GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-05 > 1052021075


From: Charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Asian content in Europeans -- Uralic or Hun or Mongol sources
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 00:05:18 -0400
References: <3EB3F536.9343230F@comcast.net> <3EB3FE5A.7802DAAA@yahoo.com> <017301c311a2$9f8da460$1ed2f1d0@oemcomputer> <3EB47FD4.35849262@yahoo.com> <001101c311ed$d0c3a570$35fef3d0@oemcomputer>


Steve,

Ah yes, the data is solid ... it's the interpretations which are in
question. That is the crux of the issue with the DNAPrint 2.0 test too.

The interpretations of the data has been the problem, it seems, with
this whole "East" Asian issue. I am sure that the allele data being
obtained by the DNAPrint 2.0 test is solid scientific data. But the
company's DNAPrint Version 2.0's report and graphics interpretations of
that data .. what it all means .. is where all the problems are at. The
company needs to rework their interpretation of what the term "East
Asian" means in the context of their DNAPrint 2.0 test reports and
graphics. East Asian is certainly not limited to Japanese, Korean,
Chinese, and Pacific Islander sources as their reports and graphics
imply. The emphasis on those population sources as the source of the
significant East Asian content being reported in a significant
percentage of Europeans tested by them, is what caused all the questions
from customers. It just didn't make any sense.

But in my last communications with Tony it sounded like they are going
to make some changes to make things clearer to the customers as to the
other possible sources of East Asian content in various Europeans, i.e.,
probably old and ancient, whether from the Mongolians and Uralic
Siberians and the Turkic Huns. But certainly this content being detected
is not recent and is not from Japan.

I look forward to seeing what DNAPrint Version 3.0 looks like.

Charles

This thread: