GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1073065506


From: "Debby Peare" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] By George, I think I've got it! LOL
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:45:06 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
References: <23455-3FF5AA54-4867@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net>


Debby:

What you've "got," most definitely, is what DNAPrint genomics, Inc.
tells us, explicitly, in the User Manual. What you haven't yet "got" is
what they tell us, implicitly, and what they don't tell us at all.

I'm no going to rehash everything we discussed on this list so many time
before. If you want to understand why the odds are better that your
true minority ancestry values lie somewhere on the yellow confidence
contour than at the MLE, I suggest you read through the discussions
which took place, here, during the first week of May, 2003--paying
particular attention to the posts of John C. Chandler.

If you want to understand what DNAPrint genomic, Inc. is NOT telling us
about systematic error, go back and read the exchanges between Tony
Frudakis and John C. Chandler (look them up in the Archives)--again,
paying particular attention to the posts of John C. Chandler.

I don't know if John wants to go over all this again, for your benefit,
but, by doing a little "homework," I think you'll see what I've failed
to get across to you.

I will accept that you've "got it," when you become a pessimist, too. :
(

Ray Whritenour

**********************
I understand that there are systematic errors, and that
the test's results are affected by those errors.
I understand why y'all think the odds for the true value
of the MLE is in the scientific level of confidence.
What you're not understanding is, after reading BOTH
the emails AND the User Manual, I disagree with y'all
and think that it's just TOO pessimistic a value!
I really do believe that the true value lies somewhere
inbetween the MLE and the 2 fold less likely contour.
And I think that'll bear out in time.

Warm Regards from Maine,
Debby Peare

This thread: