Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1138392873

From: (Raymond Whritenour)
Subject: autosomal testing
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:14:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: "Glen Todd" <>'s message of Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:38:22 -0700

Glen wrote:

[Ray wrote:]

'Almost everyone who takes these so-called "biogeographical" tests has
"strange" results.'


"I would certainly disagree strongly with this comment.   My results
were not 'strange'; they were exactly what I would have predicted from
family history."


{{This is not a disagreement. You are not "almost everyone."}}

"Resolution is low, but I think that that has more to do with the
current limited size of the database than anything else."

{{In the case of AncestrybyDNA, the "database" has never expanded, since
its inception, several years ago.}}

'These tests are absolutely worthless for determining small percentages
of minority ancestry.'

"I'll leave it to one of the geneticists to address this in detail, but
while small percentages are problematic due to standard gene mixing,
there would at least be a chance of significant indicators showing up."

{{It's that word, "chance," that gets you, every time. Care to give
odds on the ability of these tests to detect actual minority ancestry;
and, how one determines the difference between a true ancestral result
and statistical noise?}}


This thread: