only as good as the paper trail.

Here's what I mean:
  It's pretty rare that folks given a list of matching test results ever know the specific documentation the other person(s) have for their professed lineage.

  Applying this specifically here (and I don't know any other way to say this other than being really blunt, sorry)  the first question is:  "How many of the 5 'matches' are descendents of Jacob Douglas Huggins and have been following the same crap genealogy that became online 'gospel?'" 

  Again, since it's rare that you get their documentation and actual lineage, this might be hard to say.  It may be that every single one of them fits this description.  My guess is that, if you were to be able to get all that information, you would find that many of them do.
   Thus, you can toss these matches out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But what if there is one match (or more) that is from someone who is from the Onslow line--and totally independent from Jacob Douglas Huggins of Orange Co?!
   That's actually an exciting thing.
 Recall that Rule #2 said: "A DNA result without a paper trail is almost useless."
     Here's why I insert the word "almost' in there:

   In this specific case, if there are people who 'match' your test coming from an independent Onslow line, then take note of how Onslow Huggins researchers keep focusing on Maryland (with lots of good reasons) as the likely originating point of that Huggins line prior to coming into the Onslow area.  There were early Huggins in Somerset Co MD...also some in Anne Arundel. 
   And, as I have shown in a previous post, there was a John Huggins in Baltimore Co by 1730 living right by our Wards who then had a son named Jacob Huggins. 
  What these matching results would then be showing is that the line that came down to Onslow and the one that came down to Orange both may well have originated from the same point.  DNA can't really show you that Jacob Huggins of Orange Co came from Onslow, but it can show you that the two lines had a common ancestor at some place and time previously.  That focal point would be Maryland--or, possibly previous to that, I suppose.
   In this case, DNA testing can hint to us 'where to look next.'  That's its one use devoid of a paper trail.  And that's why I use the word "almost" in Rule #2.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In that light, assuming you have matches with someone from the Onslow Huggins whose lineage is independent of Orange Co.,  then it all comes down to the 'quality' of the match.

  For example, let's say you matched 35 of 37 markers with one of these people.  All that means, really, is that you have a 90% probability of sharing a common ancestor within the last 360 years.  There is a 95%  probability that your common ancestor was in the last 420 years.

  And, although, it's impossible for DNA to name a specific person--results like this are exciting in that the two different lines may each point to a common place of origin. And that can help us know what to look for.

   I hope that all was a bit more clear than mud.  Feel free to hammer me with questions.
                                                              <Kevin>