Questions I have are:
1. Does ABD 2.5, the genealogy test marketed to the public, have the same ability to make distinctions between Europeans, Middle Easterners, and South Asians, or between different types of East Asians, as does DNAWitness 2.5? Are these in fact the same tests, using the same markers and using the same algorithms?
2. If so, why doesn’t DNAP calculate these narrower distinctions for ABD2.5. for their customers.
3. One possibility is that perhaps these narrower distinctions are only a yes/n answer for majority ancestry, and not a quantitative measure of admixture. For example, perhaps they can say that person A is predominantly Middle Eastern, but they cannot say that person A is 65% Middle Eastern, 20% South Asian, and 15% European. So, they believe they need the quantitative ability before it is marketable to the public.
4. Although, I think people would like to get the maximum information from these tests, considering the cost, and a yes/no answer is better than none at all.
5. What are the implications of this for ABD 3.0? It would seem that the first step, being able to make some intra-continental distinctions, is feasible. But people are expecting narrower distinctions (e.g., “Nordic” vs. “Mediterranean” Europeans; or Chinese vs. Japanese), and they are expecting quantitative admixture (e.g., 70% Chinese, 30% Japanese). DNAP is probably not quite there yet.
6. When is DNAP going to at least reveal some of the ideas they have for 3.0? They may not want to raise expectations beyond what they can do, but still, shouldn’t they give folks ideas what they are aiming for?
7. They need to be more specific about their parental populations, “western Europe” doesn’t cut it. What nations? And they should do more validations, if possible, or reveal what they have done. Where are the “ethnic triangles” on their website?
