GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-07 > 1057115382


From: Steve Williamson <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint Test: Williamson - Frudakis Communications
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20030702022314.31329.qmail@web41206.mail.yahoo.com>


David,
Well said! The NA in Ukrainians, Italians, Greeks,
Finns, and even South Asian Indians finally pushed me
over the top, too. And John Chandler's criticism was
the 'icing on the cake.'

Funny, I had a college professor who was Pakistani -
he used to shake his finger at me and say "Oh, you are
a Hindu!" I never knew exactly what he meant by that,
but if the test is right, maybe I am.... :-)

Steve W.

--- David Faux <> wrote:
> Hello:
>
> It is well known that I have been an unabashed
> supporter of the DNAPrint test, although skeptical
> enough to contact both Drs. Frudakis and Thomas many
> times to seek sensible explanations for "odd"
> findings.
>
> The resons for my initial wholehearted support of
> this test was their finding that my percentage of
> Native American was precisely that which I predicted
> on the basis of a known genealogy. First
> impressions can be lasting. To have a DNA test that
> could, with such a degree of precision, provide
> cross - validation to the paper trail was quite
> astounding. Now for the harsh realities.
>
> In the intervening year and some, it has become
> quite clear, thanks to the postings of many on this
> List, and the testing of other members of my family,
> that my initial enthusiasm was not warranted. After
> following all the discussions, examining the
> validation studies in relation to the test, and
> keeping up the the literature in relation to the
> DNAPrint test, it is very hard to see how it can be
> of any practical use as an adjunct to "old
> fashioned" genealogy.
>
> Granted that it is excellent for forensic purposes,
> in detecting majority ancestry, but for most
> genelaogists this is not pertinent. As many have
> said, just look in the mirror. It is also likely
> useful in ascertaining some deep, but mysterious
> connection with populations in the days long before
> surnames were adopted. Steve Williamson's posting
> of his communications with Dr. Tony Frudakis of
> AncestrybyDNA has finally brought me to a conclusion
> that best fits the wider picture. My prize findings
> of the merging of genealogical and DNA evidence
> sources is nothing more than a coincidence!
>
> On this List we have addressed the matter of East
> Asian findings, the inconsistencies, and the (to me)
> far fetched attempts to explain findings in
> individuals such as my Uncle. And now Native
> American alleles seem to be popping up all over the
> place - in South Asian and Caucasian groups, etc.!
> Among the Kalash and Turks. Perhaps this is why
> Michael Ansara (of Turkish ancestry) was able to
> play such a convincing Cochise on the TV program
> "Broken Arrow" :-). Forget about "back migration"
> and any other as yet unsupported explanations. The
> bottom line is - how as a genealogist am I to know
> where my Native American findings arose? I have
> connections to all three places. So now I know
> nothing more than I did before, and worse, am more
> confused.
>
> I guess all those with "Indian Princess" stories in
> the family who hoped for validation are now sent
> back to the drawing board. Who knows what the
> findings mean? The only thing that is going to
> answer questions about Native American ancestry is
> evidence such as the diary of a Scottish visitor to
> the home of Lt. John Young of the Six Nations Indian
> Department in the Revolution, noting that Young was
> "married to a squaw, sister to one of the chiefs of
> the Mohawke Nation who succeeded Capt. David". Or a
> mid Nineteenth Century deed from the Six Nations
> Chiefs in council, to a parcel of property adjoining
> the lands of the above Lt. Young (then occupied by
> his son Joseph), reading, "to the said Joseph Young,
> one of our people". Finding data such as this is
> apparently the only way to "prove" a link to distant
> Native American ancestors - unless mt or Y DNA pan
> out in an unquivocal way (unlikely).
>
> All very disappointing. Unfortunately things are
> not as cut and dried as I was led to believe early
> in 2002 when the world, according to AncestrybyDNA,
> was divided into four neatly defined world regions.
>
>
> Good luck to each of you with minority ancestry
> below about 33% (approximately) in the challenge of
> interpreting the uninterpretable.
>
> David.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. David K. Faux, P.O. Box 192, Seal Beach, CA,
> 90740, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> 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
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

This thread: