Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155482923

From: "Sharon Bryant" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:28:43 -0400
References: <002201c6bd5f$1dfa3f00$6401a8c0@HP> <002c01c6bd71$4e346ad0$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid> <> <002a01c6bee9$d034daa0$01129a8e@PeterAKincaid>

Peter and John,

I have contacted FTDNA and have had a response that this was an ERROR and
that it is being retested.

Somehow, somewhere this thread went way off my original topic and seems to
be leading to unkind thoughts and words.

Could we stop before it gets worse?

Thank you. Peace,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Cartmell" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] From 34/37 to 42/67
>> On 11 Aug, Peter A. Kincaid <> wrote:
>>> Now this is exactly what happens when someone raises an issue that
>>> questions the credibility of something - they get personal. My
>>> expectations are not oddball.
>> Your response is. The appropriate response is to take steps to find out
>> what
>> has gone wrong. If you buy a new TV, plug it in and it doesn't work you
>> don't
>> complain, shout at the shopkeeper or whatever - you just take it back and
>> ask
>> for it to be replaced. Save your shouting for if they refuse to replace
>> it.
>> There is only an issue here *if* a checked result comes back 'no change'.
>> Even
>> then the issue is far more positive than you make out.
> So you thought you'd jump in with nothing to really
> add but somewhat condescending remarks? From the
> start my point was indeed "if" this comes back to
> not be an error. I was saying thing from a perspective
> of "here we go again." These scenarios were supposed
> to be extreme cases. I am sorry to say but with only
> 18241 37 and 24637 25 marker results reported by FTDNA
> to date we are seeing these cases pop up more than
> one should expect with a one in x million odds (they
> suggested 6.5 x 10-11 odds four years ago). It now
> seems that sloppy work is play here (which also has its
> concerns as sloppy work is also not expected in the DNA field). For my
> part I have nothing more to say
> (unless it happens again in the near future) as FTDNA
> continues to maintain that (contrary to some suggestions
> made here) that 37 marker close matches should not
> break out anything like this. Such things would be an
> very extreme case. Clearly you do not deal with the
> average person if you think that people will react kindly
> to news that something like this could happen quite
> regularly rendering their low resolution results meaningless.
> Peter
> ==============================
> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:

This thread: