GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-01 > 1043450055


From: "Ernest Hurst" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] ancestrybydna explained
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:14:15 -0500
References: <20030124201826.56922.qmail@web41209.mail.yahoo.com> <006001c2c3fc$114366c0$1d34c6d1@9ewfc>


According to the instructions on same page where you subscribed, send
message to with "unsubscribe"
in subject & body of e-mail.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Angela Eckman" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] ancestrybydna explained


> How do I unscribe to DNA?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Faux" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:18 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNA] ancestrybydna explained
>
>
> >
> > Hello Tony: I thank you very much for your reply, and applaud your
> willingness to adopt a non - defensive stance in this situation. Your
> explanation of the discrepancy / discordant findings was very detailed and
> clear. I still, however, think that what you say is possible, but highly
> improbable. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree here.
> > I do want to emphasize, however, that in my case your lab came up with
> findings that are pretty much "bulleye" in terms of confirming /
supporting
> the documentary record of my family. No matter what may seem to be the
> case, I am 100% behind the work you are doing, but, being a scientist, am
> well aware that progress is only going to be made with constructive
> criticism. The door you have opened will ultimately lead to a much
greater
> understanding of our individual histories. After 30 years of searching
> every conceivable documentary record in order to trace my ancestry, I have
> exhausted that source. Now I look to you and your competitors to confrm
and
> expand what I have discovered to date.
> > I have enough "faith" that I was willing to invest in the DNAPrint
testing
> of both my parents. No matter what the results may be, I hope that they
> will be a springboard to a useful dialogue. David.
> > TONY N FRUDAKIS <> wrote:Sorry about the
> misinformation David (Carrie please post this to roots web),
> >
> > I see the point of the conversation now.
> >
> > Assume 4 of 46 chromosomes inherited from the mother contain the Native
> > American "flavor". Also assume they are of different chromosomes (say,
one
> > of chromosome 1 pair, one of chromosome 2 pair etc., not both
chromosomes
> of
> > a pair). These four would account for 8% NAM in this person (4 divided
by
> > 46). What is the probability the sister would inherit none of these four
> > chromosomes? Ignoring recombination and assuming as above, the
probability
> > is not insignificant (its about 6.3%).
> >
> > For sister 2, 14% NAM would suggest she inherited 6 Native American
> > chromosomes of 46 total (the rest being Indo European). What is the
> > probability she would inherit these from a mother or father heterozygous
> for
> > the Native Ameican chromosomes? Its 0.5 to the 6 power or 2%. The
> > probability that both non-events would occur back to back (sister 1,
then
> > sister 2) is the product of the two together, which is about 1%, low,
but
> > not impossible.
> >
> > I admit this result seems unlikely, but not impossible. Of 100 sister
> pairs
> > we would see something like this. Of all the siblings we have tested,
this
> > is the first time we have seen this and we have tested about 10 siblings
> to
> > my knowledge (unless my people have run some more that I havent seen the
> > data for yet). If there is no (and not to insult) possibility the two
> > sisters were not of the same father (or mother), the most likely
> explanation
> > is that the true value for each of the sisters is somewhere within the
> first
> > confidence contour of the triangle plot (i.e. it is not precisely the
MLE
> > point estimate, which we warn is a possibility), and that both Native
> > American and East Asian ancestry may be part of the genetic constitution
> of
> > both sisters - or the minor ancestry reported is less in one or both
than
> > reported by the MLE.) The moral of the story however is certainly that
bot
> > Native American and East Asian can be detected in the family. THis is in
> > start contrast to many other families we have done where no
> non-IndoEuropean
> > ancestry can be found, so it is a meaningful result. As a piece of a
> larger
> > puzzle, which includes historical information and archive information, I
> > think it adds to the geneaological case. The east Asian indicates
Northern
> > European or Russian influence, or possibly some other group that was
> > influenced by central/northern Asians.
> >
> >
> > Thx for your attention to the test, and your honest criticism of the
test
> > whether positive or negative. Please let me know if there are any other
> > questions that arise.
> >
> > Tony.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carrie Castillo [mailto:]
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 12:46 PM
> > To: TFrudakis
> > Subject: Fw: [DNA] ancestrybydna explained
> >
> >
> >
> > Carrie Castillo
> > Corporate Communications
> > DNAPrint genomics
> > www.dnaprint.com
> > 941-366-3400
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Faux"
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 1:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] ancestrybydna explained
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dr. Frudakis: I understand that you are CEO (or founder) of Ancestry
by
> > DNA. Although I plead guilty to having harshly criticized some of the
> > findings coming from your lab, I have also on many occasions praised the
> > company for courage in sailing through uncharted waters. You have,
> however,
> > in the present missive, only clouded the matter further.
> > > To the best of my recollection Ann indicated that she was found to
have
> 9%
> > East Asian, and her sister 14%, not East Asian as you note below, but
> Native
> > North American!
> > > Can you please explain how the law of independent assortment can
account
> > for sisters who are so dramatically discordant. My argument is not with
> the
> > concept, it is with the numbers. They simply make no sense if the two
are
> > full sisters.
> > > David K. Faux, Ph.D., C.Psych., C.G.
> > > Carrie Castillo wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no discrepancy between one sister obtaining 14%
> > >
> > > East Asian and another obtaining 9%. The law of independent
> > >
> > > assortment during gametogenesis dictates that each sibling inherits
> > >
> > > different chromosomes from each parent so their pairs are unique.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tony Frudakis, Ph.D.
> > >
> > > DNAPrint genomics.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
> records,
> > go to:
> > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
> > >
> > >
> > > Dr. David K. Faux, 4028 Larwin Ave., Cypress, CA, 90630, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> > >
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
> records,
> > go to:
> > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. David K. Faux, 4028 Larwin Ave., Cypress, CA, 90630, USA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
records,
> go to:
> > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
> >
>
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>


This thread: