GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127995449
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:04:09 EDT
True, the goal should be no errors. However, the errors that have been
reported are only on one marker out of 25, 37, 43, or whatever. A 13 instead of a
14, etc.. This is not enough to throw away a whole family history or ancestral
The fact that someone "might" have an error is still big news. So out of
tens of thousands of samples, it doesn't happen that often.
In a message dated 9/29/2005 7:44:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Thanks for this comment. I feel the exact same way. I doubt that any of
the members of this list would want to receive a bogus result which puts
in a bogus early ancestral place. Some of us really are depending very
on accurate results. When a result "looks weird" seems to me maybe it should
be retested at least once. If you are the lone fish in the pond being tested
for your ancestry and there aren't any other same surname male fishes in
family around to be tested then it is like you say above "People may accept
certain statistics in terms of error rates. However, try telling this to
who gets results that indicate they are not part of the family that they
thought they were."
The folks who are in the 1% error group may not be real happy to realize
that they have been given bogus results.
|Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results by|