Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the same time, racist whites are NOT ALL POWERFUL GODS.
If someone who is mixed choses to identify as mixed or whatever, that is their choice.
Only a person who has internalized inferiority bothers to worry about what "they" think.
At this point in time, we Boomers--who were raised in apartheid--are still in control of politics and industry. What "we" think still matters, and if we are racist, that still matters.
In thirty years, it won't matter, but as of today it still does.
At this point in time, we Boomers--who were raised in apartheid--are still in control of politics and industry. What "we" think still matters, and if we are racist, that still matters.
In thirty years, it won't matter, but as of today it still does.
It does not matter what you think. Only you care what you think. Nobody else does. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Had you asked "boomers" in 2004 if the son of a Kenyan MUSLIM and a white American woman could be President, they would have said definitely not! But did Obama himself listen to those boomers? No, change began with him!
Had you listened to "boomers" in the 1990s, there would be no gays in the military, gay marriage, or a host of other changes that have occurred. But the people who wanted those changes pushed ahead and ignored those like yourself who made excuses for bigotry.
So if anyone considers themselves mixed race, changes begins with them defining and referring to them! So if I were to chose to refer to myself as mixed race, I'd completely ignore you NOW.
People that look mostly white usually have 70 to 80% European genes as is evident in DNA tests. I don't consider that to be conspicuously mixed. As I said in other post, conspicuously mixed people usually fall in the 40-70% DNA range and, for the most part, conspicuously mixed people look very mixed.
I'm getting the feeling that some people in this forum want to deny or are uncomfortable with a mixed identity, and are using generalizations to show that.
I want to make a correction here, rather a clarfication. Ancestry profiling for Autosomal (23andMe or any DTC genomic co.) that examines alleles at loci regions (specfic regions) on the chromsomes is not "genes" that have any bearing on ones phentotype. Only 10% of ones DNA is "genetic coding" and even smaller 1% is for phenotype. Alleles being analysed are found in very small regions of the chromosomes where populations tend to show smal difference and are very, very small those differences. Austomal DNA results are areas in the "non-coding regions" of the DNA.
When a test reports back 80% European does not mean 80% of their "genes" is European. When a test says you are 80% European (or SSA or Indian), means that in the regions examined, your DNA sequences for those specific regions shows similarity to the "European" sampled database based on sequences.
Theoretically, someone 70% European with 30% non-European admixture most likely can demonstrate "physical" mixture due to inherited "genes" which cannot be measured with a DNA test. Genes don't have rules to live by.
I see too many people trying to equate DNA testing racial % breakdowns as actual genetic material being analysed to influence phenotype on ones face, hair etc.
Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 04-01-2014 at 11:39 AM..
I want to make a correction here, rather a clarfication. Ancestry profiling for Autosomal (23andMe or any DTC genomic co.) that examines alleles at loci regions (specfic regions) on the chromsomes is not "genes" that have any bearing on ones phentotype. Only 10% of ones DNA is "genetic coding" and even smaller 1% is for phenotype. Alleles being analysed are found in very small regions of the chromosomes where populations tend to show smal difference and are very, very small those differences. Austomal DNA results are areas in the "non-coding regions" of the DNA.
When a test reports back 80% European does not mean 80% of their "genes" is European. When a test says you are 80% European (or SSA or Indian), means that in the regions examined, your DNA sequences for those specific regions shows similarity to the "European" sampled database based on sequences.
Theoretically, someone 70% European with 30% non-European admixture most likely can demonstrate "physical" mixture due to inherited "genes" which cannot be measured with a DNA test. Genes don't have rules to live by.
I see too many people trying to equate DNA testing racial % breakdowns as actual genetic material being analysed to influence phenotype on ones face, hair etc.
23AndMe's health component does predict physical attributes, though, including eye color and hair characteristics.
23AndMe's health component does predict physical attributes, though, including eye color and hair characteristics.
Their (23andMe) "Health" is based on people, *markers* for people of European descent. Non-Europeans, mixed race populations have different genetic derminants and these predictions are not as accurate, especially when ones genotype is being compared against European markers.
My point being... Your "genes", what you would inherit from your mother, father, grandparent, great grandparent....cannot be determined. You can have 2 siblings (same parents) and one may inherit a nose shape from the mother's father (Black ancestry) and another sibling may inherit lip shape and facial structure from the father's mother who is East Asian. One may look more like one parent and the other a blend of both.
Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 04-01-2014 at 02:07 PM..
Their (23andMe) "Health" is based on people, *markers* for people of European descent. Non-Europeans, mixed race populations have different genetic derminants and these predictions are not as accurate, especially when ones genotype is being compared against European markers.
My point being... Your "genes", what you would inherit from your mother, father, grandparent, great grandparent....cannot be determined. You can have 2 siblings (same parents) and one may inherit a nose shape from the mother's father (Black ancestry) and another sibling may inherit lip shape and facial structure from the father's mother who is East Asian. One may look more like one parent and the other a blend of both.
That's a significant point. So with the case of those fraternal twin girls in the UK, one looking very nearly white and the other very clearly black (both parents both mixed), their DNA results would probably be identical although their genes clearly are not.
That's a significant point. So with the case of those fraternal twin girls in the UK, one looking very nearly white and the other very clearly black (both parents both mixed), their DNA results would probably be identical although their genes clearly are not.
Also, people should keep in mind that only 4% of a chimpanzee's genome is different from that of a human and yet, look how much of an impact that tiny minority actually has. My point is that even the tiny differences in the genome of people has a much greater impact than some people want to accept.
Also, people should keep in mind that only 4% of a chimpanzee's genome is different from that of a human and yet, look how much of an impact that tiny minority actually has. My point is that even the tiny differences in the genome of people has a much greater impact than some people want to accept.
You read the article you linked, right?
Quote:
Although identical twins share the same DNA – essentially carbon copies of each other – scientists have discovered new evidence that tiny genetic changes can occur on a cellular level early in development, allowing for differences as twins grow older.
The post-conception mutations that begin to differentiate twins--changes which constantly occur in all living creatures from the point of conception--would not affect the results of the DNA test. But their genes would be different, just as I said.
That's a significant point. So with the case of those fraternal twin girls in the UK, one looking very nearly white and the other very clearly black (both parents both mixed), their DNA results would probably be identical although their genes clearly are not.
That would be correct, as long as both children share the same biological parents. Autosomal, we inherit half from one parent and half from the other 50/50. Recombination occurs during meiosis. Siblings (non-identical) however don't have the exact same autosomal. You have to remember, even though they inherit 50/50, a child is pulling information from both parents DNA which is half their mother and father. and it can mix any way. You can have a child who has 10% Sub Saharan ancestry and another sibling with 20% Sub Saharan. Here is a good visual.
Here is a woman who talks about her and her brothers DNA results. he inherited a Native American segment and she did not.
When it happens at those low levels (less than 1%) it can be statistical noise. In other words, it may not be real.
What the tests do show is what makes up each particular person and isn't that the point?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
