GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1072976385


From: (Raymond Whritenour)
Subject: [DNA] New DNAPrint format and NA results
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:59:45 -0500 (EST)


Debby:

No. By "test results," I don't mean someone's MLE percentages. I was
referring to the results shown on the triangle plot and graphic chart.
These are "made available" to ALL.

No. 0 to 8% is NOT the same as -8 to +8%. The former gives one the
impression that there is an equal possibility of having a real value
anywhere in the 0 to 8 range. That's NOT "a given," as you say. The
truth is that if there are, say, 8 possibilities above 0%, there are
also 8 possibilities AT 0%, because of all the values plotted below 0.
In other words, there are many possible values at 0%, while there is
only one possible value for each percentage above 0%.

Oh! Now DNAPrint is saying that lab errors as high as 10% can occur?
Until your revelation of this information, their ceiling was at 5%. So,
the test is even worse than we thought!

It's difficult to attribute my mother's 10% NA result to "background
noise" (whatever that is), because her first confidence interval never
drops below 0%. That SHOULD make her NA ancestry a "high probable."
But, I'm telling you, she has NO American Indian ancestry that could
possibly show up on an accurate test. There aren't any hidden NA
ancestors. If there were, it would have shown up somewhere in the
photographic record for the past five generations.

The 3.0 test might be "more specific," but it isn't going to be any more
"accurate."

Ray Whritenour

This thread: