On Dec 10, 10:26 am, Sherlock Holmes <hawke_eye_da...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > Hi, > So in actual fact DNA Genealogy is guess work at the best and thus can > not be relied on concerning the number of generations involved due to > the AssUMed mutation rate. > Some one is trying to sell us a Pig in a poke, con job, scam, rip off, > lie, cheat us out of our hard earned income. > > As Benny Hill once said never Assume as you make an Ass out of U and Me. > > Now lets get back to some real Genealogical detective work. > > David hey Sherlock - did you not read the subject line of this thread "/ obviously you took a left turn into an area you are not interested in, and/or it doesn't jive with your ... can we ASSUME shotty investigative endeavors :) this type of genetic research is an AID with proven results, weather you want to believe it or not ... the facts are, DNA doesn't lie nor does it support fictitious research efforts :) Ken - hdpth-DNA

hdpth-DNA wrote: > On Dec 10, 10:26 am, Sherlock Holmes <hawke_eye_da...@yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> So in actual fact DNA Genealogy is guess work at the best and thus can >> not be relied on concerning the number of generations involved due to >> the AssUMed mutation rate. >> Some one is trying to sell us a Pig in a poke, con job, scam, rip off, >> lie, cheat us out of our hard earned income. >> >> As Benny Hill once said never Assume as you make an Ass out of U and Me. >> >> Now lets get back to some real Genealogical detective work. >> >> David > > hey Sherlock - > > did you not read the subject line of this thread "/ > > obviously you took a left turn into an area you are not interested in, > and/or it doesn't jive with your ... can we ASSUME shotty > investigative endeavors :) > > this type of genetic research is an AID with proven results, weather > you want to believe it or not ... the facts are, DNA doesn't lie nor > does it support fictitious research efforts :) > > Ken - > hdpth-DNA > > > Hi Ken, The point I was getting at is that some one posted the following: "The markers used in these sorts of tests are in the junk DNA. Since they don't code for genes, there is no selection pressure on them, so they make better molecular clocks. If they did code for genes, then some mutations would be lost because they were fatal. But with junk DNA all the mutations stick around, because they don't matter, so you can, with an assumed mutation rate, measure when two lines diverged." Now take note in the last line it clearly says Assumed that means it is not exact it is guessed at and has not been proven in any way shape of form. On that bases you may as well pick an entry at random that is listed on the IGI and assume that they are directly relate and that they are assumed to be related with in the last ten generations. Get real. As for what Huntersglenn has to say for FamilyTreeDNA I am glad that some companies have some scruples and do value their client, based on this If I do decide to test the DNA side of my family then I am likely to use FamilyTreeDNA's services based on the experience that Huntersgleen has had. Cheers Big Ears.