Nom says DNA tests are "genetic astrology" (i.e. pseudo-science)

You are an absolutely astonishingly dishonest little retard.

Firstly, "genetic astrology" was the wording used by the genetic experts interviewed by The Telegraph, not me. Secondly, DNA tests are perfectly scientifically legitimate when they are being used for their intended scientific purpose.

The bottom line is that you are a science-denying fuckwad, an obsessive liar, a fake Jew and a thoroughly nasty little prick. See:-

DNA ancestry tests branded 'meaningless'

Commercial DNA tests that claim to tell people whether they are related to Richard III or descended from the Vikings are no more than "genetic astrology", scientists have warned.

Customers are being charged up to £300 to learn whether they have links to famous people or societies despite the fact many of the tests are not backed up by scientific evidence, experts said.

The amount of DNA any individual inherits from relatives just a few steps up their family tree is negligible compared with the vast amount we all share from common ancestors.

It means any ancestral "history" identified by a simple genetic test is just one of dozens of possible interpretations, and to try to trace our lineage directly through our genes is "absurd", they claimed.

Private genetic tests have become big business in recent years, with many companies offering tests which claim to identify whether people are related to famous figures such as Napoleon or Cleopatra, or have DNA from specific racial groups.

Last year the website ancestry.com was valued at $1.6 billion (£1 billion) and at least 40 companies offer genetic ancestry tests around the world for prices between £30 and £300.

At the recent Who Do You Think You Are? Live roadshow in London, customers were offered a range of DNA tests claiming to determine whether they were related to Richard III or descended from Roman soldiers.

A warning about the accuracy of the tests was made by the Sense About Science campaign group, which said "such histories are either so general as to be personally meaningless or they are just speculation from thin evidence."

The warning was backed by a number of leading genetics experts. Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at UCL said: “On a long trudge through history – two parents, four great-grandparents, and so on – very soon everyone runs out of ancestors and has to share them.

"As a result, almost every Briton is a descendant of Viking hordes, Roman legions, African migrants, Indian Brahmins, or anyone else they fancy.”

His colleague Prof Mark Thomas said: "These claims are usually planted by the companies that provide these so-called tests and are not backed up by published scientific research. This is business, and the business is genetic astrology.”

Tracey Brown, Director of Sense About Science added: “Genetics researchers are telling us that you are better off digging around in your loft than doing a DNA ancestry test if you want to find out about your family tree."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9912822/DNA-ancestry-tests-branded-meaningless.html

I'm NOT a scientist. I'm a businessman.. As such, I understand markets, and I understand regulation..

Asking Nom for an educated opinion is like trying to have a conversation with a zoo monkey as it squeals and throws poop.

Hello:

I'm NOT a scientist. I'm a businessman.. As such, I understand markets, and I understand regulation..

Having said that, google says the market for DNA testing is expected to reach $22 Billion by 2024.. So, I'm wondering, IF these tests are FAKE SCIENCE, wouldn't 60 Minutes have done an expose on them? Are they fooling EVERYBODY???

Did a LEFTIST just say it does not oppose CAPITALISM ?????????

LMMFAO !!!!!!!! If there is confusion that exists you IDIOTS own it and your FUCKIN DUMB ASS just typed it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WARNING!! If you have a short attention span, this post is not for you. The following essay is meant to explain to people who are interested how commercial DNA profiles can be misleading.

The problem with most of the commercial tests (23&Me, Ancestry.com, etc.) is how people misinterpret them. Generally people do not understand basic genetics, even at the Gregor Mendel level, and they do not understand where the "ancestry" data comes from.

The association between gene pool and geographic regions is based on finding alleles (sections of DNA) on chromosomes (DNA molecules) that are unique to the people in an identified region or gene pool. If a particular allele unique to the Cherokee is on a particular chromosome, it demonstrates that the person has Cherokee ancestors.

If half of a person’s chromosomes have alleles unique to Cherokee, then the person’s DNA profile says he/she is 50% Cherokee.

That sounds simple, but there are some problems with it.

- 1 - Some data may be inaccurate.

The data used is based on present day DNA profiles of people tested and what the people say they know about their family history. Some societies and regions have contributed large numbers of samples to the databases, and some may have contributed few or no samples. There is a lot of data from the US, Europe, South Korea, and other industrialized nations, but sometimes none (or only a few samples) from comparatively poor or isolated places’ gene pools.

The companies extrapolate data from underrepresented or unrepresented gene pools based on immigration into the richer nations. For example Ancestry.com may not get their samples of Marshal Islanders from people who are actually in the Marshal Islands, but rather from self-reported American descendants of people from the Marshal Islands.

If these people provide incorrect ancestry information (like Pokahontas did) some of the data about the connection between genes and geographic origins and gene pools could be just plain wrong. That can lead to wrong results on your ancestry profile.

- 2 - The data pool is incomplete, so the markers may be unreliable.

Because so much of the world has not contributed DNA samples to the databases, there may be alleles they think are exclusive to one region or gene pool, but are actually common in multiple untested gene pools. That means that a marker does not actually show where the chromosome came from.

For example, an allele they think shows you have Ashanti ancestors could also mean it is possible you have an ancestor from Fiji, but they don’t know it is not a unique marker. As a result, your profile could be wrong.

- 3 - The data is not about the past

The database only correlates with where DNA samples are taken now, not what chromosomes people in that place had in the past.

If your Ancestry/23&Me results say that you have a match for Sub Saharan Africa, that does not necessarily mean any of your ancestors were African. It only means that some of your DNA coded traits (alleles) are the same as what is currently common and distinct in tested samples in those regions.

People have always migrated, conquered, and interbred. People often spread their genes in places they visit, and take them along when they move to a new continent. Moreover, the 19th and 20th centuries were marked by mass migration worldwide, and increasingly easy travel. The rate at which genes migrate has increased radically over the last 5 generations.

For example, just because 23&Me says you have Irish ancestors, it is possible that the marker originally came from one Viking raider, but was spread around Ireland. By the same token, that gene may have been taken to India or Mexico. That Irish/Viking chromosome may have come through an Indian (Asia) or Mexican ancestor who did not pass on any other chromosome (or their markers) to you.

A result that says you are 3% Sub Saharan African means nothing more than 3% of your marker alleles are a match with people in Sub Saharan Africa. It does NOT mean that any of your ancestors came from Sub Saharan Africa. It is possible that you and your African counterparts have a common ancestor with an unusual allele, and that allele was passed around liberally in Africa.

- 4 - You do not have DNA from all of your ancestors

If everything is equally distributed and you inherit one chromosome from every possible ancestor, the furthest back you can have all ancestors represented in your genetic makeup is 23 generations. However, there is no reason to expect equal representation.

It is possible (though very unlikely) that you inherit half your chromosomes from one maternal ancestor 23 generations back, and half from one paternal ancestor23 generations back, and those chromosomes were passed down as complete sets in two straight lines to you. You would then have receive no chromosomes from the other 44 people in the 23rd generation. That would mean that only 46 of 552 ancestors in that generational range passed any DNA on to you.

Your 23&Me profile could say you are half Irish and half Italian, when in fact 90% of your ancestors were from China, but their chromosomes were not passed on to you. Yes, it is a VERY long shot, but it is possible.

The point remains that many of your ancestors may not have contributed any chromosomes to your genetic makeup.

- 5 - The percentages on your ancestry profile have nothing to do with the percentage of ancestors you have from the identified place.

When the results say that you are 30% Irish, 50% Japanese, and 20% Navajo, that does not mean 30% of your last 23 generations of ancestors were Irish, 50% were Japanese, and 20% were Navajo. It only means that of the DNA you inherited those are the percentages that match marker alleles for gene pools in those places.