Replies to post #11776 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[bag8ger]

Frogdreaming,

I think some beautiful princess must have kissed you.

[mingwan0]

frog, I don't want to have to keep on correcting you, but I do believe that you are possibly mistaken with regard to the Ancestry accuracy. Let me quote Tony Frudakis from this post on RootsWeb (dated 24 January, 2004):

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2004-01/1074965434

"...the 71 marker test exhibits an average MLE error of a few percent, where few means from 4%-8%..."

"...a heck of a lot less than the estimates of error bantered about on the roots-web of a ridiculous 20-30% error."

Or you could refer to the AncestryByDNA website:

http://www.ancestrybydna.com/simulation.asp

"From this table one can see that the average level of artificial admixture using the 71 marker test is about 5% and the level using the 175 marker test is lower, at about 3%..."

So your assertion that the Ancestry accuracy is of the order of 25% falls within the "ridiculous" range that is "bantered about" on RootsWeb. If I didn't know better I would suspect that your surname was Chandler or Whritenour...

[cosmiclifeform]

Frog - You must have missed (or selectively filtered out) the extended and very excellent discussion on Telemeres on this and the RB board...Telemeres are the ends of each gene which indicate "age" and are quite defineable by DNA tests...

Add this to eye color, hair color, skin pigmentation, and the possibility of determining "cranialfacial traits," etc., and you have an amazing description of a particular human at a particular time in history.

DNAP sure feels on the right track and is soooo far ahead of others.

OT - Frog - I'm never sure why you stick around a stock you seem to be so down on, but some day I'd really like to hear about a company (or even something in your life) that you are truly excited about... I know you have it in you....

God Bless and take care,

Robert