Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155301992

From: "Lewis Townsend" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:13:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>

The flip side is that I have a pair that were 37 37 and ended up 66 67 after
the additional markers.


-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Vizachero [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67

1. We have one example of this behavior . . . . maybe. How do we
get from that to "regularity"?

2. How, exactly, could anyone have known five years ago that these
markers (which have never before been tested on a large population)
might contradict prior results?

3. If, somehow, FTDNA knew that the new panel of markers might
produce this kind of result "with regularity" then why on Earth would
they choose to offer it?

4. Is genealogical DNA testing destined to be the topic of Oliver
Stone's next movie?

On Aug 10, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Peter A. Kincaid wrote:

> No this is not what I am saying. If this was an error
> then it raises some issues but not as serious if the
> probability of error is low. In the case of error we
> are likely talking about a human element that can be
> addressed and if corrected one gets a useful result.
> People expect a reasonable degree of error.
> On the otherhand, if the result is correct and you can
> get a person going from a 34/27 to a 42/67 result with
> regularity then there is a more serious issue at hand.
> This would be the misrepresentation of the utility of
> this technology for genealogical purposes. If the experts
> knew this would occur with regularity and marketed it
> otherwise then there could be serious legal consequences.

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:

This thread: