Archives Search Engine

Body:
Subject:
From:
(email address of poster)
List:
(limit search to one mailing list)
Date:
(e.g. 10 Jun 2005, Jun 2005, or 2005)
   Search tips

Searching for: +path:genealogy-dna +(+date:apr +date:2003)
Viewing 1-25 of 1,141 matches from 36,222,914 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next
1. Re: [DNA] A reply from Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint [1]
Tony wrote: > The presentation of the contours as the results illustrates that we are > presenting the results in the most responsible manner possible. The contour > lines ARE the fudge factor. People want to know the most likely percentage, > so we report the MLE as well, and the instructions clearly explain how the > MLE and contours should be used. There is no reason to increase error bars > (increase to what?). The confidence contours tell the story, and are To answer your probably rhetorical quest
2. Re: [DNA] NA results faulty [1]
Tony wrote: > The obvious problem with this interpretation is "obvious sterotypical > features" and appearance, rather than documentation and proof. Even if > great grandma was 60% Native American, and the rest European, there is a > very real chance that by the genetic law of independent assortment your > level would be on the borderline of the detection limits. It doesnt mean > the tet does not work, it means the amount of Native American blood in your > veins is borderline on the insignificant. I won'
3. Re: [DNA] East Asian "Genes" in Europeans: Implications for Genealogists [1]
Charles wrote: > I just want to be sure the > test is totally accurate in the current "interpretation" and model of > which SNP's are absolutely "East Asian" and what are absolutely > "European". I am sure the company believes it is accurate or they would > not have brought the product to market. Unfortunately, it is next to impossible to prove or disprove that interpretation. In the most general sense, of course, that interpretation is false, since there is nothing intrinsically "East Asian" about any a
4. Re: [DNA] You have a match?? [1]
Ernie wrote: > I stand by what I said - the 25 > marker test is much more accurate, and therefore better for anyone who is > serious about his Genealogy (in my opinopn :)) That may be what you meant to say, but what you actually said was that the 12-marker test is a waste of time and money. The fact is that the better test costs more, so the choice has to be based on cost-benefit analysis. If your definition of "serious" includes the provision that "money is no object", then the better test wins out eve
5. Re: [DNA] Iraqi Ancestors [1]
Carole wrote: > Does anyone know if the current residents of Iraq are genetic descendants of > Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar, Sumerians? Nobody knows, but you can assume it if you wish. You can similarly assume that the current residents of the entire Fertile Crescent are descendants of Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Sumerians. Probably also all of the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Turkey, and Egypt. So what? The "true" heirs of the legacy of those folks are museum curators (and Indiana Jones, of course).
6. Re: [DNA] Asiatic Peoples part II [1]
Bonnie wrote: > OK, all right, already, I'd better follow up on and correct any wrong > impressions that my first, vague message may have given. No, actually, it would have been better to let it go. This is getting increasingly away from DNA and *not* getting any more factual. When you hear anything about the Huns' activities in Asia, it always turns out to be about some tribe that somebody is guessing might have become the Huns because they troubled the Chinese for a while and then stopped ranking high
7. Re: [DNA] Asiatic Peoples in Europe [1]
Bonnie wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion about the origin of the mysterious > Asiatic genes DNAprint keeps finding in people of Western European > background. And while some contributors to the list have referred to > the 'hordes' as Mongolian, another person has disputed this. Yes, indeed, I did and do dispute it. > found some excellent information on these peoples at the Dark Ages Web. Sorry, but the Dark Ages site is about Europe. Although it states as "fact" specific origins and itinerarie
8. Re: [DNA] spurious matches [Guinness] [1]
Patrick wrote: > And which of the 25 are right or wrong? According to ft-dna, my > results are at e.g. DYS385, 11-14. According to 2 European labs the > reading is 10-13 - both labs are certified by the Y-str-database > people. Very interesting. The results reported by RelGen before they embarked on the lengthy calibration process were also off by -1 for DYS385. John Chandler
9. Re: [DNA] What exactly am I looking at? [1]
Jeff wrote: > I recently got back my 12 marker test from FTDNA. > > I understand that the laboratory compares the test results and > notifies me of a match, and I assume any close or near matches. > > The website for my test indicates ONE "match" if there was a set of > "near" matches, how would I find them? A miss is as good as a mile. Unless your haplotype is extremely rare, there will be people out there who nearly match you but are completely unrelated as far as genealogical time frames are concer
10. Re: [DNA] ybase statistics [1]
Malcolm wrote: > As someone who has never yet had a 25/25 match I wondered what the > statistical chances are. > Any one who has not seen the excellent ybase statistics should certainly try > this link > http://www.ybase.org/statistics.asp Unfortunately, the ybase database is still pretty small, and its statistics are probably not a good representation of the population as a whole. You can do better by looking at Nancy Custer's plots http://www.contexo.info of the allele frequencies tabulated fro
11. Re: [DNA] mutuation rate chart [1]
Dave wrote: > I have been advised elsewhere that "the 0.36 for DYS393 in ...(the) > fast-to-slow list of markers isn't a > percentage of mutation rate - it's just a measure of how widely scattered > the alleles are at that marker. The mutation rate will actually be > proportional to the square of this figure. ... That's useless. The absolute mutation rate cannot be inferred from studies of the variances on individual markers. The proportionality constant can be obtained by assuming a standard average mu
12. Re: [DNA] DNAPrint Test: Validation Studies [1]
David wrote: > It is entited, "DNA Witness 2.0: > Validation Studies". It was completed in conjunction with the National Center > for Forensic Science and the San Diego Police Department Crime Lab. The > website is www.chalberweid.ch/DNAPrint/DNAWitness2.0.PDF . I would be > interested to learn of your views on this study. David. It appears to be aimed entirely at crime lab customers. Certainly, a crime lab would want to know what happens if they send in a sample containing blood from two individu
13. Re: [DNA] Definitive list of loci/DYS numbers for the Scot-DNA DAD database [1]
George wrote: > Can someone please advise me on where I can find a definitive/authoritive > list of DYS numbers. This is not a static list. New markers are continually being added. I doubt whether there is an official version of the list on-line. A short list appears at http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/ > but as the labs use different collections of DYS markers it would be > wise for me to collect all the markers used by all the different labs. It's not clear why that would be useful to you
14. Re: [DNA] A reply from Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint [1]
Charles wrote: > Possibly some of the AIM markers being used which they have > flagged as exclusively indicative of East Asian, are ancient "Eurasian" > markers existing in both population groups. Tony gave an answer of sorts, but he sidestepped the real issue. First, note that the markers used are not "flagged" for the purposes of the test. Obviously, the markers were chosen for their power of discrimination between population groups, but the only information bundled with the markers is the set of allel
15. Re: [DNA] Scandanavians with the East Asian gene [1]
Malcolm wrote: > I wonder if it is possible to match the 1 in 3 Europeans who have East Asian > genes to a particular haplogroup? This is essentially the same idea that David put forward a week or so ago, but with a different slant. David's plan was to check within a geographically isolated population determined to have a well-mixed high proportion of "East Asian" markers and find out if there is a comparable fraction of East Asian haplotypes, either Y DNA or mtDNA. Of course, this would depend upon findi
16. Re: [DNA] A reply from Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint [1]
Charles wrote: > A reply from Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint. Posted with his permission. > > Charles, > > Didnt mean to offend and sorry if I did. I try to speak my mind and > speak the truth at all times, and Im not very politically correct. My > defensivity comes from the reading of John Chandlers post which implies > that our test doesnt work and that we are somehow covering this fact up, > which is ridiculuous (how many Europeans tested have come back with > major African or other non-European ancestry, a
17. Re: [DNA] Detection of Low Levels of Non - European Alleles: Serach for Solution via DNAPrint Test [1]
Bill wrote: > Does this mean that these authors recommend that we change and upgrade > to +60-100 DNA markers ???? Nothing of the kind. They were talking about identifying the continent of origin with high reliability, but that's not a genealogical type of identification. What's more, they were really talking about using Alu markers, and the reference to microsatellites was clearly just an afterthought. They didn't try 100 STR markers, just 100 Alu's. In fact, I don't think you should take their conclu
18. Re: [DNA] Asiatic Peoples part II [1]
David wrote: > Hello Bennett: Well, I know that last week their team was "discussing it" - > changing the confusing East Asian designation to something that better > reflects > the weight of incoming data. No, it sounds as if they are unrepentant. If, by "incoming data", you mean the anecdotal evidence of the surprised customers, the company is quite correct in ignoring that, and I think they will continue to do so. Anecdotal evidence is simply not reliable. I've said that in connection with the quest
19. Re: [DNA] DNA Match [1]
Ann wrote: > There's a formula for calculating the number of combinations possible when > you take 25 items 2 at a time (i.e. 23 matches), but I'm thinking that it's > not appropriate to apply that for STR markers, where there are two different > ways to get a mismatch at every locus (the number of repeats is one more or > one less). If you don't care whether it's one more or one less (and it's not clear why you would care), then the binomial formula is indeed appropriate. The number is 25 x 24 / 2 = 300,
20. Re: [DNA] You have a match?? [1]
Ernie wrote: > You're not doomed to anything - you have a delete key or could unsubscribe > if you don't like the tone of the conversation. Let me say first that I apologize for speaking so bluntly. I did not intend to blame you in any way for holding or expressing an opinion. Nonetheless, I think you missed the point. I said "we" are doomed to this same conversation over and over. If I see a message stating a wrong opinion, I can ignore it, as you suggest, or I can reply, pointing out the things that t
21. Re: [DNA] Loci and Step Differences [1]
Rob wrote:: > Am I calculating this correctly? If so, I am really excited! Your calculations seem ok, but bear in mind that the result is only approximate, with an uncertainty of many hundreds of years either way. John Chandler
22. Re: [DNA] More Unusual Markers [1]
Julia wrote: > This must be a very "unusual" day. I, just, got markers for one member of my > WOOD group. This is the first for the group, so I don't have another WOOD to > match it against, but I switched from Private to Public on the ftDNA page, > out of curiousity, and this guy has no matches at all, not in 12 or 25 > markers. Don't forget that, if most people stay on the Private setting most of the time and only switch to Public briefly to check for matches, then checking for matches will be fruitles
23. Re: [DNA] Some Radcliffes and Penningtons match accidental matches? [1]
Nick wrote: > If I apply your reasoning we can say that in the case of the UK Pennington > he has 22 matches at 23/25 or better in the REO database. There are 12350 > in the database (not all at 25 markers but we can assume if all were 25 > markers there would probably not be too many more close matches) No, you can't assume that. If you're counting 25-marker comparisons, you have to divide by the total number of 25-marker results included in the comparison -- nothing else will do. I would guess around
24. Re: [DNA] A reply from Tony Frudakis of DNAPrint [1]
Tony wrote: > Your argument ignores much of what is known from classification theory. Not at all. It simply transcends classification theory. I listed as one of the oversimplifications of your test the fact that you are lumping all the world into 4 categories. I hastened to point out that simplification is a Good Thing, and I do not deny the utility of doing precisely what you are doing. Nonetheless, I must remind you again that there is a cost. That cost shows up as systematic errors in the results y
25. Re: [DNA] Building a "cushion" fund for additional tests [1]
Jeffery wrote: > My co-leader in my project is suggesting that we "surcharge" a small > amount to establish a fund for getting desired tests done at the > expense of the "Project" and as an assistance fund for those who > wish to provide a sample but lack funds. > > Other than asking for contributions, how do any of you handle this? Operationally, it seemw to me that a "surcharge" would be little different from straight-out asking for contributions, unless you can talk the lab into invoicing all the
Viewing 1-25 of 1,141 matches from 36,222,914 documents1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next

CPU seconds used 0.509922