23andMe & Ancestry

[Doctor Amadeus]

I understand these tests can be exciting and all, but a friendly reminder that they aren't all-telling and you shouldn't draw conclusions from them (not that for even a second I would believe the good people of mmo-c would do so).

To cite a paragraph from someone who said it better:

EH NO!

This is more misapplied horseshit disguised for an opinion. Using my DNA results as an example, I actually knew before I got it what it would be, before I signed up for the site, before I understood what these kits could do this, because I can trace back my birth records, death records, and confirmed census and data information that match up with exactly the results I got, minus the %.

As for the process of how they determine your genetic dna, that's also pretty rock solid science, it's confirmed by matching DNA markers, and matching them along with a value for that marker, yes for sure based on samples they have to compare it to.

However That is another entirely different part of the science which is mapping Haplo groups and migration patterns, of already available data stored. In Short, no nobody should take any of the results from a DNA test so serious that they don't understand like all things in science data can change so too can the results, in fact the one I took was updated to be more accurate than ones done before, and everyone who has done one before gets theirs upgraded too.

Bottom line, 23andMe, AncestryDNA, or half a dozen or more others, they are all pretty damn legit. the only thing they really can't tell you are things like medical interpretations because some offer traits.

Now obviously there are other methods to testing ones DNA, and going through and comparing a hell of a lot more markers, and pay a hell of a lot more money. However outside of that for say medical reasons.

These test are pretty much good enough at giving information exactly what they say they are for.

[Strawberry]

Lol, you post your name on mmo? Btw, you have friends on facebook that are friends of some of my friends.

Saw it after I posted it. I didn't bother to remove it because while I often disagree with people I don't think anyone here hates me a lot to try and find me in real life. I stand anyway behind everything I say, regardless if it's online or not. No need to hide.

Just curious, pm me those mutual friends

[Arenis]

EH NO!

This is more misapplied horseshit disguised for an opinion. Using my DNA results as an example, I actually knew before I got it what it would be, before I signed up for the site, before I understood what these kits could do this, because I can trace back my birth records, death records, and confirmed census and data information that match up with exactly the results I got, minus the %.

As for the process of how they determine your genetic dna, that's also pretty rock solid science, it's confirmed by matching DNA markers, and matching them along with a value for that marker, yes for sure based on samples they have to compare it to.

However That is another entirely different part of the science which is mapping Haplo groups and migration patterns, of already available data stored. In Short, no nobody should take any of the results from a DNA test so serious that they don't understand like all things in science data can change so too can the results, in fact the one I took was updated to be more accurate than ones done before, and everyone who has done one before gets theirs upgraded too.

Bottom line, 23andMe, AncestryDNA, or half a dozen or more others, they are all pretty damn legit. the only thing they really can't tell you are things like medical interpretations because some offer traits.

Now obviously there are other methods to testing ones DNA, and going through and comparing a hell of a lot more markers, and pay a hell of a lot more money. However outside of that for say medical reasons.

These test are pretty much good enough at giving information exactly what they say they are for.

Well thank you very much, appreciated. Though I'm fairly certain that I know what biological markers are. Predominantly the identification and annotation of various forms of repetitive regions in the genome for WGS (which also are the de facto hardest regions to get right) and SNPs for general genotype testing. Now if you would go over my post again, you might notice that I do not per se question the scientific validity of marker testing, but the results from these companies instead.

Because they are very much not 'solid rocket science'. There is a very, very fair chance of creating false positives in their genetic screening (especially the disease part). Their chance of predicting true positives is also too low to be taken as scientifically sound. The largest shortcoming to their results is their collection of data. These come, generally speaking, from customers that give consent and fill in questionnaires regarding their perceived traits... Additionally, the data-set is skewed as certain demographics are highly over-represented. You could also include the lack of (e)qtl testing, as they only perform simple SNP checks compared to a single reference genome. Basically, this can be condensed to a small N large P problem with the results as such. As I stated, you can have some fun with the tests (though privacy is a concern) and have some "oh that looks interesting" moments. But they lack rigidity right now on several aspects, and that is why I said that people should not take many conclusions from these results.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well thank you very much, appreciated. Though I'm fairly certain that I know what biological markers are. Predominantly the identification and annotation of various forms of repetitive regions in the genome for WGS (which also are the de facto hardest regions to get right) and SNPs for general genotype testing. Now if you would go over my post again, you might notice that I do not per se question the scientific validity of marker testing, but the results from these companies instead.

Because they are very much not 'solid rocket science'. There is a very, very fair chance of creating false positives in their genetic screening (especially the disease part). Their chance of predicting true positives is also too low to be taken as scientifically sound. The largest shortcoming to their results is their collection of data. These come, generally speaking, from customers that give consent and fill in questionnaires regarding their perceived traits... Additionally, the data-set is skewed as certain demographics are highly over-represented. You could also include the lack of (e)qtl testing, as they only perform simple SNP checks compared to a single reference genome. Basically, this can be condensed to a small N large P problem with the results as such. As I stated, you can have some fun with the tests (though privacy is a concern) and have some "oh that looks interesting" moments. But they lack rigidity right now on several aspects, and that is why I said that people should not take many conclusions from these results.

Hahahaha NO, as I suspected you really have Zero idea what you are talking about, which is as I have always held, the big problem with the internet today and copy pasting information.

Yes it is solid rock science, I already explained exactly the process used to determine genetic markers, I even explained how those markers and their values establish percentages, and how following already established data that we have had for years concerning certain genetic groups, that includes mitochondrial DNA (Male or Female), and Y-Chromosome mapping (Male).

The proof of that validity can be verified in the application such as the FBI actually used such DNA, to actually catch a wanted serial killer and doing so by tracing the DNA of his Relatives, and the fact that while at the same time 23andMe were warned against making any claims about medical implications, while at the same time fielding concerns about how genetic samples can be handled because of Concerns over privacy.

Simply put, because it's accurate, it is rock solid science. The only thing you are conflating is nonsense that well the DNA test can't really assigned % values as it relates to their method of collection and providing opinion, NOT science of what they really means.

Again, you misapplied that with your opinion, which is not in lock step with what you posted, which is exactly why it's problematic at best.

The DNA test are incredibly accurate for what they are used for, and at best not distinctly reliable when it comes to EVERYTHING we know about DNA, or what the implications for that mean.

It most certainly doesn't make percentages as to the actually genetic make up any more or less accurate as a result. As it relates to percentages. The rest is petty rock solid, the interpretation as to what that mean outside of medical are already explained and understood, and legally monitored.

OH and by the way the bullshit about predicting disease meaning its; not accurate is bullshit, even with actually the most advance medical testing still can't predict whether or not someone for sure will say get cancer because of genes.

That shit however has nothing to do with the science not being accurate, it has to do with the fact the science is always evolving and based on what we know the results of what we understand changes.

However these DNA testing kits we do now, that technology has been around for nearly 50 years and used for what it is, is pretty accurate. Whether or not they can get false positives is irrelevant.

You can give blood for a physical and get a false positive, that doesn't mean the tools used aren't accurate.

[gaymer77]

All that I know is from all of my physical features I very likely have above average neanderthal DNA which they are supposed to show you now but maybe you have to ask.

The results she got included that as well.

in europe we have church registers that go back to like 800 ad, so most people here know what area or tribe their family comes from, also family names are a big tell. this kind of stuff is a very american thing to me, as most interested people know their ancestors back for centuries or even millenia.

The Mormon Church here in the US has this massive registry as well that anyone is allowed to research on their own at their facility at no cost. My father ended up going there while he was still an over-the-road trucker when he was still looking to find his father who left them when he was like 2 or 3 years old. He didn't find that much information but he was still able to go there and look.

I understand these tests can be exciting and all, but a friendly reminder that they aren't all-telling and you shouldn't draw conclusions from them (not that for even a second I would believe the good people of mmo-c would do so).

To cite a paragraph from someone who said it better:

As Doctor Amadeus has pointed out, these tests are actually legit. My grandma had an idea about most of her ancestry before taking the test and wanted to get the health predispositions test as well so our family knows what we COULD have inherited from her side of the family from her. My grandma is 83 years old so finding out what she MIGHT get in her life is pretty moot at this point.

Bottom line, 23andMe, AncestryDNA, or half a dozen or more others, they are all pretty damn legit. the only thing they really can't tell you are things like medical interpretations because some offer traits.

My grandma got the health test too for the reasons I stated above. That test included the traits results too. Every single one of the traits was 100% accurate about her. Like I said in my initial post, I laughed so hard when I read that she is likely to prefer salty flavors over sweet flavors because my grandma will literally salt EVERYTHING she gets. We're talking tacos, burgers, fries that were already salted, watermelon, honeydew, cantaloupe, everything. Luckily she doesn't have high blood pressure or anything heart related as a result of her salt consumption.

Saw it after I posted it. I didn't bother to remove it because while I often disagree with people I don't think anyone here hates me a lot to try and find me in real life. I stand anyway behind everything I say, regardless if it's online or not. No need to hide.

Just curious, pm me those mutual friends

I think I'm going to Facebook stalk you now ;-)

[Dellis0991]

God knows what mine would look like. lmao.

[Stelio Kontos]

I dug my old report up...still doesn't make sense.

43.3% Balkan/Greek
21.7% British/Irish
10.2% French/German
1.4% Eastern European
1.2% Scandinavian
1% Italian

My father was always so sure he had significant Native American descent, and seeing pictures of his family, it looked pretty obvious. My great-grandmother had a lot of stereotypical Native American features, and her surname was "Savage", a common name for assimilated Natives.

[Doctor Amadeus]

[QUOTE=gaymer77;50874195]As Doctor Amadeus has pointed out, these tests are actually legit. My grandma had an idea about most of her ancestry before taking the test and wanted to get the health predispositions test as well so our family knows what we COULD have inherited from her side of the family from her. My grandma is 83 years old so finding out what she MIGHT get in her life is pretty moot at this point.

Yeah, I did the traits too, although most were right some were wrong, my fiancee hers were right on the nose. But yeah, I wouldn't read too much into % as much as I would say regions to where sample sizes are matched and tracked.

And by percentages I mean like for example me being 2% Native American, I don't think that really means much, just as I have a large amount of German, however, I am thinking much of that actually is mixed with British and Northwestern European.

Just like Sub Saharan African, Benin/Togo and Nigerian etc. The samples are compared to the pool of that which they can compare in their data base, So the Markers and values I have match more Closer to Benin/Togo to a point it doesn't show Nigerian however like for instance Celts, Germans, Saxon, etc, we know there was a lot of mingling, including Scandinavian and Viking.

So yeah it's hard to get pure % that way especially over generations and especially the lower percentages that represent some values.

However that doesn't lend that it isn't accurate, it is, and none of the test are NEW technology, but they are NEW in the sense more people are participating, thus making it so that the data does change for more accuracy over time

For instance if you did Ancestry DNA, not only NOW does it show for Instance I am German, but it actually shows where and what specific parts of German, which is Holland and Lower Saxony, which is exactly where my Great Grandfather is from on my mom side, I even have his military, census records, and well familer with family members who have photos and information along with direct information also.

My British, genetics come specifically from Yorkshire, and England, rather than British

Cameroon and Congo, My Tribes more specifically came from Central and Central West along with their travels and being sold into slavery to their Journey to James town and immediately North Carolina Tobacco plantations.

Which I also have documentation and relationships with my father side enough to confirm all this information about 30 + Years before I even taken the DNA test.

Which AncestryDNA breaks down, to more specifics

So yep it's accurate, or as accurate as just about anything in science is, but as such there is always more information which could change it and has.

[Celista]

https://youtu.be/Isa5c1p6aC0

Tests are not super accurate, holding out for improved future iterations.

[Doctor Amadeus]

https://youtu.be/Isa5c1p6aC0

Tests are not super accurate, holding out for improved future iterations.

Yeah they are accurate placing a modifier like "super" is silly. It sure as shit more accurate than psychics or hell even psychology, the only burden here is how accurate. and where, but to have that conversation, it's really not an all or nothing kind of thing.

DNA is accurate, identifying markers and values, and that being proof of relationship is very accurate in the 90%, Being able to tell you exactly where those group samples come from as it relates to percentage of national heritage, that is a different story, because that is less science and has more to do with social dynamics.

The Holy Roman Empire, were they German, or where they Romans, How about Celts, were they English, or were they Saxon, is England German, or Part of the HOLY Roman Empire.

Again that has nothing to do with science SUPER Accurate or otherwise.

[Naramag]

in europe we have church registers that go back to like 800 ad, so most people here know what area or tribe their family comes from, also family names are a big tell. this kind of stuff is a very american thing to me, as most interested people know their ancestors back for centuries or even millenia.

from my family the earliest document that was kept is from the 950ies, ( court trial where a ancestor did some fraud to the church in regensburg over 1000 years ago), 300 years later at around 1200 a second born guy from this family, my direct ancestor, went to the area my family still lives today in lower austria / styria (austria) region. the old family strain still lives in the franken / niederbayern area of south germany.

I am still trying to do that. But both my grandmothers deliberately destroyed most information about my Family on both sides. I have what my parents remembered, but I am still searching. There are stories hidden... but the persons who can shed a light on it are no longer around.

[Stelio Kontos]

https://youtu.be/Isa5c1p6aC0

Tests are not super accurate, holding out for improved future iterations.

Yeah, I've heard the same. Also, genetic ancestry tests only tell you where your ancestors were possibly from for the last few centuries I read, any further back and it's not accurate.

Further, at least their earlier iterations were heavily based on self-reporting. For example, if you said you were Kenyan, then anyone who shares the same traits you claimed in your questionnaire could show up as Kenyan as well. This has been a big issue with Native Americans taking these sorts of tests.

[Celista]

Yeah they are accurate placing a modifier like "super" is silly. It sure as shit more accurate than psychics or hell even psychology, the only burden here is how accurate. and where, but to have that conversation, it's really not an all or nothing kind of thing.

DNA is accurate, identifying markers and values, and that being proof of relationship is very accurate in the 90%, Being able to tell you exactly where those group samples come from as it relates to percentage of national heritage, that is a different story, because that is less science and has more to do with social dynamics.

The Holy Roman Empire, were they German, or where they Romans, How about Celts, were they English, or were they Saxon, is England German, or Part of the HOLY Roman Empire.

Again that has nothing to do with science SUPER Accurate or otherwise.

Watch the video. There are other videos of people ordering multiple tests and getting conflicting results from different companies.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Watch the video. There are other videos of people ordering multiple tests and getting conflicting results from different companies.

I don't need to watch the video, I'm completely aware of those things you mentioned, none of that has anything to do with the accuracy of the test. Basically it's a bunch of people assuming what another bunch of people are assuming and both can and do come from a place of relative ignorance.

The difference is that sometimes that comes from a legitimate place of concern like, Celista DNA test can be fun, and accurate, but I would in no way place enough value on it to say if it tells you you're 5% Native American you should some how expect to become part of the tribe. Or if you and a relative take the same test and get different results that somehow you aren't related.

That is actually important especially if the thinking is if you don't know this it will cause great harm.

But that isn't this, it's really just people with an opinion and an already made up assumption about what everybody taking the DNA test is all about, like that some how the same as a Psychic claiming to know where a missing person is, or a dime store therapist trying to Diagnose people with very real clinical mental conditions without either qualifications or proper work ups on a specific case.

None of the above specifically being about accuracy, it's about potential harm from misinformation.

DNA testing is solid science, and so is Psychology, Physics on the other hand are not, but all of them have do have evidence as to their accuracy, and while some are obviously more accurate than others depending on how you apply them.

None of them are Super Accurate Science or Otherwise as I said.

It's literally just a spit kit, and the DNA testing is Accurate period, and according how much, they are the most accurate. However that doesn't mean they can misapplied or misinterpreted.

It's just information and it's just for fun.


I mean shit I have had a Psychic reading too, and I don't believe any of that shit, and none of it has come close to being considered accurate, however unless I am actually forking over money to talk to dead relatives, or being lead to believe something harmful, there is no reason to assume I take it seriously where I shouldn't

The same can be applied towards this, which is more accurate, but it sure as hell can't exactly tell you for example what % you are say of American.

Because that really has nothing to do with Science, or at least just science.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I've heard the same. Also, genetic ancestry tests only tell you where your ancestors were possibly from for the last few centuries I read, any further back and it's not accurate.

Further, at least their earlier iterations were heavily based on self-reporting. For example, if you said you were Kenyan, then anyone who shares the same traits you claimed in your questionnaire could show up as Kenyan as well. This has been a big issue with Native Americans taking these sorts of tests.

Eh No, it is accurate, and the only reason it's not more accurate has to do with the kind of test you are taking and the resources involved, non if which can really be determined by saliva alone, or through the methods used by most kit sites.

As for the the Native Americans and people using the test and having questions about the legitimacy, I am afraid that has a hell of a lot more to do with political than it does anything else.

Because the Truth is not everybody LIKES the truth, so they lean into this Bullshit well it's not accurate. Yeah Elizabeth Warren as much as I like her is White, that isn't a bad or negative thing, that is just what it is.

I think slamming her because she has embraced however much which is practically none as part of her heritage, I think is stupid, because at the end of the day it really shouldn't matter.

Your DNA doesn't fucking tell you who you are, or what is important, you don't have to be Native American to maybe identify with that as a culture.

However Scientifically, YEAH, that might not be reality.

[Stelio Kontos]

I don't need to watch the video, I'm completely aware of those things you mentioned, none of that has anything to do with the accuracy of the test. Basically it's a bunch of people assuming what another bunch of people are assuming and both can and do come from a place of relative ignorance.

The difference is that sometimes that comes from a legitimate place of concern like, Celista DNA test can be fun, and accurate, but I would in no way place enough value on it to say if it tells you you're 5% Native American you should some how expect to become part of the tribe. Or if you and a relative take the same test and get different results that somehow you aren't related.

That is actually important especially if the thinking is if you don't know this it will cause great harm.

But that isn't this, it's really just people with an opinion and an already made up assumption about what everybody taking the DNA test is all about, like that some how the same as a Psychic claiming to know where a missing person is, or a dime store therapist trying to Diagnose people with very real clinical mental conditions without either qualifications or proper work ups on a specific case.

None of the above specifically being about accuracy, it's about potential harm from misinformation.

DNA testing is solid science, and so is Psychology, Physics on the other hand are not, but all of them have do have evidence as to their accuracy, and while some are obviously more accurate than others depending on how you apply them.

None of them are Super Accurate Science or Otherwise as I said.

It's literally just a spit kit, and the DNA testing is Accurate period, and according how much, they are the most accurate. However that doesn't mean they can misapplied or misinterpreted.

It's just information and it's just for fun.


I mean shit I have had a Psychic reading too, and I don't believe any of that shit, and none of it has come close to being considered accurate, however unless I am actually forking over money to talk to dead relatives, or being lead to believe something harmful, there is no reason to assume I take it seriously where I shouldn't

The same can be applied towards this, which is more accurate, but it sure as hell can't exactly tell you for example what % you are say of American.

Because that really has nothing to do with Science, or at least just science.

- - - Updated - - -



Eh No, it is accurate, and the only reason it's not more accurate has to do with the kind of test you are taking and the resources involved, non if which can really be determined by saliva alone, or through the methods used by most kit sites.

As for the the Native Americans and people using the test and having questions about the legitimacy, I am afraid that has a hell of a lot more to do with political than it does anything else.

Because the Truth is not everybody LIKES the truth, so they lean into this Bullshit well it's not accurate. Yeah Elizabeth Warren as much as I like her is White, that isn't a bad or negative thing, that is just what it is.

I think slamming her because she has embraced however much which is practically none as part of her heritage, I think is stupid, because at the end of the day it really shouldn't matter.

Your DNA doesn't fucking tell you who you are, or what is important, you don't have to be Native American to maybe identify with that as a culture.

However Scientifically, YEAH, that might not be reality.

Sorry bro, I'll take the word of folks I know who work in the field of genetics research. I mean, at the end of the day, what's in your genes doesn't matter, culture and ethnicity are much more important factors in a person than modern social constructs of race.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Sorry bro, I'll take the word of folks I know who work in the field of genetics research. I mean, at the end of the day, what's in your genes doesn't matter, culture and ethnicity are much more important factors in a person than modern social constructs of race.

Yeah if the people you know are telling you the Truth then there should be no contrast between what I said, and what you were told. Unless there is bias on their part.

I agree what is in your genes outside of perhaps general knowledge of interest and maybe being pointers for which to study and be aware of your genetics. However outside that not so much.

Historically where your parents and grandparents come from is part of you and through DNA we can observe the value of that. You are also correct race is mostly a modern day construct.

But that isn't the reason some show a bias one way or another, some people suggest there is a bias for the same reason people can suggest their is a bias with any science. Whether it's accurate or not.

This is accurate the police use it, they have used to to identify suspects, one of more recently was a serial killer, they can also determine whether someone is actually biologically related or not.

So it doesn't matter what your friends told you or you say your friends have told you, or how not better than 90% accurate it is.

[Mormolyce]

Finding about one's ancestry is, I'd say, more of an american thing.

Mostly an old people thing as far as I can tell.

[Katie N]

My sister did a test like this. It was more % in Chinese than we expected. xD

[Doctor Amadeus]

Mostly an old people thing as far as I can tell.

Nah some people do it because they think they'll find they are special because of it like a Native American, Viking, or African Princess, so when the find out (Spoiler Alert) they aren't and they are nowhere near close to the crown or special due to their race or genes alone, they want to get angry.


While other, like myself just did it for fun, because while I already felt I knew, it's nice to have science to back that up. There is that stark contrast because between what Science is (knowledge) and what people wish it was.

And unfortunately that is actually doing more harm to everyone over all not just people who take these test.

People want Science to bolster their stupidity like bigotry, such as racism and self righteousness.

[Puupi]

I dug my old report up...still doesn't make sense.

43.3% Balkan/Greek
21.7% British/Irish
10.2% French/German
1.4% Eastern European
1.2% Scandinavian
1% Italian

My father was always so sure he had significant Native American descent, and seeing pictures of his family, it looked pretty obvious. My great-grandmother had a lot of stereotypical Native American features, and her surname was "Savage", a common name for assimilated Natives.

Are you sure he is your father?