GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136343904


From: "Wil Husted" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Haplogroup I1*x
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:05:04 -0700
References: <43BB12A3.9010205@kerchner.com>


Y'all,

Knock it off! You've all made your points over and over again during the two
or three months I've been reading this forum. We all now know who likes this
lab, who dislikes that lab, who's thin-skinned, who ain't and on and on.
This subject is way off course.

Wil Husted

----- Original Message -----
From: "charles" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Haplogroup I1*x


> Ken:
>
> Who's excited? Not me. I'm perfectly calm here. However, your initial
> statement sounded a bit unthankful for the past contributions of FTDNA to
> this field and further it sounded disparaging as to what the National
> Geographic Society is trying to do with their new Genographic Project.
>
> Ken said:
> "The NatGeo/FTDNA 12 marker tests were a setback for the whole field."
>
> If they don't totally meet your goals as to the data they are collecting,
> well it is because their goals are different. You can still use their data
> and build on that.
>
> I was merely pointing out in my follow up messages that you ignored the
> key point in my first response message to you, i.e., that FTDNA and the
> National Geographic Society Genographic Project have different goals than
> you ... and you cannot expect them to provide data from their projects and
> testing which is specifically for your I haplogroup subclade analysis
> goals.
>
> Perfectly calm at this end. Happy New Year.
>
> Charles Kerchner
> http://www.kerchner.com/dna-info.htm
>
> Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
>> Calm down Charles. FTDNA and NatGeo have sufficient cheer leading squad
>> on the list. A different opinion can be expressed now and then.
>> Ken
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "charles" <>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Haplogroup I1*x
>>> Ken:
>>> You said:
>>> "The NatGeo/FTDNA 12 marker tests were a setback for the whole field."
>>> and then I said to you the organizations have different goals than you.
>>>
>>> And then you say:
>>> "But this is 2006, not 2001, and I am talking about now - the recent
>>> NatGeo/FTDNA collaboration. I don't think there is any reason to market
>>> a 12 marker haplotype today!"
>>>
>>> It's not simply different points in time and what was available then and
>>> what is available now ... it is different goals!
>>>
>>> FTDNA and the National Geographic Society have different goals than you
>>> do. They are not exploring subclades and deep subclades with the
>>> Genographic Project to the depth you are.
>>>
>>> I suggest you take the data where you can get it and don't bemoan so
>>> much that they are not providing exactly what you want for your
>>> specialized I haplogroup subclade project and don't be so critical of
>>> them.
>>>
>>> The large and growing 12 marker database is at least a very good pool of
>>> people from which you can data-mine and subsequently target people to
>>> suggest for upgrading to get the more specific data you want. I know you
>>> have done that before.
>>>
>>> I see this Genographic Project as a net positive to all of us, genetic
>>> genealogists and anthrogenealogists, even if the Genographic Project is
>>> only using 12 markers. It got a lot of people to test who would not have
>>> done so otherwise. We should thank them for it. It is turning into a
>>> very synergistic tool and a good resource for our field. I was not so
>>> sure in the beginning either. But I now see the Genographic Project as a
>>> net positive for all of us ... very much so.
>>>
>>> As to snow ... I'm a year older as of Sunday so I don't relish the idea
>>> of heavy snow either. But I do have an 8 horsepower Ariens snow blower.
>>> I'm ready for any nor-easter. We get lots of snow in PA too.
>>>
>>> Happy New Year.
>>>
>>> Charles Kerchner
>>> http://www.kerchner.com/dna-info.htm
>
>
>>> Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
>>>> But this is 2006, not 2001, and I am talking about now - the recent
>>>> NatGeo/FTDNA collaboration. I don't think there is any reason to
>>>> market a 12 marker haplotype today!
>>>> I could list the problems with them, but I won't belabor the point.
>>>> Ken (the new year started for me with extended driveway snowplowing
>>>> activities - ugh)
>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "charles" <>
>>>> To: <>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:20 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Haplogroup I1*x
>>>>> Ken:
>>>>> Are you kidding with that statement? The FTDNA 12 marker test
>>>>> basically created this whole new field of Genetic Genealogy five years
>>>>> ago. Let's not be too harsh on FTDNA. As to Natl Geo's Project they
>>>>> are not delving into subclades to the extent you are. So don't be so
>>>>> harsh on these two organizations. They have different goals then you
>>>>> do.
>>>>> Welcome back. And best wishes for a happy new year.
>>>>> Charles Kerchner
>>>>> http://www.kerchner.com/dna-info.htm
>
>
>>>>> Ken Nordtvedt wrote:
>>>>>> The NatGeo/FTDNA 12 marker tests were a setback for the whole field.
>
> ______________________________



This thread: