GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155247661


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:07:41 -0600
References: <00af01c6bc89$347bae20$1b02a8c0@DC51YP91> <003901c6bc94$88133660$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid> <c76nd2tiuunfn5g90ciu8a3rffpo3i0c00@4ax.com> <da404fe10608101447v6879ff3du9c5022b15c88c3ce@mail.gmail.com>


But we have got to detect and expose patently improbable, close to
impossible, results. The testing companies don't seem to check their
results for such basic reasonableness. Mistakes are made in the entire
multi-step process; and they need to be corrected. Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "steven perkins" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67


>I don't think it is time to call off the testing because we get some
> failures in the jump from 37 to 67 markers. At each stage a certain
> percentage of former matches has failed when we take them to a higher
> number of markers.
> ,
> What we need to do is realize that we are only at the beginning of
> this type of testing and this is to be expected. We need to find the
> percentage of failed matches we can expect at the 67 marker level. In
> another 10 years we may be testing at 200 markers and find that we can
> then relaibly differentiate among 4 or 5 generations of a family.
> Which is what many people with perfect matches, but a poor paper
> record, are looking for the expanded marker tests to do.
>
> Where we would have a problem is if we test a documented 4 generation
> set of males and have large discrepecies in results. Of course, then
> that might tell us that some markers remain fixed and others are
> subseptible to environmental influence. At this time, without the
> supporting data from a focused family project, we just don't really
> know which markers we should be testing and what the ranges of
> mis-match really are before we can say that certain close matches do
> not represent genetic relationships. Or that our theory of genetic
> relationships is wrong.
>
> SCPerkins
>
>
>
>
> On 8/10/06, johnSteve <> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:49:06 -0300, you wrote:
>>
>> > If this does not turn out to
>> >be a gross error (which raises serious issues of its own) I think you
>> >will see the start of "Give me my money back" campaigns. This is
>> >serious.
>> >
>> >Peter
>>
>> no doubt.
>> If I announce these kind of results to my group will get no more
>>
>> jS
>>
>> http://www.sturgood.com/dna/blog/
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
>> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
>> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Steven C. Perkins
> http://stevencperkins.com/
> http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html
> kttp://iemlnews.blogspot.com/
> http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
> http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
>
>
> ==============================
> 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: