GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-04 > 1050980585


From: David Faux <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] DNAPrint Test: Validation Studies
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <NGBBJJHDALCHOBFBBMPIGELLCJAA.tfrudakis@dnaprint.com>


Ok Tony. I get your point, and am in complete agreement with with what your say about the East Asian affiliation of the Polynesians. The evidence is now overwhelming (despite Thor Hyerdahl etc.) that the Hawaiian's (for example) ancestral origins lie in the Far East. I guess what you are saying then is that what you are now trying to do is to develop a way of further differentiate between these two "East Asian" groups (e.g. those from Tahiti and those from Japan). If that is what you mean, then I am following your train of thought. If not, chalk it up to my chronic sleep deprivation :-) By the way, just hang in there one more day and I think that this thread will peter out as we will all have had our chance to make our points. I really hope that some sort of consensus emerges out of this dialogue. David.

TONY N FRUDAKIS <> wrote:David,

The "whatever" response suggests to me that a test based on such complex
science such as ours is destined to be forever misunderstood. No offense to
you, understand, but incorporating Pacific Islanders who are absolutely part
of teh East Asian anthropological branch in that group, because they cant be
distinguished from Chinese and Japanese with the markers we have, is
perfectly reasonable. If you go to the Rosenfeld paper and notice how they
divided the world into k=2,3,4... groups, you will see that the results are
not inaccurate at any of the assumed divisions, but that they give
information about affiliation on different time scales. This is crucial to
understand..



Dr. David K. Faux, 4028 Larwin Ave., Cypress, CA, 90630, USA





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.


This thread: