GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-06 > 1055545053
From: John Coats <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Print Ver. 2.0-Two different markets--police work and genealogy
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:57:35 -0500
References: <3EE93D21.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3EE948C9.C0E9541D@yahoo.com>
Charles; Thanks so much for the explanation. Still, it almost looked
like an infomercial to me. I'm extremely gratified that the test made it
possible to ID the perp. I'm hopeful that the Ver 3.0 will have similar
>I missed it. But since you mentioned my name ...
>I am not an ardent detractor as to the validity of using this test for
>genealogical research. I think it can have some use in some cases when
>combined with other information.
>However we need to keep something straight here. Police, etc., use this
>test to determine the dominant population group for an unknown person
>whose DNA from a crime scene or victim is being tested. It is apparently
>very good at that. The DNA Print Ver. 2.0 Witness Report someone posted
>showed that. That is not the debate here. That is a completely separate
>use of this DNA Print test.
>Genealogists primarily want to use this test to detect "minority add
>mixture", not the dominant population group. We don't need this test to
>determine our dominant population group. We can look in the mirror for
>The debate has been raging in this forum as to how valid the test is for
>determining minority add mixture. It seems that no one is debating that
>the test will do a good job in determining Sub-Saharan minority add
>mixture content. I guess because the AIM makers for SA are very good and
>unique to the SA population.
>The major debate is how good is the DNA Print Version 2.0 at assaying the
>gnome and determining the minority content of EA and NA, and in
>separating them from each other, and from the majority European content
>of the typical person taking this test. And if the minority EA and NA
>content is there, then in their reports and charts doing a better job of
>explaining what could be the method of it getting there, a recent (in
>genealogical terms) exogamous event. Or, is the source much older and
>thus not of use for typical genealogical Pedigree Chart analysis use but
>more of an Anthropological use. My PA German Project is more
>Anthropological than of genealogical use. But I may be able to tell
>which sub-groups of the PA Germans are contributing the EA markers.
>But again folks, we must remember there are two different uses and
>markets for this DNA Print test:
>Police want it to test for dominant population group to try and put more
>of a face on an unknown criminal.
>Genealogist want it to test for minority admixture to prove or disprove
>family rumors or legends.
>And others just take it out of curiosity.
>But the first two are two completely different uses. The test confidence
>bands are not that important for determining the dominant population
>group since the dominant group is usually such a large percentage of the
>assayed result that it doesn't really matter that much to the police for
>their dragnet. If on is 90% European or 75% percent European it won't
>matter much to the police. They know they are looking for someone who
>looks European. But when the minority admixture is being looked for and
>when it is very small as is the typical case for people looking for an
>exogamous event 5-6 generations back, then the test error percentages
>and confidence bands become very important as to whether the results are
>really there or not.
>But I'll leave all that statistics stuff to others like John Chandler.
>I'm not the expert in statistics here. But I can logically see how Tony
>can easily say that 3000 or more tests have not failed and have always
>correctly predicted the dominant population group. But that is not the
>debate with us genealogists. I don't think he can say that the test is
>accurately predicting the minority admixture results for the EA and NA
>population groups with the same degree of confidence when the
>percentages of admixture being reported are very small, say less than 3%
>and the confidence bands are very wide. But John does a much better job
>debating the statistics stuff than I do.
>I'll just keep collecting the data and let the Log speak for itself.
>I think the DNA Print Version 2.0 test does have some usefulness for
>genealogists. I am going to keep using it for my PA German / PA German
>DNA Project. But it is just another tool like any other genealogical
>tool. And if 3.0 improves the resolution capabilities of the test to
>separate EA from NA, and EA/NA from European, then it will be a much
>John Coats wrote:
>>I'm watching Tony Frudakis as I write. These authorities are taking his
>>test as infallible. Charles, you and John should take note.
>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: