Well Jack and I obviously got different impressions from the CBC program.
Just to clarify, I got some valuable stuff from FTDNA's Ydna and Family
Finder, and I'm quite happy with that part of the testing.
I still think that national or geographic origin is your basic marketing
gimmick, separating you from your money. I guess "pseudo science" was
probably a little harsh, but really, you don't go presenting something
to your family as fact when its so full of demonstrable errors.
Take comfort that, depending upon your belief, we ALL originated a.) In
an obscure garden where Eve sat fuming while Adam and the serpent surfed
on an Imac, or b.) in the Great Rift Valley or c.) Somewhere Else.
Love to all, Carl
On 2019-02-10 8:19 p.m., Laura May wrote:
(Please forgive me if I am missing some context here—I appear to be
among those that only receive some messages.)
I have done a DNA test and I am a fan! In fact, we had been searching
for over 30 years for where in “Ireland” our immigrant ancestor Robert
Thompson came from before DNA pointed us to our Thompson cousins from
(If anyone would like to compare results with me for matches I would
I wanted to say that I think the issue Jack is mentioning is only with
the samples and analysis that the companies are using as their
comparative base for ethnic origins. So they are relying on samples
they believe tobe from a particular region to compare new tests
against, but “knowing” the origins of DNA in terms of
geographic/ethnic locationis riddled with the potential for errors, as
we have seen from the twinsnews and our anecdotal evidence. There is
lots of room for improvement on this front and I personally would not
recommend a DNA test to determineyour ethnic background to anything
more than a very general idea.
The cousin matching is much, much more exact because, as you say
Eilish, you are comparing one strand of DNA directly to another. This
aspect ofthe testing is very reliable.
> Il giorno 10 feb 2019, alle ore 21:28, Eilish Gmail
> <eilish7(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:
> "Fibbers" do not come into DNA testing. DNA "strands" are
> with other "strands". The longer the "strand" that is identical,
> higher the change that the persons concerned are related to some
> degree. It's not a lie detector test, and nor will the "fibbers" be
> weeded out over time. When I did my own ill-fated DNA test, I was not
> prompted as to what Ithought was in the mix. Only the sample as
> required, certainly not an attached family tree.
> And if it's "sloppy" for identical twins, Lord help the rest of us.
>> On 11/02/2019 1:09 pm, Jack Fallin wrote:
>> Well, I went to the program described and it said absolutely nothing
>> about DNA analysis being “pseudo-Science.” This is a profoundly
>> misleading description of what CBC was doing.
>> It’s plain common sense that when a testing company tries to figure
>> out “national” roots they are comparing the material you submit to
>> that submitted by others and those others “self-identify” where
>> their ancestors came from. Simple enough - if those people are
>> fibbing the results are going to be skewed. Over time, asenough
>> people submit material the outliers (fibbers) will be weeded out
>> because their results are not lining up with the folks whose
>> ancestors really did come from those places. This also means that
>> each testing company will come up with slightly different results
>> because they will be starting from a different set of informants who
>> were related to individual locations at different points in time. As
>> for why the twins hit slightly different “national origins” even
>> within the same testing company, that, as the story points out, will
>> vary with the large (but nonetheless limited) number of “sites”
>> sampled, the “algorithm” employed to try to identify distinctive
>> variations, and the precise mix of alternative samples at the
>> specific date and time tested.
>> “National origin” results will always be inherently sloppier than
>> than actual DNA-relatedness tests [where the order of accuracy runs
>> Y-DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, autosomal DNA] and those tests of
>> relatedness are the real reason for genealogical DNA testing.
>> The companies involved absolutely Did Not miss the fact that these
>> people were twins - the only result that would justify the
>> “pseudo-Science” label; the only result quoted easily found the two
>> to be more than 97% related. So if you are looking for relatives (as
>> opposedto what obscure country you may be attached to) the CBC
>> results, if anything, verified the tests’ ability to identify matches.
>> Jack Fallin
>> Walnut Creek, CA