AncestrybyDNA: Racial Ratio Testing

[Evolved]

ANCESTRYbyDNA...is the first service ever for you to genetically determine your precise ancestral proportions... Brought to you by DNAPrint genomics... Powered by the human genome... Where do you fall on the Multidimensional Continuum of Ancestry?

http://www.ancestrybydna.com/

In it’s broadest and most simplistic sense, the human population can be broken up into 4 unique lineages: Native American (region I), Sub-Saharan African (region II), Indo-European (region III), and East Asian (region IV, minus Australia). Have you ever wondered whether you are of purely Indo-European origin or a blend of Indo-European and Native American (or other) ancestry? If you are of majority African heritage, have you ever wondered whether you are also of Indo-European descent, or perhaps of East Asian descent? If you know that you are a blend of ancestries, do you know what proportions you are of each? ANCESTRYbyDNA has been recently developed to reveal your precise ancestral mixture, and it is the first test of its kind ever developed.

Since there will also be interest in defining the levels of ancestry within continents (such as distinguishing Japanese from Chinese, or Northern European from Middle Eastern), DNAPrint is in the process of developing a new series of Ancestry Informative Markers that will provide more insight into where within a particular continent a persons’ ancestors were most likely derived. This test, ANCESTRYbyDNA 3.0 is expected to be available later in 2003.

---

Mark Shriver, PhD, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Genetics at Pennsylvania State University:



His ancestry graph:

[OnionPeeler]

If the guy shown is 16% Black/16% Native, then I'm a monkey's uncle. I get the feeling that the (unstated) criteria are pre-arranged to "demonstrate" every one is a mix of these classical types. That is, undefine race by showing we're all one big happy family (by their silent methods).

Ten bucks says Shriver is Jewish (conspicuously absent on the chart).

[goidelicwarrior]

Originally posted by ladygoeth33
ANCESTRYbyDNA...is the first service ever for you to genetically determine your precise ancestral proportions... Brought to you by DNAPrint genomics... Powered by the human genome... Where do you fall on the Multidimensional Continuum of Ancestry?

http://www.ancestrybydna.com/

In it’s broadest and most simplistic sense, the human population can be broken up into 4 unique lineages: Native American (region I), Sub-Saharan African (region II), Indo-European (region III), and East Asian (region IV, minus Australia). Have you ever wondered whether you are of purely Indo-European origin or a blend of Indo-European and Native American (or other) ancestry? If you are of majority African heritage, have you ever wondered whether you are also of Indo-European descent, or perhaps of East Asian descent? If you know that you are a blend of ancestries, do you know what proportions you are of each? ANCESTRYbyDNA has been recently developed to reveal your precise ancestral mixture, and it is the first test of its kind ever developed.

Since there will also be interest in defining the levels of ancestry within continents (such as distinguishing Japanese from Chinese, or Northern European from Middle Eastern), DNAPrint is in the process of developing a new series of Ancestry Informative Markers that will provide more insight into where within a particular continent a persons’ ancestors were most likely derived. This test, ANCESTRYbyDNA 3.0 is expected to be available later in 2003.

---

Mark Shriver, PhD, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Genetics at Pennsylvania State University:

Hmm.. are you surpriesed.. fairly common ancestry.. isent it...

[Ederico]

Originally posted by OnionPeeler
If the guy shown is 16% Black/16% Native, then I'm a monkey's uncle. I get the feeling that the (unstated) criteria are pre-arranged to "demonstrate" every one is a mix of these classical types. That is, undefine race by showing we're all one big happy family (by their silent methods).

Ten bucks says Shriver is Jewish (conspicuously absent on the chart).

Yes I suspect it is all one sort of we are one family no one is pure anything thing.

[OnionPeeler]

Invariably, the problem found with such 'scientific' processes is where the lines are drawn for making distinction. The recent study in Brazil 'proving' that race 'is a social construct' proved only that you can render hard data useless by relating it the subjective factors. In the case of the Brazilians, test subjects were 'grouped' by classic morphological traits AND self-identification. The racially mixed Brazilians were oh so ecstatic to discover that Brazilian DNA/self-ID didn't line up with a European DNA referrent. I suspect not even our PC science will be scrambling to hand them the Nobel Prize.

It is obviously true that humans share an ancient lineage. But racial identification through DNA relies on differences and reference points. Given the 'results' and the claim, I can tell you without yet seeing the process, that their method is designed to produce "Oh! I'm a mongrel" results. People engaging in this sort of dissimulative science are always, and I do mean always, found to be dishonest or self-deluded (bad method).

[Dominator]

Triskel Stop spamming, if you have a short typical comment, then address her name Only and not 200 sentences (already posted once).

You've been told this before aboard here, so consider this your First Warning.

Its my opinion that all you spammers destroy the harmonic flow in a conversation and that you disrupt the diligent readers approach in a thread.

[OnionPeeler]

a brief investigation reveals the slimy prick.

The good doctor's research tends to focus on admixture studies going from his published papers. He was the supervising scholar for Carrie Pfaff's patently stupid pigmentation graduate work - and I use the word loosely. She succeeds in telling us what any grade school kid knows but adds absolutist idiocies like 'skin color is no clue to biogeographical ancestry.' Pfaff, like the impaired Brazilians, selected racially mixed subjects for her study and found - oh serendipity! - mixed result. The basic flaw in method, like the Brazilians, was selecting subjects "all of whom identified themselves as African American." Need I reiterate that this creates a subjective referrent??? The absence of predictive unifiers DOES NOT prove squat in such a skewed study.

Check this condescending load of bung from the DNA salesmen out:

For example, say there is a gap in your [family] tree, but the known branches are all IndoEuropean; if you learn that you are of 85% IndoEuropean and 15% Native American ancestry, you have learned something about the gap in your tree - some or all of those ancestors were Native American.

So......
if your family tree has a 'gap', Shriver and company conveniently fill it with their 'test data' that shows you have non-(pick a group) ancestry. If fact, you 'know' nothing of the sort. What you know is that some loci selected for the 'test' are common.

Since elements of genetic academia have acknowledged losing the battle of racial difference, now it's time to shift gears and focus on commonality with essentially the same dissimulative purpose. This test will always produce "admixture". It is so designed.

The scheme, however, is very clever. Consider that any one investigating their geneology is already interested in ancestors and possibly somewhat proud of that ancestry. This cunning and target specific attack singles out those people who might be dangerously ethnocentric. Get 'em.

Beware of strategies arising from this new leftist position of "race exists/race doesn't exist." They are playing a new game. Same purpose, new tactics.

http://www.ancestrybydna.com/Scienti...lityofRace.htm

There COULD be value in this sort of research if they were not hell-bent on 'admixture' results for everyone. Quantifying, to a degree, admixture can be important for medical purposes, but using it as a base to deconstruct racial 'types' even as they use those 'types' in diluted portion, is fundamentally dishonest scholarship.

[GreenHeart]

It would be so wonderful if this was actually valid. I mean if they gave you honest results, you could interpret them in an honest way. For example if you go by haplogroups, rather than admixture percentages.

[Evolved]

He got his 16% negroid from a Mexican grandmother. He originally stated that 30% of white Americans are part negroid, but then he had to admit that it is only 10%. x_p

Originally posted by triskel
Hmm.. are you surpriesed.. fairly common ancestry.. isent it...

[GreenHeart]

Originally posted by OnionPeeler
If the guy shown is 16% Black/16% Native, then I'm a monkey's uncle. I get the feeling that the (unstated) criteria are pre-arranged to "demonstrate" every one is a mix of these classical types. That is, undefine race by showing we're all one big happy family (by their silent methods).

Ten bucks says Shriver is Jewish (conspicuously absent on the chart).

You must be a monkey's uncle then! eyes:

He looks how his ancestry states. Perhaps when I get some money I will submit myself to one of these DNA tests. You can also get a test at www.ancestry.com

I don't really think they can twist your results around when you know which haplogroups belong to which race.

Like for example I doubt if anyone knows which race halpogroup A belongs to........