GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1115048024


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Newbie: National Geographic, Relative Genetics, DNA Heritage,Family Tree DNA etc
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:33:44 -0600
References: <126.5c3709fb.2fa78de4@aol.com> <BAY104-DAV167D2EBDFD1AB6600E643CF1270@phx.gbl>


Bill, The wording that many use on this list to promote FTDNA really
bothers me. It is often done without a "in my judgment" or "from my
experience", etc., and therefore comes across as an assertion of fact. Over
the 15 months I have been on the list probably a message or two of mine can
be dredged up in which I forgot and used similar assertion of fact, but I
most often try to use a "in my judgement..." type of qualification when I
suggest other testing companies.

I am concerned that too many people on this list are delivering
advertisements for FTDNA. I don't think that is appropriate, but it is not
clear how we control such misuse.

If I understand the NGS project, they will be using relatively few STRs for
their measured haplotypes by today's available standards. I don't believe
we should be encouraging people to make such short measurements and then
have to pay for upgrades to more markers. That could very well not be the
most cost-effective route for either genealogy time-frame purposes or
interests in deeper ancestral connections.

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Hurst" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Newbie: National Geographic, Relative Genetics, DNA
Heritage,Family Tree DNA etc


> Hi Robert,
>
> I think you have two options. You can let your NGS order stand, which will
give you 12-marker Y-DNA results. You can later upgrade your Y-DNA results
to 25 or 37 markers at FTDNA and add mitochondrial DNA tests.
>
> Or you could cancel the NGS test and order full Y-DNA and mtDNA tests from
FTDNA. By the time you get your results back there is supposed to be a way
to transfer your Y-DNA results to the NGS project. The NGS project is so new
that nobody has done this yet and the exact procedure hasn't been announced.
>
> The total cost for each option should be about the same. Due to a couple
of built-in delays in the first option, you might prefer the second.
>
> I just saw Ken's reply. The advantage of using FTDNA is that they are also
doing the tests for NGS. Whether there will be a way to transfer results
from DNA Heritage to NGS or vice versa, I don't know.
>
> Normally an important consideration would be which company has a project
for your surname, but in your case I don't see one at either place.
>
> Bill Hurst
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mailto:>
> To: <mailto:>
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:06 AM
> Subject: [DNA] Newbie: National Geographic, Relative Genetics, DNA
Heritage,Family Tree DNA etc
>
>
> Okay, I am a Newbie to this DNA/genetic/genealogy thing (piqued by the
> recent WSJ article), and to this list (introduced via serendipity by one
of your
> thoughtful members).
>
> My quandary, due to my unfamiliarity, is: What test(s) to do I do?
Which
> company(s) do I use?
>
> I don't mind ultimately spending what I figure is @$500 to get what I
> understand is the fullest genetic picture possible for BOTH paternal
and maternal
> lines -- I just don't want to expend time and other resources
unnecessarily
> nor increase my confusion.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family (maternal or paternal
> lineage) has done any of these DNA/genealogy tests. I am somewhat
optimistic I may
> be able to get some on both sides of the family to join after I take
the
> plunge.
>
> I recently signed up for the National Geographic Genographic Project.
I was
> just told by them, however, that there is backorder delay of 2 to 4
weeks,
> hence they have given me the option to cancel. I may do that if I can
get
> some guidance or understanding as to whether I should cancel National
Geographic
> option/venue and just get the fullest test possible directly from one of
the
> four reputable firms that I heard of (Ancestry by DNA, DNA Heritage,
> Relative Genetics, and Family Tree DNA); OR should I go ahead with
National
> Geographic (in affiliation with FTDNA), piggyback more tests on it from
one of the
> Big Four, cobble the results together and try to make sense of it (as
an
> acknowledged genealogy newcomer)?
>
> With all these options and avenues available as of today, what would you
> advise a Newbie to do?
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.
>
> -Robert Birnbach
>
>
> ==============================
> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
> Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx<http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx>;
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: