Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-05 > 1052094490

From: "ernest hurst" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Truce!
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:28:22 -0400


Please don't GIVE UP! Some good points have been "discussed" in the last
few days and I, for one, have learned a good bit. I think it WOULD be a
good idea if you, and John, would contact DNAprint, off line, as David
suggested. You could come back to the list after translating their "techno
speak" into something that the majority of us could understand & let us
know of the results.

I don't know if this is going to prove to be true, but here's what I
believe the problem, or at least part of the problem, is: The "product" was
"over marketed" by AncestrybyDNA and now the scientists & "techno dudes" at
DNAprint are scrambling to make up for known inconsistencies, which were
not mentioned, or barely mentioned, in any of the literature. Of course
they can not come right out & say that it is a sales or marketing problem
when the customer (us) complains that the product does something that it
isn't supposed to or doesn't do what it IS supposed to do. I saw this
scenario played out many times over the last 35 years in the industry I
worked in. I was real familiar with the "dance" since I was one of the
technical folks. Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, relating this to my
own work experiences, but I'd bet there are others who are familiar with
that same "dance".

BTW, I was one of AncestrybyDNA's early customers (October 2002) & am still
hoping for more accurate or precise results from Version 3, maybe at no
additional charge.

Ernie Hurst

> [Original Message]
> From: < (Thomas Breckenridge)>
> To: <>
> Date: 5/4/2003 6:23:52 PM
> Subject: [DNA] Truce!
> I give up. I thought one of the purposes of this group was to discuss
> the "methods" used in determining DNA results for purposes of genealogy.
> Why people can't have an honest debate about these methods without
> others charging us with "mud-slinging" is beyond me. I have to believe
> that it's because the uncerainty about these test results makes a lot of
> folks uncomfortable, and they'd just rather not talk about that
> uncertainty.
> My DNAPrint genomics certificate says I'm 13% NA. I've done years of
> genealogical research and I don't have one iota of evidence from that
> research that I have any Indian blood, whatsoever. In fact, all the
> records I have say that my forbears were white. Steve has a similar
> experience. He says he can't document any Indian ancestors. But, based
> on these numbers, there are a lot of people "out there" who are going to
> now believe that "science" is telling them they're something they're
> NOT. There aren't many of them on this list, where a critical
> examination of these methods is possible. I think that's a shame.
> In any case, I relent.
> Tom B.
> P.S. - Steve: Thank you for that example case study from DNAPrint
> genomics, which shows siblings with 21% and 0% EA. I hadn't seen that
> when I ordered the test because webtv won't show pdf files. That's my
> fault.
> ==============================
> To join and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
go to:

This thread: