23andMe & Ancestry

[Stelio Kontos]

Are you sure he is your father?

Considering he, my younger brother, my half-brother from his previous marriage, and I all look pretty similar, I'd say so, or he had an evil twin out there no one ever knew about.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This shit is hilarious Jessica looks like she was a little upset.



LMFAO here goes another one

[Katie N]

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.

I remember someone on this forum saying Koreans, Vietnamese, Japanese, Malay and so on are same ethnicity. xD

[Mormolyce]

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.

Mostly just on "haha gotcha" articles on the internet. Real world, it's mostly old ladies.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I remember someone on this forum saying Koreans, Vietnamese, Japanese, Malay and so on are same ethnicity. xD

Yeah depends on what you mean, just because you skin is a certain shade doesn't mean you are or you aren't and neither do borders. Plains Indians or Native Americans populated from the Midwest as North as Canada, and as South as Mexico, there are different Tribes in their Confederations broken down even further by bands.

I wouldn't Lakota or Pawnee as explicitly the same anymore than I would say they aren't closely related.

The whole thing about Ethnicity and cultures goes more to peoples choices rather than genetics.

[Katie N]

The whole thing about Ethnicity and cultures goes more to peoples choices rather than genetics.

Wtf? xD What ethnic group is not tied to shared ancestry?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Mostly just on "haha gotcha" articles on the internet. Real world, it's mostly old ladies.

Yeah people just want to be right so much on shit that doesn't matter, especially when it comes to science telling them some shit they don't want to hear or letting them down from their stupid ideas.

Like I.Q test, people love them as long as they interpret their meaning as something they want, but when they recognize what it actually means over what they wished it did, suddenly it doesn't really matter.

As if I.Q was completely responsible for bad choice.

Or Genetics some people have particularly higher testosterone levels, or at least until we recognize that doesn't have shit to do with anything, because again it comes down to choice.

Your Ancestry is really really no indication of anything you have done or what you are capable of either, because again it comes down to choice.

The problem is none of these things science itself can remedy people who act and choose to be stupid.

It can only remedy ignorance, that's it.

[RobertoCarlos]

I tried one of these tests now im getting interviews with American detectives about the zodiac killings

[Doctor Amadeus]

Wtf? xD What ethnic group is not tied to shared ancestry?

Nope, not in my opinion nor based on history. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much in fighting between similar or exact groups, if there was any such thing as purity, or one true way, then there would be less diversity, not more.

Whether that is better or not is entirely based on what perspective you have, which has fuck all to do with where you live, or who or what you were born as per say. Obviously it has and can have an impact, but then so to are many many other things.

- - - Updated - - -

I tried one of these tests now im getting interviews with American detectives about the zodiac killings

Finally Ted Cruz we got YOU!

[Katie N]

Nope, not in my opinion nor based on history. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much in fighting between similar or exact groups, if there was any such thing as purity, or one true way, then there would be less diversity, not more.

Whether that is better or not is entirely based on what perspective you have, which has fuck all to do with where you live, or who or what you were born as per say. Obviously it has and can have an impact, but then so to are many many other things.

Your opinion doesn't matter. Ethnic groups are defined by shared ancestry.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Your opinion doesn't matter. Ethnic groups are defined by shared ancestry.

My Opinion does matter, you may wish it didn't but whatever you feel the need to cling to for comfort by all means.

[Katie N]

My Opinion does matter, you may wish it didn't but whatever you feel the need to cling to for comfort by all means.

No, it doesn't. xD

[Doctor Amadeus]

No, it doesn't. xD

Yes it doesn't what matter?

By the fact you keep replying, or no it doesn't comfort you and you are upset at the prospect or facts that prove otherwise.

[Puupi]

Considering he, my younger brother, my half-brother from his previous marriage, and I all look pretty similar, I'd say so, or he had an evil twin out there no one ever knew about.

Is he sure who his father is?

[Arenis]

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.

Mate I'm fine with discussing things, but stay respectful. Some parts of your response are truly bombastic/demagogue-like in nature. Please don't.

If you truly are educated on the subject, or are at least knowledgeable enough to find scientific valid information, you would find that the things I mentioned are widely shared critiques to the direct-to-consumer ancestry tests. Current methods only really allow one to give a statistical approach to how e.g. SNPs in current populations are correlated. Something I've forgotten to mention, which I'm sure you are aware of, is that due to the randomness of Mendelian inheritance and the hard-to-predict process of homologous recombination (linkage can help us to a degree) it's very hard, and in my personal opinion currently impossible, to find out your true biological genealogy, hence why the percentages are likely not very accurate (I think you mentioned that also). I've never claimed the tests cannot be reasonably accurate, at least to a degree, but there is certainly room for improvement and critique. Maybe I should have worded it as "take the result with a grain of salt", given the statistical shortcomings and as you mentioned further below, the not insignificant probability of consumers not educated on the subject to misinterpret the results.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Mate I'm fine with discussing things, but stay respectful. Some parts of your response are truly bombastic/demagogue-like in nature. Please don't.

If you truly are educated on the subject, or are at least knowledgeable enough to find scientific valid information, you would find that the things I mentioned are widely shared critiques to the direct-to-consumer ancestry tests. Current methods only really allow one to give a statistical approach to how e.g. SNPs in populations are correlated. Something I've forgotten to mention, which I'm sure you are aware of, is that due to the randomness of Mendelian inheritance and the hard-to-predict process of homologous recombination (linkage can help us to a degree) it's very hard, and in my personal opinion currently impossible, to find out your true biological genealogy, hence why the percentages are likely not very accurate (I think you mentioned that also). I've never claimed the tests cannot be reasonably accurate, at least to a degree, but there is certainly room for improvement and critique. Maybe I should have worded it as "take the result with a grain of salt", given the statistical shortcomings and as you mentioned further below, the not insignificant probability of consumers not educated on the subject to misinterpret the results.

First off don't try to make pronouncements about things you declared I have done to try to control or manipulate the conversation.

I haven't attacked you personally, and if you are that attached to what you are saying as though you authored the arguments, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss. This is a forum dude, your credentials are up for grabs and You in no way authored the arguments you are making, I am!

And I am telling you from my opinion, and based on the same common references and knowledge I cede you having. I don't at all agree there is a majority or a consensus on what you are presenting.

DNA is a rock solid science, these DNA kit sites are exploiting that, if your argument is that there is something nefarious or more to it than they are applying, well then you are going to need to prove that.

However if it's to suggest that the science isn't valid because some other rhetoric is not, you are wrong.

I think were we can agree is that there is a stark difference between what science said, and what can sometimes being interpreted.

The Science in no way can explicitly determine things like traits and how they would effect individually specifically, especially with spit test.

But they can identify lineage, they do tell depending what I said, an estimate as to percentages based on matches and values for samples taken. It's a 60 to 200 Dollar test.

It doesn't do or have the same meaning as obviously a blood test screened and evaluating thousands, upon thousands of genes by a specific process that can range into the Thousands of dollars.

Which are typically used for things like determining disease, paternity, and so on

That doesn't mean Spit test aren't as accurate, they simply are limited in scope for information provided. It's legit, and any other details have been evaluated other than the Medical as being legally allowed.

[Arenis]

First off don't try to make pronouncements about things you declared I have done to try to control or manipulate the conversation.

I haven't attacked you personally, and if you are that attached to what you are saying as though you authored the arguments, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss. This is a forum dude, your credentials are up for grabs and You in no way authored the arguments you are making, I am!

And I am telling you from my opinion, and based on the same common references and knowledge I cede you having. I don't at all agree there is a majority or a consensus on what you are presenting.

DNA is a rock solid science, these DNA kit sites are exploiting that, if your argument is that there is something nefarious or more to it than they are applying, well then you are going to need to prove that.

However if it's to suggest that the science isn't valid because some other rhetoric is not, you are wrong.

I think were we can agree is that there is a stark difference between what science said, and what can sometimes being interpreted.

The Science in no way can explicitly determine things like traits and how they would effect individually specifically, especially with spit test.

But they can identify lineage, they do tell depending what I said, an estimate as to percentages based on matches and values for samples taken. It's a 60 to 200 Dollar test.

It doesn't do or have the same meaning as obviously a blood test screened and evaluating thousands, upon thousands of genes by a specific process that can range into the Thousands of dollars.

Which are typically used for things like determining disease, paternity, and so on

That doesn't mean Spit test aren't as accurate, they simply are limited in scope for information provided. It's legit, and any other details have been evaluated other than the Medical as being legally allowed.

You pretty much accused me of being some sort of copy-paste troll of random shit I find on the internet and being someone who has zero idea of what he is talking about. Next you just start calling some things 'bullshit', especially the disease screening (as far as you can call it screening). You can see perfectly well I'm not making egregious claims, but instead am fairly nuanced (in as far as I can judge myself). This does not give me the impression you go on rationale here.

As far as credentials go, I'm not comfortable with just openly displaying my real-life ID on a gaming-related forum. However, if it matters to you what I do, fine: I'm a bio-informatician by profession. While the spectra is wide, it can roughly be generalized to being a data-scientist/analyst (based on degree and subject occupancy) in the field of microbiology.

And, for the third time, I do not question the scientific method of using biological markers to cluster traits/features. Almost the entirety of genetics is based on statistics/stochastics or however you would please to define it. While we can be very certain of certain things, there always remains an aspect of uncertainty, therefore experimental verification is necessary for validation and falsification. The only thing I mentioned as possible shortcomings, are not directed at the method of clustering markers, but at the data-set used by these companies. The data-set is heavily skewed towards European subjects, and more distant / less-studied populations are hard to detect due to the scarcity of data. They also quite heavily rely on self-evaluated responses from their customers. So there is some uncertainty with their results; they don't tell the whole story.

In that sense I want to reiterate: I agree with you in that they are fine for the scope they are intended for: "how does my exome compare to other known exomes based on the current level of knowledge on markers?". But again, there are some limitations to it that do not allow it to tell the entirety of ones' ancestry and therefore the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You pretty much accused me of being some sort of copy-paste troll of random shit I find on the internet and being someone who has zero idea of what he is talking about. Next you just start calling some things 'bullshit', especially the disease screening (as far as you can call it screening). You can see perfectly well I'm not making egregious claims, but instead am fairly nuanced (in as far as I can judge myself). This does not give me the impression you go on rationale here.

As far as credentials go, I'm not comfortable with just openly displaying my real-life ID on a gaming-related forum. However, if it matters to you what I do, fine: I'm a bio-informatician by profession. While the spectra is wide, it can roughly be generalized to being a data-scientist/analyst (based on degree and subject occupancy) in the field of microbiology.

And, for the third time, I do not question the scientific method of using biological markers to cluster traits/features. Almost the entirety of genetics is based on statistics/stochastics or however you would please to define it. While we can be very certain of certain things, there always remains an aspect of uncertainty, therefore experimental verification is necessary for validation and falsification. The only thing I mentioned as possible shortcomings, are not directed at the method of clustering markers, but at the data-set used by these companies. The data-set is heavily skewed towards European subjects, and more distant / less-studied populations are hard to detect due to the scarcity of data. They also quite heavily rely on self-evaluated responses from their customers. So there is some uncertainty with their results; they don't tell the whole story.

In that sense I want to reiterate: I agree with you in that they are fine for the scope they are intended for: "how does my exome compare to other known exomes based on the current level of knowledge on markers?". But again, there are some limitations to it that do not allow it to tell the entirety of ones' ancestry and therefore the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply commented on your post where you link unrelated or misapplied criticisms about the DNA testing from someone who is very much offering a qualified opinion.

As to the limitations of DNA kits, I am glad we agree there should be understandings about what those limits are, however I think that is emphasized, I mean it is a company and their rhetoric is chalked full a lot of emotion to sell their product, I applaud taking issue with that. I don't anyone taking what Scientific America is saying or even what you're saying as suggesting and being misapplied another which is to say.

DNA testing kids aren't based on rock solid science in and of themselves, despite however company break them down and suggest what they mean. Such as the % of different nations and origins, because I agree, that isn't so much science

In short it's based off science, but I don't think doing a DNA test could should be done out of anything but fun, or general interest, I don't think it should be taken as to confuse people as to who they are, based off what DNA results suggest.

Because you are correct, the article is in line with that as well.


My concern would always be where science ends, and magic and opinion begin there should be a clear distinction. Which is why I am glad all the sites 23andMe and AncestryDNA had to publish and make it clear about those limits especially like when it comes to traits and trying to diagnosis people with medical conditions or imply as such.

The best Comparisons I can make is for example I.Q which is also rock solid hard science, however what people interpret and apply that towards can be completely inappropriate.

And it doesn't matter what ones opinion is, the Researchers being biased, or some groups using I.Q as a way to apply bias and a belief system. Which shouldn't happen

One can disagree with the methods, I don't think the results can really be questioned, however what it means and how it is applied I think can.

It's science of course its not perfect, but as more data becomes available then and only then once it goes through the process will it change.


But like the DNA Science whether people like or dislike it or even the nonsense that gets misrepresented with it, the science is sound.

[Th3Scourge]

Just be ready for what the results tell you about your heritage and don't invest too much of your identity in where you're from or you'll end up like this chick LOL

That reaction... haha amazing

[Puupi]

Just be ready for what the results tell you about your heritage and don't invest too much of your identity in where you're from or you'll end up like this chick LOL

That reaction... haha amazing

How fucking dumb one has to be to not realize you have a lot of European genes if your skin is that light?

100% African people are BLACK, like - really BLACK.