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.
DNA testing has identifed close relatives and that is effective, but it is much harder to identify relatives that are distant and DNA testing on what race a person is is just as credible as looking through a horoscope.
My results only pinpointed where my DNA indicated where my ancestors likely lived. As many have argued through the years, race is a construct. We are all members of the human race. But I don’t think your understanding of DNA testing is accurate. Have you ever been tested?
You can be descended from a person who is not of the same local lineage as the rest of the family, but not have his or her genes, if the ancestry is far enough back. The DNA reshuffles with every birth. On the other hand the DNA might well have traces of the old ancestor.
I wondered if there was some odd thing in my DNA heritage, but no. It pretty much bore out the oral history we knew of our mother’s side of the family. I was kind of hoping for a surprise.
I think you oppose DNA testing and you’ve found an anti science article to bolster your bias. But I don’t think people will stop having the tests done.
How would you explain when Identical Twins have different results:
Despite having virtually identical DNA, the twins did not receive matching results from any of the companies. In most cases, the results from the same company traced each sister’s ancestry to the same parts of the world — albeit by varying percentages.
…
Marketplace sent the results from all five companies to [computational biologist Mark] Gerstein’s team for analysis. He says any results the Agro twins received from the same DNA testing company should have been identical.https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...netic-testing/
There is very little information provided here. What exactly were the varying percentages?
These twin/triplet comparisons were popular in the media for a while a few years ago, and generally, I found that the variations were either because they were comparing results from different companies, which isn't a fair comparison, or when they were comparing results from the same company, they were either using different confidence levels at 23andMe (also not a fair comparison), or the percentage variation was a mere 1-2% difference, which is well within an acceptable margin of error and considered nominal. Especially considering the twins didn't actually have 100% the exact same DNA: "The raw data collected from both sisters’ DNA is nearly exactly the same."
Nearly. Not exact. That, too, could account for a mere 1-2% difference. And making that 1-2% difference into a big news item is definitely blowing it out of portion, like the comment on the article says, and you have to wonder about any website that is deliberately misleading you in order to get hits, shares, likes, etc.
Of course, I'm assuming there was only a 1-2% difference, because that's what I've seen from other, similar comparisons and articles, but since this article doesn't even want to share those details, I don't know for sure. But again, you have to wonder about any article that doesn't want to include relevant details.
Quote:
Plus this:"
If a test-taker is just interested in finding out where there are some people in the world that share the same DNA as them, then these tests can certainly tell them that," said Deborah Bolnick of the University of Texas in Austin. "But they're not going to tell you every place or every group in the world where people share your DNA. Nor will they necessarily be able to tell you exactly where your ancestors lived or [what race or social group] they identified with."https://www.livescience.com/7384-gen...cientists.html
No one is saying they will tell you every single place or group in the world where people share your DNA. We are all aware here that ethnicity reports are very much an interpretation of our DNA, and therefore, there can be different interpretations at different companies, or when companies update their reference panel and algorithm, etc. We are very aware of, and regularly remind newcomers, that the more specific the results are, the more speculative they are - that they are very reliable on a continental level, but the more you break it down, the less reliable it gets. But it IS based on science and DNA, it's just not an exact science.
You also have to ask why these twin/triplet comparisons were so popular to begin with - a better trial of the DNA test would be to have the same person (so we know the DNA is the exact same) take the same test at the same company twice. Why aren't these articles doing that? Maybe because the ethnicity results are exactly the same, and that's not a news item. That's not something they can spin into something sensational to get readers attention. So they test twins/triplets instead, manage to get a nominal difference in the percentages, and use that to blow way out of proportion. Oh, and of course, they throw in some quotes from people who sound like they are an authority on the topic, and possibly take some of what they are saying out of context, to try to give the article some credibility. This is what passes for "journalism" these days.
There is very little information provided here. What exactly were the varying percentages?
These twin/triplet comparisons were popular in the media for a while a few years ago, and generally, I found that the variations were either because they were comparing results from different companies, which isn't a fair comparison, or when they were comparing results from the same company, they were either using different confidence levels at 23andMe (also not a fair comparison), or the percentage variation was a mere 1-2% difference, which is well within an acceptable margin of error and considered nominal. Especially considering the twins didn't actually have 100% the exact same DNA: "The raw data collected from both sisters’ DNA is nearly exactly the same."
Nearly. Not exact. That, too, could account for a mere 1-2% difference. And making that 1-2% difference into a big news item is definitely blowing it out of portion, like the comment on the article says, and you have to wonder about any website that is deliberately misleading you in order to get hits, shares, likes, etc.
Of course, I'm assuming there was only a 1-2% difference, because that's what I've seen from other, similar comparisons and articles, but since this article doesn't even want to share those details, I don't know for sure. But again, you have to wonder about any article that doesn't want to include relevant details.
No one is saying they will tell you every single place or group in the world where people share your DNA. We are all aware here that ethnicity reports are very much an interpretation of our DNA, and therefore, there can be different interpretations at different companies, or when companies update their reference panel and algorithm, etc. We are very aware of, and regularly remind newcomers, that the more specific the results are, the more speculative they are - that they are very reliable on a continental level, but the more you break it down, the less reliable it gets. But it IS based on science and DNA, it's just not an exact science.
You also have to ask why these twin/triplet comparisons were so popular to begin with - a better trial of the DNA test would be to have the same person (so we know the DNA is the exact same) take the same test at the same company twice. Why aren't these articles doing that? Maybe because the ethnicity results are exactly the same, and that's not a news item. That's not something they can spin into something sensational to get readers attention. So they test twins/triplets instead, manage to get a nominal difference in the percentages, and use that to blow way out of proportion. Oh, and of course, they throw in some quotes from people who sound like they are an authority on the topic, and possibly take some of what they are saying out of context, to try to give the article some credibility. This is what passes for "journalism" these days.
They posted an incomplete article, the real one is below. We talked about the article when it came out almost 2 years ago. It says they're identical but they don't look it. One looks a lot taller too but I'm noticing that with other identical twins that have a height difference so it doesn't surprise me that when the egg split in 1/2, one got more of one ethnicity then the other.
DNA testing has identifed close relatives and that is effective, but it is much harder to identify relatives that are distant and DNA testing on what race a person is is just as credible as looking through a horoscope.
Actually, the test is very reliable at identifying race - ie, what continent a person's ancestry is from (with some exceptions). European vs SSA vs East Asian vs Native American, etc - are all genetically very distinct and very easy to accurately tell apart. We are all aware that sub-continental or ethnic results are generally less reliable (with some exceptions, like Ashkenazi Jewish) - this isn't news, as proven by the fact that the articles you're linking to are from 4+ years ago.
They posted an incomplete article, the real one is below. We talked about the article when it came out almost 2 years ago. It says they're identical but they don't look it. One looks a lot taller too but I'm noticing that with other identical twins that have a height difference so it doesn't surprise me that when the egg split in 1/2, one got more of one ethnicity then the other.
Oh yeah, I remember that one now. As I thought, at AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, and FTDNA, the percentages only vary by about 1-2%. At LivingDNA, they don't share the percentages - just a map with a comment that "a small percentage of ancestry from England for Carly, but Scotland and Ireland for Charlsie." So I'm assuming that is again around 1%. At 23andMe, there's a bigger variation, but I suspect they might be looking at different confidence levels, which isn't a fair comparison. If I look at different confidence levels of my own results, some of them vary by as much as about 20%. It's no secret that 23andMe provides different confidence levels that will vary. The ethnicity report is only an interpretation of our DNA and 23andMe are merely providing different interpretations instead of just one. That's being honest about the fact that it's just an interpretation, and proves they are not trying to dupe or deceive testers like these articles are trying to imply.
Actually, the test is very reliable at identifying race - ie, what continent a person's ancestry is from (with some exceptions). European vs SSA vs East Asian vs Native American, etc - are all genetically very distinct and very easy to accurately tell apart. We are all aware that sub-continental or ethnic results are generally less reliable (with some exceptions, like Ashkenazi Jewish) - this isn't news, as proven by the fact that the articles you're linking to are from 4+ years ago.
This.
Continental level testing is accurate. A DNA test may confuse English and German, but they do not mistake SSA for Eurasian.
A DNA test can't tell whether you're 'white' or 'black' as per your own estimation, but it can tell you whether your ancestors are mostly European or African with high reliability.
I would agree that these DNA companies oversell the ethnicity aspect of their product. Their ethnic breakdowns can be way off the mark for regions within Europe and other continental subregions. Some commercials are misleading and make people think they will find out they are really Scottish instead of German, so they trade their Lederhosen for a kilt, etc., which is ridiculous.
Where they can be helpful is separating continents-- my 1st cousin was raised believing his parents were his biological parents, his dad was Anglo-American and his mother was Polish-American. His results at different companies came out 50% Eastern European and 50% East Asian. Oops, this suggested his dad was not his dad. He didn't match me (I am a nephew of the father who raised him). He didn't find any close East Asian DNA matches until more than a year after first testing, when a 1st cousin showed up in his matches who was 100% Japanese. He was then able to figure out who his biological father was. So the tests were accurate not only at identifying the general ethnicity of his parents, but in eventually helping him identify his biological father. No horoscope can do that.
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.
