GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-03 > 1173904844


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] OmniPop caution received from FamilyTreeDNA
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:40:44 -0500
References: <cdb.9c8bb2a.33283343@aol.com><45F6F8C5.9030209@sbcglobal.net> <45F767C0.9010501@mchsi.com><45F78B4D.7020001@sbcglobal.net><40A3F6B4-5ED4-4C59-BF0B-E33FC2572CEC@vizachero.com><45F85441.90702@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <45F85441.90702@sbcglobal.net>


On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:

> Yes, OmniPop, and the RCMP Profiler website, give probabilities for
> the
> populations included nothing more, except as Ann indicated one can
> compare frequencies of various markers for various populations (RCMP
> Profiler website). They do not give one the percent for which one
> belongs to or matches a given population group because the number of
> people in the population group affects the result (thanks to John
> Chandler for pointing this out to me) .

Even if the population size were known, OmniPop, RCMP, ENFSI, etc.
would still not be well suited to matching admixed individuals to
their ancestral populations.

It is no good adding more data to OmniPop (either populations or
their sizes): it is the method that is the problem.

Vince

This thread: