Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Adrian,
Sometime last year, I questioned a new DNA project involving my primary surname (my maiden name). Men were tested representing four suspected brothers. The results went something like this: A and B were "probably related." A & B were "likely" NOT related to C. C and D were "probably" related.
I question the validity of the results because I feel there has to be sound, basic genealogical research in order to ensure these men are who they think they are. I also think that if DNA testing is such an exact science, why can it not be stated positively that they either were or were not related?
Admitedly, I don't know a lot about the specifics of DNA testing, but it seems to me that it does not require a rocket scientist to see that something is amiss here.
As to clearing persons convicted of specific crimes, I can see that the results might be more accurate in that the persons tested are proved facts. However, DNA specimens that have been languishihing in long-forgotten files makes me think that the results could be called into question.
By and large, I think the genealogical aspect of DNA testing leaves a lot to be desired.
Betty
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/gen/messages/33533.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|