Posted on 12/10/2017 8:36:40 AM PST by Enlightened1
Follow that up with the Census records online.
I don’t know what organization she used, but my niece’s results were soooo wrong. Poker-straight dark brown hair, and black eyes. Results said she has curly blonde hair and blue eyes.
How many people are doing relatives and friend a disservice by giving this for Christmas gifts?
If received one I would hand it back and tell them get a refund no thanks.
I also chuckle at the guy who thought he was German, up to and including dancing in leiderhosen....until they told him he’s Scottish, so now he wears a kilt. Isn’t that SPECIAL.
What?! Your DNA changes when you are naturalized? How about illegal Americans?
Dila813, I do keep up with the science, apparently more than do you. You missed my tongue firmly placed in my cheek. No, DNA cannot determine religion, and that was the point I was making because you were conflating a state of mind with a genotype. But it also cannot determine if one is an American because citizens and even residents of this country are a melting pot of peoples who have come her over the past five hundred years from all over the years, intermarried, interbred, mixed, spread out, immigrated, and are now, like no other nation on earth, a DNA melange of ethnicities, mixed ethnicities, races, mixed races, and genotypes from every place on earth.
There is no single, specific AMERICAN DNA genotype that anyone can point to and say "That is an American DNA genotype," and there probably never will be, except for, perhaps, the Native American tribes, and even their DNA shows where the ancient DNA has its roots in Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands, as well as European admixture, not to mention black (60% of the American cowboys in the "old west" were black!).
Only those countries who jealously guard their racial heritage could possibly hope to keep their racial purity pristine. Japan comes to mind. . . but they live on an Island and have strict immigration laws. Then there's North Korea. . .
You are just trolling all over the place, you know what I mean.
When you do a dna test, you don’t just get your dna, you get the complete dna profile for the bacteria, viruses, etc.
when you take in account all the dna, you get a litterial dna background check, they can see how well traveled you are, the general location you habitat most of the time etc..
Ah, as expected of you, the ad hominem attack of the person with no cogent argument. Have no valid argument, attack the messenger who shows you have none.
Dila813, any lab that does not filter out the bio contamination to actually test the intended cells would be a complete failure in the DNA field.
You are blowing smoke and therefore the one who is trolling. Oral bacteria is essentially the same everywhere in the world, dila813. I work in the DENTAL FIELD at this time and you are just talking about something you have ZERO clue about.
DNA labs are NOT going to waste time and money running a complete DNA profile on every one of the billions of bacteria and viruses found in the mouth. It would take weeks to months to do. . . for ZERO value. Do you even have a clue how difficult it is to isolate a virus to distinguish its DNA? They run tests for specific alleles associated with ethnic and geographic subgroups, not complete human DNA mapping. . . and only those that have specificity of what they are looking for. The state of the art now available it is extremely expensive to run even the tests on the human DNA markers we know, much less the three billion genetic markers there actually are. An explanation of the limitations of DNA testing, taken December 11, 2017, from Understanding genetic ancestry testing, MOLECULAR AND CULTURAL EVOLUTION LAB, University College, London, 2017:
An autosomal DNA test provides information from the great majority of your DNA (the autosomes are the chromosomes other than the X, Y and mtDNA, and contain most of your DNA sequences, and genes). Although full genome sequencing is not far away, it remains unaffordable for most and autosomal DNA tests usually examine up to around 1 million genetic markers (SNPs) spread across the genome (1 million may sound a lot but there are over 3 billion DNA letters in the human genome, so it's still a small fraction but the most informative sites are chosen). The markers give information about all your ancestors in recent generations, but once you go beyond about 10 generations back into the past (roughly 300 years) only a small fraction of your ancestors have contributed directly to your DNA: so even if William Shakespeare were your ancestor (born ~450 years ago), you almost certainly inherited no DNA from him. This can be a bit confusing: you did inherit almost all your DNA from ancestors alive at that time, but there are very many of them (perhaps 10 thousand or more), and you only actually inherited your DNA from a few hundred of them - a small fraction. The others are "pedigree ancestors" but not "DNA ancestors": you could have inherited DNA from them, but did not because of the randomness in the 50% transmission of DNA from parent to child.The uniparental Y and mtDNA are exceptions: you inherited them from all your patrilineal and matrilineal ancestors respectively (the former only if you are male), and so in a sense they can provide a link with very remote ancestors. But they represent only a small fraction of your ancestry, and allow only limited inferences about time depth.
Autosomal DNA tests can be used to identify individuals with whom you share one or more common ancestors up to a handful of generations in the past. This is done by looking for large chunks of DNA that you both share, indicating recent shared inheritance. Sometimes it happens that a large chunk of DNA is conserved in two individuals from a common ancestor more than 10 generations in the past, but this is rare: the great majority of common ancestors at that time depth will not be identified from the DNA of their descendants today. Although sharing one or more large chunks of DNA makes it almost certain that the two of you had at least one recent common ancestor, dating the ancestor(s) is imprecise, particularly beyond about 4 generations ago. Also the tests have no ability to distinguish certain relationships: for example, using DNA alone the half-sibling relationship cannot be distinguished from the grandparent-grandchild relationship, and in the latter case we can't tell from the DNA which is the grandparent and which is the grandchild. Algorithms that predict specific relationships are rarely precise beyond 1st degree, but they can identify more distant relationships approximately, with good accuracy out to about 2nd cousin, and the precise relationship may then be confirmed using additional information.
Autosomal tests also provide information about an individual's "ethnicity" by identifying sections of the DNA that best match reference databases of modern populations with geographical or ethnic labels. Ethnicity tests are better called biogeographical ancestry tests or admixture tests (your "ethnicity" is a social category that may not accurately reflect your ancestry). However, the reference populations used for comparison purposes are limited, the ethnic labels applied to them may be questionable, and they were collected in different ways for different purposes: they rarely represent true random samples from a population (e.g. because the "population" itself may not be precisely defined: populations usually overlap and blend with other populations). Distinguishing between populations within continents is often poor with the current resolution of markers and databases. Human genetic variation usually varies smoothly with geographical distance: as you travel from Dakar to Vladivostok you can observe continual change in gene variant frequencies; there is a big genetic difference between start and end cities, but there are no sharp genetic boundaries along the way.
Ethnic/geographical assignments have some validity at a large scale. For example in Latin Americans it is usually possible to distinguish with confidence sections of an individual's genome that are of sub-Saharan African, European and Native American origin. However, testing companies will often assign national labels to genetic clusters, whereas gene variant frequencies tend to change smoothly across borders. Thus, French people may be assigned a large percentage of "British" ancestry. Normandy and Kent are genetically similar, as you would expect from history and geography, so it is not easy to distinguish English from French based on DNA alone. Given high quality genomic databases it would be possible to assign an individual to a region of origin with a reasonable degree of accuracy (human provenancing), but this is beyond what genetic testing companies currently have available both in terms of having enough genetic markers in large and well-annotated databases.
As a result of the random inheritance of DNA, close relatives can often be assigned markedly different ethnicity percentages. This may be correct. For example if you have three grandparents from Africa and one from Asia, you and your brother/sister may receive very different proportions of Asian DNA even though you share the same parents. However such differences may also reflect inadequacies in the databases used, or the methods of inference applied.
It is also common to find that people get very different percentages from different testing companies. This is partly because each company uses different databases and the individuals within them are categorised in different ways: there is no "correct" way to categorise human beings. Each company also uses its own algorithms to make the estimates, and the target time depth varies from company to company but is often not explicitly stated. The estimates will also change over time as additional reference populations are added and as the algorithms are adjusted or improved.
My, my, my, there's a lot more limitations than they lead you to believe. . . and MUCH more than the imagical tests you claim.
So, exactly where does this say there is an AMERICAN Genotype, as you claimed? How about a test for where you travelled? I think you've been watching too much CSI FANTASY science forensics on TV which is not based any real science but on what they need to advance a story line. . . science that claimed in one program that a 175 MPH hurricane could pick up a spent bullet straight off the ground from a (horrors) backyard shooting range, get it spinning, and then give it sufficient velocity just from the high wind, to go through a wall and kill someone. I'm still ROTFLMAO over that absolutely amazing absurdity.
Are you aware that 100,000 of the mapped genes, some 8%, or perhaps even more of the Human genome, is made up of ancient viruses—viruses that in some cases are beneficial to humans and perhaps even necessary to our survival as a species? We have no clue how they got there, but they are there. The more we look, the more we find.
Nor, after your mouth has been cleaned a few times will they be able to see "how well travelled you are." SHEESH! Bacteria do not live forever, dila, they DIE and are replaced by other bacteria one is exposed to. Do you have anything else you've pulled out of your nether orifice to throw against the wall to see if it will spatter? Were you, by chance, on the OJ jury?
I bet you spent all that time since my last post writing that.
LOL, I am not even going to read it.
OK, staying IGNORANT is the sign of a STUPID person. I just proved that you have ZERO knowledge of what you were claiming... I and DO.
Keep on keeping on in your CSI TV show based knowledge of science.
True!
Sunk, I think you're making a classic mistake. Yes, there are 23, which you correctly point out is not evenly divisible by two, but it's 23 PAIRS—with one of the pairs comes from the male gamete and one from the female gamete—making a total of 46 genes. i.e., there are TWO sides to each of the 23 chromosomes and each can be traced, and 46 can be divided by two.
Take a look at the limitation of DNA testing they really use as I laid it out to dila813 above. She's not interested in facts, but I know you are.
That being said, one other thing being missed here, perhaps not by you, but by everyone else, is that many families assume that everyone in their family tree was faithful to their spouse of record and the children born of that union were actually the result of only those two people. One of the results of modern DNA testing was the discovery that is not true.
Amazingly the percentage of children born in seemingly solid marriages that are NOT the child of the husband of the mother of record is amazingly high. . . several DNA studies put it at 1 in 10 children were fathered by a man not the husband. (some attempts have been made to debunk that based on extremely small populations that put the percentage at 1% to 2%, but these were historic studies, some several generations back, based in statistical analysis reaching the conclusion that past generations were more faithful in their marriages than current married couples or, alternately, pregnancy prevention in the past was more effective or abortion was more frequently used to end an out-of-wedlock pregnancy that resulted from an affair.)
As one goes farther back in time, and assumes a similar discrepancy rate for family tree wolves in the sheepfold, the possibilities that someone from from an unknown source outside the known lineage contributed DNA approaches 100%.
My family tree on my mother's side and my paternal grandmothers side can be traced back to the Domesday book with supposed accuracy. There's royal blood in there, one of my Great-great-grandfathers was Alexander Graham Bell on my mother's side, the first English governor of Massachusetts, somewhere George Lucas and I share great great grandparents. way back Daniel Boone makes an appearance. . . and on my father's side, Kit Carson (my father's middle name of Carson comes from that relationship). . . but we know there are bastards in the mix as well who don't have a clue who their fathers, and sometimes their mothers were. I know that one great great grand mother was Cherokee. . . "rescued" from the heathens as a child and raised to be "white" and married into the family without a clue about her parentage except it was Indian. Farther back than that is impossible to know. That's a huge wolf in the woodpile.
On my father's side, one ancestor claimed to be the Lost Dauphine of France. . . and had proof. But that and $7 will get one a cup of fancy coffee at Starbucks. It's sorta like all the Anastasia's who've come out of the woodwork after the 1920s to claim the Russian crown.
Don’t reply, just for the benefit of this thread.
https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/2/2/469/826237
I've made no classic mistake -- if you reread carefully, you'll realize that what I said was, there is no way to get exactly one quarter of your genes from each grandparent (although some nitwit here on FR argued that very thing, as if the chromosomes sit around and play go fish to make sure it all comes out even), and the skew starts there, but it continues due to random chance, reducing each side of the tree from 32 g-g-g-g-grandperents (on each side, see?) to 23 sources. The third-greats number 16 on each side, meaning some have passed one, some have passed two -- or by random chance, some have passed none. The only way to sort that out is by having DNA samples from that many generations back, which I'd guess *seldom* happens.*On average* one quarter come from each grandparent, but obviously there is no integer solution to one quarter of 46, so the concentration of genetic origin begins with the grandparental generation, and it turns into something analogous to the old "war" card game -- an early advantage means eventual victory. Here's some arbitrarily and randomly assigned values, showing the pathway to the 46 of the current hypothetical person (but entirely possible, and given the 2^23 squared possibilities in each generation, this is bound to have happened at least once by now, to someone, somewhere):
In one of my surname organizations, the DNA results (through some deal the family org has) break down thus -- four groups, all of whom are related on paper, yet the DNA sez uh-uh, but groups each into one of three groups, or if not related to anyone with the test results, then into the fourth they go. Someone jumped the fence, and it happened at least three times -- or, it has to do with the DNA just not happening to have made it through the same way in each branch, which is (you guessed it) conceivable.
Here's a sample to show you what I was talking about:
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | 5 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | 13 | 11 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I did one more sample, this one as even as possible, to perhaps better illustrate the point. It still doesn't account for my being part pastrami sandwich, but anyway...
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I see you’ve been doing some googling again. Jewish heredity, not religion, devolves through a matrilineal line. . . It comes through ones mother, not the father. So one could prove Semitic matrilineal descent from a Jewish mother through mitochondrial DNA in concert from a family tree relationship if it were known. . . But NOT if it were unknown. . . otherwise all that would be shown is the Semitic line.
Nice try again at a round about ad hominem slur by prejudicing any response I might make to your link. The movement to use DNA is itself a prejudicial and bigoted move by segments in the Jewish community to exclude Jews they don’t like. . . Jews they claim aren’t really pure enough to be Jews. Sound familiar? The miDNA can’t do what they want it to. . . more of your CSI TV fantasy science crap.
I asked for you not to reply, go back and read the earlier posts to answer your own questions.
Liberalism destroys everything it touches.....everything. Even something as simple as a DNA test.
Liberalism is the BORG.
I must have missed that point, because, of course you are right. The only way I can see for you to get one quarter of your genes from Your each of your grand parents would be if they were identical twins who married each other, then there’s a passing chance if their children against the marriage laws conceived you, you might wind up winning the lottery, or losing it, depending on the strength of what matched up Pro and con. . . But the article I linked show the fact that even natural children in the same family, progeny of the same parent can receive wildly different geolocation genotypes due to what you are pointing out. It’s a crap shoot with 46 sided dice, and each die face has its own craps game going on!
Most of these gene tracing companies are not going to be doing separate miDNA and Y-DNA testing. They’ll do the cheap, down and dirty test, and out the door with pretty generic results. . . which as the London U report said is good only for about 300 years back. . . and getting very iffy at that level, as you rightly point out.
It’s the reverse doubling pennies or wheat grains on the checkerboard problem. . . Only in spades to mix my metaphors.
As for having DNA samples for multiple generations, it’s been pointed out that DNA is not directional, they are snapshots in the lineage. One cannot distinguish which is g’father or g’son by looking at DNA. Same with miDNA. . . at least not yet but tracking subtle mutations in miDNA may give some distinctive time line.
Did you catch the toasted black rye on pair 21, just to return comment to thread relevancy . . .
Others are interested in factual information, even if you are not, dila. You don’t get the luxury of dictating the responses in this thread, especially when they distort science the way you attempt to do.
DNA that can reveal someone’s recent traveling itenerary? Do you even know how much that smacks of Lysenkoism? But then you don’t read reasoned responses to your blithering, do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.