GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1192921799


From: Robert Stafford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authorsofOct.19thScience ...
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <IGEOKAGLHNEKPCKPADIGAEEHPEAA.bbailey.lowedna@baileyconnection.com>


I am sure there were a lot of discussions between FTDNA and her staff. You should ask FTDNA if they tried to make points 1 and 4. However, I doubt if they could be understood by a non-genealogists or make a good story. I tried to make the same points in an interview with a journalist, who was a budding genealogist. He wasn't really interested. His slant was the same as 60 Minutes. Since he was also talking to FTDNA, I assume that is the one they gave him.

Bob Stafford

"bbailey.lowedna" <> wrote: One note about the intrepid reporters from the Daily Planet
and other news media rags across our country whose reporters
missed high school science and biology classes yet report
on DNA testing like ex-spurts.

As Leslie Stahl stumbled thru the 60 minutes interview with
her cue cards, other intrepid reporters went to work Monday
morning to further misuse and spread information about
the apparent faults of DNA testing from Stahl's short parody.
Some truth was buried in the Stahl interview, but distorted
with the professor of whatever who spoke about folks being
duped or mislead about DNA testing results.

First, as John Chandler wisely reminded me a year or so ago.
DNA results will not tell you who you are related to; however,
they will tell you immediately who you are NOT related to.
The primary benefit of DNA testing.

Most of "us" genealogist spend the many years of our lives
chasing lineages that we are not related to. I am guilty with
Fielding Lowe of Campbell County, TN who for 10 years thought
was part of my Lowe family until 5 weeks of DNA testing
proved otherwise. He was R1b1 and we are I1a.

Second, Stahl never mentioned autosomal testing. We are
made up of 1000's of grandparents who genetic makeup is
in our autosomes. However, she did not concentrate on Y-DNA and
mtDNA. We test Y-DNA, mtDNA and not autosomal DNA.

Third, at this stage of DNA testing (and Stahl was correct)
the DNA technology is not developed as yet and not refined
to predict kinship at the 100% level. Only a presumptive and
predictive genetic distance can be guesstimated. So the
reliability of DNA testing probably is much less. The 67
markers gets us closer with increased predictive reliability
but more and better DNA tests need to be developed.

Fourth, and most important. If we did not have genetic
genealogy DNA testing, most of "us" genealogist would go on
compounding errors in lineages for generations to come.
For the first time, we have a new (yet very primitive)
TOOL to "drill down" and concentrate our research on a
specific surname lineage. This is the real benefit of
Y-DNA testing.

Perhaps next time, Leslie Stahl will interview one of the pioneers
of Genetic Genealogy and get an unbiased and clear picture
of the real benefits of DNA testing. And then the Daily
Planet's reporters will follow her on Monday morning with
a much more truthful articles and video spots.

Bill




-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: