GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-11 > 1067710207


From: (Raymond Whritenour)
Subject: [DNA] DNAPrint majority % accurate but not minority %
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 13:10:07 -0500 (EST)


Malcolm:

1. In the U.S.A., "Black" means "Sub-Saharan African." The fact that
one can arbitrarily designate anyone with dark skin as "Black," is
irrelevant to the article about Wayne Joseph. "Black" means
"Sub-Saharan African" to Mr. Joseph, and the DNAPrint test failed to
show any percentage for "SA." (Whether or not Mr. Joseph really has any
"SA" ancestry is a different matter.) This is why your argument that
you can be "Black," but not "Negro" makes no impression on people in the
U.S.A.

2. A person of minority "Sub-Saharan African" does not, by any means,
have to have the Duffy-Null allele. Someone who does have that ancestry
informative marker almost certainly does have "SA" ancestry, but it
doesn't work the other way round!

3. John is actually guessing that DNAPrint eliminates the fourth
ancestral percentage when reporting results. DNAPrint says that they do
not do that, unless someone wants a triangle plot, and the fourth
percentage is so low as to be negligible. A person with four
ancestries, with almost equal percentages, such as you give as an
example, would NEVER be given a certificate with just three ancestral
percentages.

4. John and yourself (and others) are being very forgiving when you
attempt to separate the DNAPrint marketing people from their scientists.
I have yet to see where Tony Frudakis or Matt Thomas (or others) have
said ANYTHING which would contradict any statement found in their User
Manual or other marketing literature. Who do you suppose wrote this
marketing material? Are you telling me it wasn't approved by the
scientific people who actually manage this company?

5. The reason they don't tell people that they have three ancestries is
because almost nobody does. A person with an "East Asian" grandfather
need not expect a 25% "EA" result, at all. 13% is well within the range
of what might be expected due to the randomness of the genetic
processes, as has been discussed, ad nauseum, on this list.

6. You (and others) are jumping to the conclusion that your "EA"
percentages are "REALLY" "Native American," without the slightest
evidence that this is so. In this, you are way ahead of the folks at
DNAPrint genomics, Inc., who say that the four BGA groups are
well-defined and sorted out by their testing methods. Everybody showing
up with these "EA" results can't be "Aleuts!"

The fact is, DNAPrint has a lot of explaining to do to a lot of people.
Too bad for the people who've used their services, but aren't savvy
regarding the information on this list.

Ray Whritenour


This thread: