GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1193002433


From: Jerry Lobdill <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors of Oct.19thScience article
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:33:53 -0500
References: <mailman.2275.1192826994.16856.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2275.1192826994.16856.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


I'm pretty sure I can find a copy of this issue of Science in my
public library. It is now evident that I need to do that.

Here's what bothers me about the 60 Minutes segment most of all. The
lawyer showed the chart of the geometric growth of direct ancestors
with number of generations--4, 8, 16, 32, etc. and then complained
that the DNA testing information offered by companies like FTDNA
fails to emphasize that the testing would not provide full disclosure
about these ancestors. My question is, who has purchased test kits
under the misconception that all this would be revealed? And how
many traditional genealogists who purchase a test kit are even
interested in all these ancestors?

It seems to me that most traditional genealogists who have gotten
into genetealogy know very well what they can learn from Y-DNA and
mtDNA testing even if they may be mathematically challenged to some
extent and need some help in assessing particular results. It is
unfortunate that Stahl selected a lawyer to interview about the
subject of what DNA testing doesn't tell us. It created an
unwarranted implication of possible fraud.

Jerry Lobdill

At 03:49 PM 10/19/2007, you wrote:
>Message: 8
>Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:49:24 -0600
>From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
>Subject: Re: [DNA] Response to genetic genealogists from authors of
> Oct.19th Science article
>To: <>
>Message-ID: <002901c81291$88382d40$>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gabriela Novak" <>
>
> And I thought that science will
> > show us that there really aren't any real differences between
> > populations.
>
>I would hope that science will show us what really is, rather than any
>pre-conceived conclusions?
>Anyway, I'm glad some people had subscription rights to Science and could
>read the article.
>
>Ken Northwaite


This thread: