Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Accurate Are Online DNA Tests?
Scientific America ^ | 10/15/18 | Adam Rutherford

Posted on 10/16/2018 6:27:59 AM PDT by Drango

Blah, blah, blah...DNA stuff...~snip

(This is in the conclusion)

But to say that you are 20 percent Irish, 4 percent Native American or 12 percent Scandinavian is fun, trivial and has very little scientific meaning.

(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: dna; genetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
This was published yesterday. Scientific America is a peer review journal that some hold up to be the gold standard.
1 posted on 10/16/2018 6:27:59 AM PDT by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Drango

It ranks right up there with an electronic version of the OUIJA Board.


2 posted on 10/16/2018 6:29:29 AM PDT by BipolarBob (ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS, EXCEPT EUROPA.ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

SA is now a Gorebal Warning fish wrap.


3 posted on 10/16/2018 6:32:58 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

My purported ancestry initially included traces 1-3% “North African” and “European Jewish”

Recently the “new and improved” data eliminated both of those.

Just sayin


4 posted on 10/16/2018 6:33:16 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat ("Mods/Indies/Dems/Non-voters" Are the CRAZY DIMS REALLY who you'd want BACK in POWER?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

How Accurate is Scientific American?


5 posted on 10/16/2018 6:35:11 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

If you can find distant cousins and the tree to prove it you have much more science than the total science behind global warming.


6 posted on 10/16/2018 6:35:11 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

the gold standard is Nature and other journals - SA is a political but scientific global climate change joke right up there with Nat Geo.


7 posted on 10/16/2018 6:36:31 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

I think it is “Scientific American,” not “Scientific America”...(?)


8 posted on 10/16/2018 6:36:38 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

Ancestry DNA tests are fudged and not at all accurate or truthful.


9 posted on 10/16/2018 6:37:37 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

I posted this yesterday:

Here’s a fun fact yet to be brought up: These “results” will change over time even on a specific DNA ID site. ancestry.com specifically makes a big deal about how a specific person’s results from some number of months ago get “updated” and presumably more accurate because of more samples and customers since then.

I am looking at a particular set of “results” there at the moment. I see that five sources of DNA, one of those sources a full seven percent, are “no longer in estimate,” which was made roughly seven months ago.

So any talk of ancestry of 1/64 (1.5%) being statistically significant, far above any margin of error, unimpeachable, proof positive of ancestry, etc., is simply mumbo jumbo.


10 posted on 10/16/2018 6:38:20 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

I read an article somewhere not that long ago saying the folks running these $DNA$ find-your-roots companies (they do some nice advertisements with people traveling to exotic places to visit their ‘ancestors’) throw in various results that are not related to the actual DNA. Those paying money for results want results that are “interesting” and they’ll give you that.


11 posted on 10/16/2018 6:38:21 AM PDT by Qiviut (McCain & Obama's Legacy in two words: DONALD TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

Despite all the hoopla, such as identifying a killer in California, the science of DNA data mining is in its infancy. Sloppy procedures, misreading, and the like aside, 20 years from now, the information gleaned will be fantastic.


12 posted on 10/16/2018 6:38:29 AM PDT by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

my bad.


13 posted on 10/16/2018 6:38:51 AM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drango

They are pretty accurate in my eyes - they detected Elizabeth Warren was 100% pure idiot.


14 posted on 10/16/2018 6:39:41 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

For European ancestry, I’ve found it to be fairly accurate based on my family’s genealogical research. My siblings and I used ancestry.com’s databases, which recently updated and refined their results due to their reference populations growing from ~3,000 samples to ~16,000.

According to them, I’m 43% Irish/Scot, 37% French, 14% Spanish and 6% Italian, which is just about exactly correct based on my immigrant background.

Yes, I’m a European mutt... :-)


15 posted on 10/16/2018 6:41:50 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Marxism: Trendy theory, wrong species)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

Yeh, I used to read SA when the science part was more important than the political.


16 posted on 10/16/2018 6:44:16 AM PDT by Agatsu77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

This article IS worth reading, since I find no hint of bias influencing science.


17 posted on 10/16/2018 6:45:57 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Drango

My good friend from West Virginia has a maternal grandmother who was Cherokee. But the DNA test said that my friend had no Native blood. That could only be true if either she or her mother were adopted.

My grandfather (also from WV) was 1/2 Cherokee, but I’ve no desire to have my DNA tested. I believe something nefarious will come of it at some point.


18 posted on 10/16/2018 6:46:20 AM PDT by Heart of Georgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

All of these tests are limited in what they can find. The Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA tests are good and they may be good at finding very close relatives and identifying lost ones, but the percentages of the nationalities of ancestors is just a rough guess.


19 posted on 10/16/2018 6:46:57 AM PDT by Oklahoma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger

I’m pretty sure thanks to these databases now they can identify 60% of the public with DNA samples already provided.

23 and me doesn’t make mhm it’s money from telling you your DNA, it does from selling it to the Government and Corporations.


20 posted on 10/16/2018 6:47:15 AM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson