GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-01 > 1043452958


From: "pwreed" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] ancestrybydna explained
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:02:38 -0000
References: <JCHBN.030124.153816.RC0@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>


OK, I've read all the arguments and all the background research I can
get hold of. And special thanks Tony for your comments (although its a
shame you mis-read Ann's discordant sib results).

I know the basic principles of the test are sound and well considered,
however I still think there are two fundamental "problems" with the
test as it stands:

A/ The results are highly dependent on how this test was specifically
designed and the underlying assumptions of DNA distribution/history
incorporated in the math. This information is not very transparent.

B/ The results are dependent on too small a number of markers.
Consequently, for individuals, there is a wide margin of error (at
least plus or minus 10% in my intuitive view) and the test struggles
to give meaningful estimates of variation for many peoples
geographical ancestry. Furthermore, the test may not be very robust
against minor technical errors.

I said way back I'm not intentionally trying to knock these folks, I'm
just a questioning soul. My views are hopefully clear, and it isn't my
desire to force them on anyone. I personally look forward to an
improved version of the test, which I'm sure they are working on
(knowing me, I'll probably find fault in that too!). Nuff said by me
on this subject!

By the way Orchid recently sold their SNP typing instrument/reagent
business to Beckman Coulter. I guess they were desparate for the cash
(Orchid is appealing against delisting on NASDAQ). They wouldn't have
sold it for some other reason would they?:-)

'night all

Peter

This thread: