DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-07 > 1311461069
From: tuulen <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Griers, Millikins, McAdams, Ewings.
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:44:29 -0400
An implied promise of historical accuracy was part of my original attraction
to being DNA tested, one which completely eliminated any need for written
family records, if such records could be anywhere near accurate and if such
records even existed at all. Great! Or so I thought.
OK. I was wrong. There are gaps and a paper-trail is still considered a
necessary part of family research.
But DNA-based family research really is an amazing technology, well worth
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Bill Howard <> wrote:
> A few years ago I caught Sorenson with 20% errors in the ten samples I sent
> them, so I hope that testing HAS improved in the interim. FTDNA has a good
> reputation, so I think it's below one percent there. I, too have higher
> confidence in the testing results, but you still have to consider mutation
> errors, even though they are buried in the correlation. That's the issue of
> over-interpretation I have been writing about.
> - Bye from Bill
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:49 PM, tuulen wrote:
> > Bill,
> > Lab error could occur, but apparently today's testing standards are quite
> > high and so the rate of lab error is likely quite low. I have higher
> > confidence in the test results than in the DNA itself, and a comparison
> > between two people's DNA could today be based on very accurate test
> > Your theory sounds convincingly good, and I look forward to learning more
> > about it, please.
> > Doug
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message