Is Dna Ancestry Testing Accurate?

1. Many genes only have a few possible alleles. For example, humans only have a few eye colors and only four blood types. How can DNA tests definitively identify individuals when many men have brown eyes or type A blood?

The Australian Institute of Criminology has produced documentations explaining “the technique of ‘DNA identification’ compares the DNA of two bodily samples to ascertain whether or not they came from the same human being. Identity of DNA in the cells across both samples implies that the samples are derived from the same person (or identical twins); non-identity implies different human sources.”

The limitations of genetic science for families are the misinterpretation of the results and information regarding testing. Most people do not understand the results which can result in the assumption that either their test came back negative when it did not, or that is came back positive when it did not. Another limitation to genetic testing is the psychosocial affect the results can have on families, which can cause high levels of anxiety and deteriorate relationships and families (Sparbel & Tluczek, 2011).

Sociologists say race is a social construct, which is the way society can view a group, and their perception of the group. Race is a big example of this, as people could have the same genetic make-up, but be different races. Two people can have the same eye color, and even common DNA through blood. If two brothers had kids, one with someone of Asian descent, and the other brother having a child with someone of Native American descent, the kids who are cousins, are made up of different races. Race is more socially agreed upon, than being of a biological nature. A prime example of this, is most people will same someone is Asian, but they can be descendent of ant country in Asia, while being categorized as Asian. When we look at people from Europe,

However there is no discernible difference in genotype between perceived ‘races’, as the variation observed in the morphologies and cultural patterns of geographically distinct groups are physical markers that are interpreted through social practice.1 Renowned geneticists, Francis Collins and Craig Venter after initially mapping the human genome, announced in June 2000 that 99.9% of humans are genetically identical despite perceived race.2 Subsequently, evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, then further substantiated that within that 0.1% of difference, 85% of phenotypical variation was prominent inside geographically distinct groups, while only 15% occurs between them.3 It has been proposed by academics such as Naomi Zack, that to continue to refer to race as a purely biological notion is detrimental to social understanding as it reinforces a false notion.4 Although observable difference between groups does exist as variation caused by the evolutionary process of random drift and adaption5, these differences are phenotypical and only become salient to racial philosophy when interpreted socially. DeSalle and Tattersall explain that variation is driven by environmental influence on genotype, highlighting that insights into cultural practice are more productive in discussions about difference. A case study provided by DeSalle and Tattersall uses the example of lactose intolerance, explaining that, “Among norther European populations, only about 1 to 15 percent

Disclaimer: I am not a DNA expert and am not going to pretend to be. I understand the basics of DNA testing for genealogy and

This is all fairly well-known: Genetics 101. What's new is how startups like Sequenom have industrialized the SNP identification process. Andi Braun and Charles Cantor are finding thousands of new SNPs a day, at a cost of about a penny each.

In the podcast “Race Doesn’t Exist. Or Does It?” talks about what we can really say about race and what genetics can tell us about race. They begin to talk about how our race and genetics are very similar, but there is a small difference between us. We all started in same place together which was Africa, but then humans began to leave to different areas across the globe. DNA is being copied, but sometimes the coping isn’t perfect which creates coping errors. They have identified 180 little variations in the DNA that people who share the same ancestry. DNA can’t specifically tell you a lot about the color of your skin, but it can rule out different skin colors by looking at the different ancestral percentages. DNA can tell you your eye color though.

Genetic testing has become a highly controversial issue among both the general population and the scientific community. It is a process that exposes a person’s entire genome sequence, allowing it to be read and evaluated to identify potential risks for genetic diseases or diseases that could be passed onto offspring (Holt Productions, 2012). With thousands of genetic tests already being used, and more being established, it seems logical to put this growing technology to use. Some agree that it is a person’s right to know and understand his or her genetic makeup. However, others argue that, despite the benefits of genetic testing, caution should be used to carefully inspect the risks associated with this new technology.

Humans began their diaspora from Africa about 70,000 years ago (Newsreel.org, 2014). Since then, we have stretched to a variety of geographic locations in every corner of the world. A biological definition of race advances the idea populations within species have discernible characteristics compared to other populations, thus suggesting the presence of sub-species under Homo sapiens. This has been falsified by many scientists. Dr. Alan R. Templeton says “there are not enough genetic differences between groups of people to say that there are sub-lineages of humans” (Fitzpatrick, 2003). In fact, the genetic differences between individual humans are entirely small about 0.1% (Humanorigins.si.edu, 2014). Human populations have not been geographically barred nor isolated from one

Knowledge of the human genome, and an increase in the availability of genetic testing at lower cost has made genetic testing more popular.

A common misconception about race that most cultures have is that race is based on the color of a person’s skin. However, race is not something tangible. The principle of race was created by humans and not something that nature created. In our society, we classify races as White, Latino, Black, Asian, etc. These classes are all based on skin color, yet people that are classified in the same race do not necessarily have more in common in terms of genes than they do with someone of a different race. For example, in the article “Three is Not Enough: Surprising New Lessons from the Controversial Science of Race”, Begley argues that “only 6.3 percent of the genetic differences” between two people of the same race could be attributed to the fact

The assumptions made about race are often superficial assumption based on features in a person that are attempted to be used as an identifier of someone’s race such as hair texture, complexion, eye shape, etc. in contrast to popular belief science has proven that there is no specific feature that genetically Is attributed to a certain race.

only lead to discrimination with insurance coverage but also with employers. Once the genetic information is part of the individual’s medical record, it may then be accessed by others. Cases of employers having used genetic information as part of the selection process have been found in Australia. Genetic discrimination has even been detected in the armed forces where a young man was asked to provide documentation that showed he was not predisposed to Marfan syndrome, of which he had a family history. Genetic discrimination is probably the biggest concern for individuals when it comes to the cause and effects of genetic testing upon society. Some of this concern roots from the extreme examples of world leaders and prevalent scientists in the

Anthropologists argue that race does not exist because it is not a biological entity. The cornerstone of this basis is Fish’s illustration that humans are a species; therefore we cannot be genetically different. This means that people from anywhere on earth can mate and produce fertile offspring. Using mitochondria we are able to trace the migration of mankind by using genetic markers. This is based on the idea that both males and females inherit mitochondrial DNA identical to their mother. By performing a general DNA analysis on people from all over the world, social scientists can