GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1072973579


From: "Debby Peare" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] New DNAPrint format and NA results
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:12:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
References: <23461-3FF43736-253@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net>


Folks:

I suppose this new format is "new," in that SA possibilities are now
given for all, on the triangle plot and graphic chart.
***********************
If by "given for all" you mean that everyone who
just got their results, I submit that you look at those
who posted, I saw 3 who said S-SA results (2 were 2%
and I was 12%) and 3 who had none. So it's not 'ALL'
if you meant everyone's results.

Thank you, Elizabeth, for making your results available for all to see.
The triangle chart is the best indicator of the real test results, as
always, and Elizabeth has a first confidence interval which will allow
her to say that she has a high probability of EA ancestry (whatever "EA"
really means, which is another matter). But, the margin of error is
about + or - 12.5% from her MLE (4%-29%). She has "possible" NA and SA
minor ancestry; but, it's not so possible as the graphic chart shows,
because that chart shows no possibilities below 0%. This is misleading.
The triangle plot clearly shows that her NA and SA possibilities plot
out just as far below 0% as they do above 0%. Therefore, there are
margins of error of about + or - 7-8% from her MLE for these ancestries.
The graph would have us believe that her possiblities of NA and SA
ancestry is 0-7% and 0-8%, when they are really about -7 to +7% and -8
to + 8%. In other words, there are as many possibilities "at 0%" as
there are "above 0%.
********************
To me, that's a given. If you include the below 0%, it'd be the same below
as above. But why need to include below 0%? To me...zero is zero and that
means none.... don't need less than no ancestry in a bloodline.


As for Ernie's remarks: I have a family tradition of Cherokee ancestry.
My father's paternal grandmother was said to be Cherokee. My DNAPrint
test results showed 84% IE, 13% NA and 3% EA. I don't have any Mexican
ancestry, so you can't make DNAPrint's "EA" out as "Eastern Woodlands
American Indian." Things just don't sort out that easily. My mother
has NO American Indian ancestry, but her test came out 90% IE and 10%
NA. There's a lot more wrong with this test than re-formatting the
charts is going to fix! I was hoping the new algorithm would show some
improvement in the test's accuracy. It doesn't seem that it has.
There's obviously some systematic errors, as John Chandler tried to show
them. I don't think their NA sample is wrong, in itself, other than
being too small, but their IE sample population is very suspect, in my
mind. Anyway, I remain unimpressed by this "new" stuff.

Ray Whritenour
***************************
Your 3% could be just "background" noise.
That's what the DNAPrint company told me about my 1% NA.
Also, that can happen up to 5%, in some cases, as high as 10%.
But usually, when you get above 10%, you can be relatively
assured that the ancestry % is correct.
Maybe your mother is one who's 10% could be just background
noise.... or just maybe, there is unknown NA ancestry in her
ancestry. Sometimes, stories DON'T get told at all.
Either way, I do agree with one thing..... the test needs to be
more specific.... I will be redoing mine when the 3.0 comes out
if my parents' tests don't show ang S-SA.

Warm Regards and Happy New Year to all from Maine,
Debby Peare



==============================
Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237


.

This thread: