DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[Mike Tiernan]

A couple of points. Some discussions I've had with folks involved in the PA Dutch story indicated to me that DNAP's first response to EA admixture in Mr. Kerchner and others was to suggest the "hidden grandmother" theory. If that is incorrect, I apologize, but my sources seem accurate. I also know that when ABD 2.0 first came out, they were talking only about recent admixture, and didn't seem to understand the other possibilities (maybe because they were intent at that time to market the test as a genealogy test). When they finally, much later, put up something about "mechanisms 1,2, and 3" they did in fact admit that Mr. Kerchner had input there. My point is that this discussion of the Mechanisms should have been up since day 1. If these folks are population geneticists, that should be obvious. It's like a nuclear physicist who has never heard of a neutron. Bizarre.
About "constructive criticism" and the parentals, if we knew what the IE parentals were, exactly, we can judge the validity of admixture estimates, and suggest that mechanism 3 be looked at more closely. We could suggest that more populations be included in the IE parentals and the algorithm re-calculated, taking into account these new gene frequencies. I can imagine someone from India not being happy that IE is defined purely by a Western European standard. But I know they have South Asians working at DNAP, and apparently the had no problem there.
About "Rootsweb" - I know many of the people there are grossly unfair to DNAP; I do not condone their nitpicking. Many of those people are whining crybabies who are upset that their "family legends" turn out to be incorrect. On the other hand, I think that DNAP, on their side, can be a bit more forthcoming on this information.