Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118114001

From: "Allen Blancett" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNAPrint strikes again!
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:13:21 -0400
References: <>


I may be dense, but how can a person have a negative percentage
contribution from a source? I've blinked my eyes at this
several times, so I have to ask. It seems that you would be
saying the contribution is less than none.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Whritenour" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: [DNA] DNAPrint strikes again!

| Debby wrote:
| "...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?"
| This is not so. 6% was the AVERAGE NA result of 100 people.
The true
| average NA result would certainly be less than this, since
| percentages are counted as 0%. EVERYONE who took this test
| 0% NA, so, of course, they COULD be higher. The MLE
percentages are NOT
| minimum possibilities.
| " is starting to look more & more like the level of
| 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!
| If you're saying that it is more likely that your true
percentages lie
| somewhere within what DNAPrint genomics, Inc. calls the
| level of confidence" (the yellow ring) than within the MLE
(red dot),
| then, certainly, you're correct.
| "It's either that... or the test is more than a little
| BOTH! You are now beginning to enter the realm of
| Welcome!
| Ray Whritenour
| ==============================
| Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records
added in the
| last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn

This thread: