GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211068293


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] 12 STR tests are useful (was Re: Sometruthinarticle(wasRe: Answer from Ancestors Magazine))
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 20:51:33 -0300
References: <170684.52703.qm@web90401.mail.mud.yahoo.com><7kincaids%40primus.ca$142.154.19.142$.5E83FF626EE64B91B24FFAA1B62F5029@PeterAKincaiPC><D02A9CF2-E5B4-434C-B431-F436CA5AE732@vizachero.com><7kincaids%40primus.ca$142.154.18.220$.2DF3580E09BA4E3D9A5289AAF839AE79@PeterAKincaiPC><F571FF75-B610-447E-BC92-8CB94E89A385@vizachero.com><7kincaids%40primus.ca$142.154.18.221$.D0F8A3F36B3D459690FA53CEAFC4DADF@PeterAKincaiPC><001e01c8b86a$7deeb820$0100a8c0@john>
In-Reply-To: <001e01c8b86a$7deeb820$0100a8c0@john>


Let's put things in a bit of perspective. For six years
now, there has not been a change by FTDNA in either
the entry level offering and its price. In the computer
world, I can now get a vastly superior computer for over
half the cost than six years ago. The changes in DNA testing
these past six years have been great. Yet for some
reason, even though we all want higher resolution tests
for the same price, the DNA world feels we should be happy
with the same entry level offering - even though all project
managers know how little 12 markers testing gives you. I
suppose some are happy paying for little. I prefer to push the
bar so we get what we really need and for it to be better and
cheaper the next time.

I think the reason I have been getting this resistance it that
many here have been around from the beginning of commercial
testing. For a while, we were so glad someone was making
this available at a reasonable cost that people were scared
to shake the boat in fear the offering would no longer be
available. I think its time to shake the boat so we get what
we need; else there will still be $99 12 marker tests 6 years
from now.

Peter




----- Original Message -----
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] 12 STR tests are useful (was Re: Some
truthinarticle(wasRe: Answer from Ancestors Magazine))


> Peter,
>
> Anyone rich enough could pay for a full genome sequence, (which would
> probably yield more than 300 Y STRs), and pay for all suspected relations
> to
> test 300 Y STRs also. I am sure you would agree that 300 STRs in that
> situation would be "more informative" than 12.
>
> Should we all be testing 300 markers in every situation, rather than
> testing
> 12, 37 or 67 in some situations? A 300 marker test is a "higher
> resolution
> tool" than a 67 marker test.
>
> Interestingly, I recently could have used a Commodore 64 computer if I had
> one, to retrieve some old files stored on tape. Unfortunately, my state
> of
> the art modern computer can't read the old tape cassettes used by the
> Commodore 64. There are some things you can do on a Commodore 64 that you
> can't do on a normal modern computer.
>
> John.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Peter A. Kincaid
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 7:31 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] 12 STR tests are useful (was Re: Some truth
> inarticle(wasRe: Answer from Ancestors Magazine))
>
> Your own words wipe out your argument
> and supports mine. It is a worthwhile objective
> to use the best tool for the job. A 37 marker
> test is better than and 25 marker test which is
> better than 12 markers. I think there are
> people on this list wise enough to use the higher
> resolution tools. I suppose in your world it
> would be great to still be able to buy Commodore
> VIC 20s. Sure there could be a use for them,
> but a person buying their first computer so they
> can surf the Internet will later be ticked off if they
> were led to believe a VIC 20 would do.
>
> Peter
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Vizachero" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] 12 STR tests are useful (was Re: Some truth in
> article(wasRe: Answer from Ancestors Magazine))
>
>
>> The only worthwhile objective is to find the best tool for the job.
>> There are plenty of people in the field who recognize that, thankfully.
>>
>> If you someone can't figure out how to use a 12 marker test
>> productively, that is no one's business but theirs I suppose, but
>> hopefully people on this list are wise enough to recognize that the
>> problem lies in the implementor and not in the implement.
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>> On May 17, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
>>
>>> You are confusing ulterior objectives with "know better."

This thread: