GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118109573


From: "Debby Reagan" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint strikes again!
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:59:33 -0400
References: <1380-42A49B32-2082@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net>


*SIGH*.... but then begs the question.... what about the fact
that the 6% is AT LEAST that much... but might be more?
So those receiving lower % than 1st thought, were they told...
well... you are AT LEAST this amount.... but can be more?
I bring this up because I'm seeing now how this is starting to look
more like John, David and others were more right than I 1st thought!
Because my 2nd test came back...I upgraded to the 2.5.... and there is
a surprise! But I don't want to give the results out yet as now I
have to do my father's and I don't want to have to go over
this twice....and his is needed to answer some things b4 I say...
u guys were right!
But it is starting to look more & more like the level of confidence
rings ARE more closer to what we might be than the MLE dot is!
And maybe that scientific one being more correct than the rest!
It's either that... or the test is more than "a little" flawed!

As soon as my father's results come in... I'll write my findings!

Warm Regards from Maine,
Debby Reagan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Whritenour" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint strikes again!


> Thanks John! I'm sure the group (or Dr. Kittles) wanted some idea of
> just how "Indian" they are. Kittles thought they'd turn out to be about
> 20% NA, on average. While not tribe-specific nor acceptable for tribal
> admissions, it WOULD be useful corroborative evidence--IF the test was
> accurate. (If blood-quatum wasn't an issue in admissions, these
> Freedmen would all be full members of these tribes, today, because
> they're ALL descended from folks on the operative rolls.)
>
> Ray Whritenour
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Ray wrote:
>
> 'Dr. Kittles informs me, via personal e-mail, that it WAS the DNAPrint
> genomics, Inc. biogeographical test that he used in the Freedmen's
> Study. That settles that. Now, can someone answer my original questions?
> Particularly, does the average ancestral percentage of 6% NA for 100
> people in a community have a narrower margin for error, than for an
> individual?'
>
> As usual, the answer is "yes and no". As you already mentioned, this
> average presumably includes some values that were reported as zero, but
> "should" have been negative. As such, the average is biased by an
> unknown amount and therefore meaningless. This is the fatal flaw in the
> various simulations posted on the company web site. It would of course
> be possible to go back and estimate those negative values by inspection
> of the triangle plots and then take a corrected average. Such an average
> would indeed be a much tighter estimate of the group ethnicity (where
> "ethnicity" is defined solely in terms of the DNAprint reference
> samples, of course).
>
> Of course, the question of admission to a tribe is individual, rather
> than collective (unless the group as a whole negotiates some kind of
> package deal). More importantly, the DNAprint test does not address the
> tribal identity of the DNA, and so it's unclear what relevance this kind
> of testing has in the first place.
> John
> Chandler
>
>
>
> ==============================
> 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
>
>


This thread: