GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-12 > 1072884177


From: "Debby Peare" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clarification about DNAPrint
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:23:00 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
References: <20031231053627.15040.qmail@web41212.mail.yahoo.com>


But I fear that some people are not going to accept rational arguments, and
the cold facts of science are not going to sway them from believing they can
"prove" a family tradition based on the findings of an unproven DNA test.
The harsh reality being that, as it stands, the test is built on top of a
house of cards. The good news is that for those that can wait, the potential
exists to develop (actually the test is already in production) a measure
that can detect minority ancestry - even down to the 10% level. Its only a !
matter of
time before the market will bring forward a BGA test that can do what it
claims to do. In the meanwhile I guess we all have fun obtaining 2.5 results
and endlessly discussing them as if they are veridical (square with
objective reality). As long as it is "just for fun".

David F.
*************************
Now Dave, I didn't say that.
What I said is that IF NA comes up in the test of 10% or more, then it's an
incentive to go ahead and spend the extra for the better test when it comes
out. Totally different from "proving" a family tradition. It gives HOPE
that maybe there might be something to look at the "oral" tradition as maybe
not being a "fairy tale" after all!
Why test at all? Because maybe we'd like to know the OTHER part of ourselves
and just maybe the "oral" tradition is wrong and not show up at all! In my
case, my ancestry is more Irish/Celtic than anything else and I expect to
have a very high % of IE.... so I don't mind spending my money now to
reassure my assumption. If anything else pops up over or near 10%, then I'll
most likely wait for that defining test to come out and do the retesting for
clarification. The test now might be unproven for NA..... but not for IE. So
why wait when I can find out my majority % now and confirm my assumptions?
The other, IF it shows up, well.... then I'll have a reason to do the new
test when it comes out, won't I?
And I'm interested in knowing why you think this 2.5 test isn't going to
give us the results before it is even out and results shown? Isn't it
difficult to say that results from this test won't be accurate before they
even run it to have results? I'm a wee bit confused there, so maybe, in
layman's term, you could elaborate on your statement that "the sample they
use to compare your results with is, and I am trying to be kind, less than
adequate and the upshot is that you will not be able to put any stock in
whatever percentage comes your way." Why is the sample inadequate? And if
the sample is inadequate, then why even bother using it? They too are
scientists, are they not? And wouldn't they want to have their work be sound
enough to withstand earthquakes (one named David F. {j/k ;-)}) of
critisisms?
*SIGH* I know you most likely have answered these questions before. But,
could you please answer, one more time?
Thank you for your patience and professional opinions in helping me
understand this....it's very much appreciated.

Warm Regards from Maine,
Debby Peare





This thread: