Sciguy, You seem so intent on arguing with me, that even when your evidence agrees with me you try to make it look otherwise.
No, the nature of the entire technology is to assign specific, coarse grain, genetic variation (markers) to the PROBABILITY of a trait (disease, drug response, etc.). Once those variations are identified, a fine-grain analysis MIGHT follow. But even this in not a "direct" association. For example, the fine-grain genetic variations realted to breast cancer is a mutation (more than 600) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. But having a mutation is not a gurantee of disease. 20% of patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 will never develop breast cancer, and we don't know why.
Yes or No, the goal of genetic analysis is the discovery of the cause and effect relationships between gene variants and the traits they control?
Your example does NOT represent the ENTIRE technology but is merely an imprecise process that doesn't work very well. The last sentence is telling. "....and we don't know why."
From the very beginning with Mendel's observations the goal has been the same. The genome project was undertaken for the same reason. To identify the variations within and between individual DNA patterns that lead to the traits and characteristics that define us.
You are a smart guy and I'm sure you are keeping up with the technology. What is your opinion and reaction to the fairly recent discovery that instead of the one tenth of one percent variation between individuals that was compiled by the genome project, the actual variances are much larger than that and were 'missed' by false assumptions made in the genome project process? Variances that are also 'invisible' to SNP analysis methods? Here is a laymans reference, I'm sure you have read the Nature article. I would appreciate your analysis.
regards,
frog
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
