Listers Attached to this is a response to my blast about the DNA project and their response to a question that I had asked. It is from Max Blankfeld, a VP from FamilytreeDNA. I also had a telephone conversation with Mr. Blankfeld. In it he agreed to look at how the results are presented so as to clear up any question as to whether there are matches for the surname as opposed to mathces to a bunch of people whose anscestors departed the old family tree long before surnames were invented. I am satisfied that the problem was the old fashioned "failure to communicate" and not a problem of people being tested and then retreating behiend a curtain of "privacy". Bill Dalton > Dear Max > > While I am in full accord with the purpose of your program, I really feel that there might be some changes in reporting results that would have precluded this missunderstanding. > > When I received the response to my question about my results, I was essentially told that 'privacy' precluded my being told about any of these 480+ matches, except for one. What I was not told was that the privacy question pertained to people with different surnames but with matching DNA. The ancestor who split off from the family tree before surnames were invented. > > Given that explanation, the response makes sense. Why would a Jones want to talk to a Dalton when there is no hope of the ancestries matching up. But, again, that was not what I was told. I had no way of knowing if there were Dalton samples that were among the matches that were 'private'. > > Might I suggest that when your company posts results, the information be presented in a different format. Present the information that for the surname (whatever surname) there are X matches out of Y total matches. Then, rate the matches by degree of match. Include the standerd comment that there are many many people, of different surnames, that will have matching DNA but not be part of the family line that the customer falls into. > > In this manner of presentation, there will be no question of matches being witheld due to 'privacy'. Your customer then will have full knowledge of who to contact out of this group of matches, or whether to contact any of this group of matches. > > I think that it is of utmost importance to keep in mind that most of your customers are not people with advanced degrees in genetics. What you may understand may be hard for someone else to figure out. > > Bill Dalton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Max Blankfeld <max@familytreedna.com> > To: rnbill@centurytel.net > Sent: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:49:15 -0500 > Subject: Re: Need assistance > > > Dear Bill, > > > > I am aware about your concerns regarding DNA testing, and I'll try to clarify some points, as well as make myself available over the phone for any additional clarification that you may have. > > We have numerous - really numerous - instances of people coming back to us and letting us know how DNA helped them break through brick walls in genealogical research. (Just out of curiosity, I am adding an e-mail that I received 3 days ago, with the authorization to make it public). > > But let me clarify the issue of matches with different surnames. > > We all descend from one single person, but of course the DNA test that we do is not to tell us this obvious fact. > > Since we all descent from one person, and then from a few families, and as times goes by those families keep branching out up to the point where we get to our own family nest, it would be natural that when we check our DNA, the less markers we check, the less unique they are, and the more markers we test, the more unique the whole string of markers is. In other words, to go to extremes, if we tested only one marker, we would most certainly match with millions of individuals that shared that marker for thousands of years. But if on the other hand when we test many markers, we will match very very few people that share those same markers. Those would be the ones that are closely related to us. > > This is valid when checking our matches on 12, 25 or 37 markers. The likelihood that we will match other individuals with 12 markers is far greater than matching on 25 or 37. Especially if our family descends from a populational group that came from one or a few prolific families thousands of years ago (which is the case for Western Europe). In a situation like this, matching between different surnames signify that our common ancestor with those individuals lived before the time when surnames were adopted, and therefore, beyond the time frame of our genealogical research. > > > > You see, our bodies work as copy machines when it comes to the Y-DNA. You can have a copy machine doing 1,000 copies without a problem, and then, the 1,001 copy may have an 'o' that looks more like an 'e'. And when we use this copy to make additional ones, all the new ones will now have an 'e' instead of an 'o'. This is a simple way to explain how mutations occur in our Y-DNA when it's transferred (copied) from father to son. Mutations don't happen frequently, on the contrary, very seldom, but they can happen randomly in time, which means that I could be one mutation off of my father. That is why all those matches or close matches on 12 markers will in most of the cases go away when they happen between different surnames, and we increased the numbered of markers that are compared: more mutations showing up, which means way back in time when the common ancestor lived. > > > > The only relevant matches that are left then are the ones between similar surnames or variants. Which was the case here with your Dalton 21/25 matches. Millicent offered to put you in touch with the 2 individual that were 21/25 off your results. I think it's a good idea, and if you all have family trees to share, you may find that at some point they converge. And, as the database grows and more Daltons are tested, you will may find a common link between you and them. > > > > I hope this helped, but if not, I am happy to spend some time with you on the phone. I would also appreciate if you post this e-mail to the lists where you posted your comments: BECKETT-L@Rootsweb.com, eng-surrey@british-genealogy.com, IRL-SURNAMES-L@Rootsweb.com, MAHER-L@Rootsweb.com, OH-CLEVELAND-IRISH-L@Rootsweb.com, SHAMROCK-L@Rootsweb.com > > > > (please scroll down to find the testimonial that I mentioned to you) > > > > E-mail me any time! > > > > Max Blankfeld > > Vice-President, Operations and Marketing > > http://www.FamilyTreeDNA.com > > 'History Unearthed Daily' > > max@familytreedna.com > > 713-868-1438 > > > > >>For 30 years, my ancestor chart was stuck at 1850, but in a matter of three > > >>days, I was able to get back to 1615. How? By DNA testing. Let me explain. > > >> > > >>I became curious about my family tree about 30 years ago. Remember, this was > > >>before the Internet. My sources were county histories, county court houses and > > >>the state archives in Charleston, WV. My paternal line is Walker, and I was > > >>unable to get back farther than 1850 because the head of household is the only > > >>person named in those early Census records. > > >> > > >>I knew that there were four Walker families in Nicholas County in the early > > >>1800s. When I found out about DNA testing about five years ago, two of those > > >>families had already been tested. So I decided to convince my brother and a > > >>descendant of Elverton P. Walker (the other Walker family that had not been > > >>tested) to participate. None of the four families matched, which was > > >>disappointing, but at least I knew that I could give up on that line of > > >>research and move on to new territory. > > >> > > >>In the 1820 Nicholas County Census, Ira Walker, born prior to 1800, is listed > > >>as head of household, with two older women and four teenagers living in the > > >>home. By comparing the ages of the residents of the household, I guessed that > > >>these were two women living with their children. I found a Nicholas County > > >>marriage bond for Eliza Walker’s marriage to John Mosbarger. Her mother, Leah, > > >>gave her permission for the marriage, and Solon Walker signed the bond. This > > >>record told me that Eliza’s father was not available to sign the document for > > >>whatever reason, and that Solon is probably her brother. > > >> > > >>Ira Walker died in 1832, and his estate lists two volumes of militia law, a > > >>regiment coat and a saber. Ira was too young to serve in the War of 1812, so I > > >>presumed that these possessions had been his father’s…and that his father may > > >>have died in that war, or soon after. That would explain why Leah, his widow, > > >>was living with her son. > > >> > > >>Seth, Ira’s brother, later moved to Indiana, and in the Census records there I > > >>found that he reported that he had been born in New Hampshire. I was excited > > >>to find a new lead, but with only the first name “Leah” to go on, I didn’t get > > >>very far. > > >> > > >>BUT last week I was notified by e-mail that Eugene Walker is a perfect match > > >>for my brother’s DNA sample. And it turns out that Eugene descends from the > > >>New Hampshire Walkers. At last, the missing link! Eugene’s ancestor is Samuel > > >>Walker of Woburn, Mass., who was born in England in 1615 and came to the > > >>Colonies when he was about 21 years old. > > >> > > >>Working forward, Eugene and my other research cousins, Joy Moore and Neva > > >>Adams, have helped me find Leah’s husband Solomon, which connects the West > > >>Virginia line to the New Hampshire line. Without DNA testing, I NEVER would > > >>have found this link! > > >> > > >>Ella Walker May, 8/20/04 > > > >