Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1073035226

From: "Debby Peare" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] By George, I think I've got it! LOL
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 04:20:26 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
References: <>

Well Debby, clearly you have been putting a lot of thought into this. I used
to be the number 1 supporter of this test, and would argue at length with
all of the detractors. Then the harsh reality set in - I wanted this test to
work, after all my numbers fit perfectly with my genealogy, so probably
unconsciously i was only looking at things I wanted to see.
Yes, I've put some thought into this. I wanted to be able to determine why y
all felt so adamant about your positions. I now do.
And when I had my test done, I had no preconceived notions about anything
except for IE.... being a Reagan and a Wallace kinda left much of everything
else pretty much out. So, my results kinda blew me away, to say the least!
LOL So, I had no stake into believing them one way or another. (IF there was
ANYTHING that should have shown, NA would have been my bet!)

I fear that the algorithm has been changed (without our knowledge) about as
often as a baby's diaper over a year. Each of us may get different results
depending on which mathematical formula they were using at the time. The one
they have chosen now seems very sensitive to African - who knows what us
zero percenters would get if we were to submit to the test again. Tis, I
fear all a bit of a mess. I suspect that they will sort this thing around
sooner or later. Progress is being made, but their back peddaling and
frequent revisionist amendments to their manual when bizarre results came to
the fore kind of weakened my faith in this tool. Now if you want a "heavy
weight" argument that will entirely demolish the test, I will turn you over
to John C.

David F.
As I'm new to this, I have no idea as to what algorithm has been or not been
used before.... but it seems to me that for a test to be reliable and
considered better, the same algorithm format for that test and any upgrade
should be the same, shouldn't it? Or at least, proportionate to reach the
better results needed with the correction needed to get those results? I don
t know.... it just seems to me that too much thought about what people want
is being done instead of what is scientificly sound (if they are playing
with the algorithm). Has anyone bothered to ask them if they are changing
the algorithm and why, if they are?


This thread: