> "It is well known that horoscopes use vague statements which recipients think are more tailored than they really are (referred to as the ‘Forer effect’). Genetic ancestry tests do a similar thing, and many exaggerate far beyond the available evidence about human origins. You cannot look at DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey. For the most part these tests cannot tell you the things they claim to – they are little more than genetic astrology." > http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/119/Sense-About-Genetic-Ancestry-Testing.pdf Debbie Cruwys Kennett published a response to the 2013 Sense about Science, which might be helpful: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/blog.php/41/sense-about-genealogical-dna-testing Opening paragraph: "The announcement of the publication of Sense About Science’s new briefing on Sense About Genetic Ancestry Testing attracted substantial media coverage. However, some of the articles did not give the wider context which may have given the false impression that all DNA ancestry tests are 'meaningless'. This left some readers to wonder about the scientific credibility of the DNA testing used in the investigation of the presumed remains of Richard III or the tests taken by genealogists as part of their family history research. However, the briefing made it clear that 'There are credible ways to use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry testing, such as to supplement independent, historical studies of genealogy.' This combination of genealogical research with DNA testing is known as genetic genealogy, and is a more specific and rigorous application than the generalised 'deep' ancestry tests critiqued in Sense About Genetic Ancestry Testing." (Thanks to Debbie for pointing this out to me.)

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > However, the briefing made it clear that 'There are credible ways to > use the genetic data from mtDNA or Y chromosomes in individual ancestry > testing, such as to supplement independent, historical studies of > genealogy.' This combination of genealogical research with DNA testing > is known as genetic genealogy, and is a more specific and rigorous > application than the generalised 'deep' ancestry tests critiqued in > Sense About Genetic Ancestry Testing." This corresponds with my own feelings on the matter. There are problems with the ethnology determinations, but these do not affect the application of DNA analyses to specific genealogical questions. Indeed, I have spent the past month trying to track down the last known male-line descendants (left orphaned in the 1950s when their father fell into a caustic vat used to clean airline engine parts) of an 18th century ancestor who appears in court documents as the child of an unmarried woman, but with a different surname from hers. This is exactly the type of question DNA can nail down - does his Y-chromosome match that of the local family with whom he shared the surname? Can it prove a relationship? No, but it can fail to exclude one. > (Thanks to Debbie for pointing this out to me.) And thanks to you for bringing it to us. taf