GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211029620


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: [DNA] Some truth in article was Re: Answer from Ancestors Magazine
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 10:07:00 -0300
References: <003301c8b758$909fb590$2f01a8c0@NORVIC><ECA162A6-C0E5-4CB5-A2E7-CD330237748F@familytreedna.com><C9E2A4B222644560A32F32BFF683F086@StephenPC><11985d4c0805161805i2af36244y1a260689b91b0996@mail.gmail.com><A3046CF758E5432FB125E8E1A7143B97@StephenPC><6110308144.20080516204556@daver.info>
In-Reply-To: <6110308144.20080516204556@daver.info>


Some people are getting quite defensive about
this article but some truth remains. I started our
surname project with the other early birds and
see some truth in the claim that DNA testing
can be a waste. It is a complete waste:

1) for some companies to knowingly offer a poor
quality product (i.e.. in terms of lab error - FTDNA
doing a good job making sure this is not an issue for
them).
2) for companies to offer low resolution tests (FTDNA
knows their 12 marker test is pretty useless but
they still sell it).

Furthermore, as much as some suggest otherwise,
haplogroup testing, race percentage testing, and mtdna
testing have very little genealogical benefit - the benefits
of the latter greatly outweighed by the costs to get
meaningful comparative results.

Peter




----- Original Message -----
From: "David F Reynolds" <>
To: "Stephen Barrs Dilks" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Answer from Ancestors Magazine


http://www.ancestorsmagazine.co.uk/index.php?page=blog

DNA furore
by Simon Fowler | Editor
posted: 14/05/2008 11:45am
There’s been a flurry of media interest in an article in the current (June)
issue of Ancestors when our deputy editor, Penny Law, tested three of the
commercially available DNA heritage tests and came up with three widely
different sets of results as to her genetic origins This was picked up by
the Daily Mail in last Monday’s newspaper

This thread: