Determine race by DNA? Psuedo science?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm hearing alot about people determining your Race by your DNA,and I've heard about how it's done and there just seem to be way too many flaws in it to get an accurate answer as to someone's race.

This is how it's done...

They go around the world getting different DNA samples from thousands of people on every continent..
Then they get someone's DNA who wants to know their racial ancestory.
Once they have that persons DNA they determine what percent of people from various contries they have DNA in common with and then conclude that is their race.

So say I get my DNA tested and they compair my DNA to other peoples around the world and get the results back that Im 40% african by race!
Say also Im a blonde haired blue eyed and white ghost type person who's parents,grandparents and great grandparents all come from places like norway,iceland and finland.
What's the problem here? If I am indeed 40% african one of my grandparents must be atleast 100% african by race. Which they aren't.

I've come up with alot of flaws in the actuall testing methods.

1.The number of people who they got their samples from around the world are just way too small. It would have to include everyone on the planet for it to be accurate.

2.They are simply compairing the DNA to other's who are in their sample population. However it's very likely that most of someone's ancestors who were european have died off and no DNA remains in the world of those people and the only DNA remotely related to yours happens to be in africa. That does not mean you're 30 or 40% african. It just means that most of your european ancestors have died out and you only happen to have relatives in africa who share some common DNA from thousands and thousands of years back,Who are really nowhere near related to you.

3.Just because someone lives in Africa it does not make them African by race. There are millions of white europeans living in Africa who's ancestors migrated there in the 16th and 17th century from europe.
The same goes for Asia or India. Just because 50% of someone's relatives happen to live in Africa it does not make them African by race.


I was watching on PBS where some scientist was being interviewed who was a teacher at some University. He was doing these tests on students who wanted to know their racial statistics. He was saying that alot of people were supprised to find out they were 30% southeast asian or 10% African.
However If someone is 10% african...They will know it.
Because You have 2 parents. You get 50% of your genetics from them. You have 4 grandparents,You get 25% of your dna from each of them. And you have 8 grandparents and you get about 12% of your DNA from them.
If someone were say 10% African by race,Their great grandparents would be basically 100% African. Now how could a family not know that their parents or grandparents were 100% African? How could they believe for all of these years that they were completly european or White when their grandparent happened to be 100% African? That students grandparents would be half African. How could that student not realize that?

The fact is...The DNA testing to determine race is completly flawed. Just because someone happens to have 10% of their relatives living in Africa does not make them African by race. Just because someone has 10% of their relatives(From this super tiny population) does not make them African.
Just because someone actually has 10% of his living relatives as Africans who are african by race..It does not make that person 10% African.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's more complex than that. The idea is to find markers for certain phenotypes. For example, ten years ago one might have thought that a marker for Tay-Sachs disease meant you were an Ashkenazi Jew. Genzyme banked on it. However, it turns out that the same marker is now found in some Japanese and other groups, much to Genzyme's delight. This shows that the correspondence of origin with phenotype is not cut and dried.

Now picture hundreds of these markers. By analyzing your DNA, I can sort of triangulate your origins(s) by noting which markers you carry.

Note that I'm expressing no opinion about whether the concept of race is reasonable or not.

~~ Paul

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's more complex than that. The idea is to find markers for certain phenotypes. For example, ten years ago one might have thought that a marker for Tay-Sachs disease meant you were an Ashkenazi Jew. Genzyme banked on it. However, it turns out that the same marker is now found in some Japanese and other groups, much to Genzyme's delight. This shows that the correspondence of origin with phenotype is not cut and dried.

Now picture hundreds of these markers. By analyzing your DNA, I can sort of triangulate your origins(s) by noting which markers you carry.

Note that I'm expressing no opinion about whether the concept of race is reasonable or not.

~~ Paul

When I saw it...They were doing what I said. They were taking samples from a few hundred people from each continent and then compairing the persons DNA to that. Maybe by the way you're saying,But they definitly showed the person a little map where there was little "flags" showing where the people who had similar DNA lived.


Also explain how a family could possibly not know if they are a majority African.


Also isn't it likely that somehow the markers that are occurent in Europeans for example spread through someone's family where the markers for Africans did not,And this person was clearly African?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Also explain how a family could possibly not know if they are a majority African.

...snip...

Doesn't your question only make sense if you start with the preconception that there is a an "identifiable" (by appearance) "African race"?

The only definition I think that can be in any way meaningful to call someone an "African" is "someone who was born in the African continent". Which say nothing at all about what we could expect an "African" to look like.

 

[CFLarsen]

"someone who was born in the African continent"

Shouldn't that be "born on the African continent"?

 

[Darat]

Shouldn't that be "born on the African continent"?

Oh you'd include the surface dwellers as well?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Doesn't your question only make sense if you start with the preconception that there is a an "identifiable" (by appearance) "African race"?

The only definition I think that can be in any way meaningful to call someone an "African" is "someone who was born in the African continent". Which say nothing at all about what we could expect an "African" to look like.

You know good and well that it's easy to identify someone if they are African by race or european..ect

I've never seen an african person who was African by race who did not look African.

Even albino's who are African by race look clearly African in their facial features.

And I don't think you looked hard for a definition..

Ne·groid ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ngroid) Anthropology
adj.

Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as brown to black pigmentation and often tightly curled hair and including peoples indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. Not in scientific use.

adj : characteristic of people traditionally classified as the Negro race; "negroid features" n : a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa) [syn: Black, Black person, blackamoor, Negro, Negroid]

In contrast to..

caucasoid-
Of or relating to the Caucasian racial classification. Not in scientific use.



Im obviously not going to get into the whole race thing with you,However generally speaking no one who's line of ancestors are African looks European and vise versa.
You find me someone who is african by race who has European features(lighter skin,Lighter hair,European facial features) And I'll show you that person has people who are european by race in their immediate ancestory.

 

[Darat]

You know good and well that it's easy to identify someone if they are African by race or european..ect

I've never seen an african person who was African by race who did not look African.

"African by race" - that's exactly what I was saying - you've already decided what that means but then you use it to support an argument about "African race". A definition to be useful can't refer to itself, that's just circular reasoning.

I perhaps have an advantage over you since I lived in two African countries for quite a few years and traveled throughout Africa so my experience of the continent is first hand.

Even albino's who are African by race look clearly African in their facial features.

And I don't think you looked hard for a definition..

I didn't look for a definition. I stated that a useful or meaningful definitionwould be one like I gave (and pedantically corrected by Claus). The one you quote is a meaningless, circular definition because it assumes certain characteristics exist and then uses them to define those characteristics.

Out of curiosity which of these is an African face:

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh you'd include the surface dwellers as well?

Huh?

Ah. Brit Humour.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've never seen an african person who was African by race who did not look African.

How would you know if you did?

We could probably make a list of markers that are identified with high probability with people whose ancestors came from various parts of Africa. There would always be some people from those regions that did not have a particular marker. Then we could analyze the DNA of a random person and give him an idea about the origin of his ancestors.

One of the purposes of this project is to trace the history of human migration:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4435009.stm

The Genographic Project site:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

~~ Paul

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"African by race" - that's exactly what I was saying - you've already decided what that means but then you use it to support an argument about "African race". A definition to be useful can't refer to itself, that's just circular reasoning.

No,I've defined what it means. Someone who's ancestory is african,More specificaly sub-Saharan Africa.

I perhaps have an advantage over you since I lived in two African countries for quite a few years and traveled throughout Africa so my experience of the continent is first hand.

I don't see how that makes a bit of difference. Traveling through africa really makes no difference since as i've mentioned there are alot of europeans living in Africa who are not african by race along with alot of mixing.

I didn't look for a definition. I stated that a useful or meaningful definitionwould be one like I gave (and pedantically corrected by Claus). The one you quote is a meaningless, circular definition because it assumes certain characteristics exist and then uses them to define those characteristics.

It does not assume those characteristics exist in african populations...Those characteristics DO exist in those african populations.

Out of curiosity which of these is an African face:

None of them are completly African by race. Maybe some of them have norther-african in them however they look middle-eastern.The second one looks to have Caucasian in him.

Note that even if all of them happen to be from africa(probably northern africa,egypt) that does not mean they belong to the Negroid race.

Here's a few examples of people who are obviously African and belong to the Negroid race,just random pictures i've googled.

African soldier...

African man with caucasian mix.

Another African man.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How would you know if you did?



We could probably make a list of markers that are identified with high probability with people whose ancestors came from various parts of Africa. There would always be some people from those regions that did not have a particular marker. Then we could analyze the DNA of a random person and give him an idea about the origin of his ancestors.

One of the purposes of this project is to trace the history of human migration:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4435009.stm

The Genographic Project site:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html

~~ Paul

It still runs into the same problems that i've detailed in the beginning.

 

[Darat]

No,I've defined what it means. Someone who's ancestory is African,More specifically sub-Saharan Africa.

So you no longer mean "African race" but "sub-Saharan African race"...

I don't see how that makes a bit of difference. Traveling through Africa really makes no difference since as I've mentioned there are alot of europeans living in Africa who are not african by race along with alot of mixing.

I was commenting that I might be slightly more aware of the difference in appearances that exists between different African people then you are, which it seems I am...

It does not assume those characteristics exist in african populations...Those characteristics DO exist in those african populations.

(You made a mistake above you forget to use your new racial group i.e. "sub-sharan africans")

But they also exist elsewhere - they are not unique to "sub-Saharan African populations".

None of them are completly African by race. Maybe some of them have norther-african in them however they look middle-eastern.The second one looks to have Caucasian in him.

All, apart from the smallest picture, are Africans, the smallest picture is of a "European". Sp it appears that even you cannot tell Africans from Europeans...

Note that even if all of them happen to be from africa(probably northern africa,egypt) that does not mean they belong to the Negroid race.

Now another racial group... have you perhaps ever considerd that these racial groups are not quite as distinct and unique as you thought they were?

Here's a few examples of people who are obviously African and belong to the Negroid race,just random pictures i've googled.

They are not obviously African to me and given you've just been shown not to be able to distinguish Africans from other "races" perhaps if you hadn't googled them you wouldn't have been able to correctly identify their race as "sub Saharan Africans".

African soldier...

African man with caucasian mix.

Another African man.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So you no longer mean "African race" but "sub-Saharan African race"...

When I say "African race" I mean people who have Negroid features..I.E. the features I've already listed.

I was commenting that I might be slightly more aware of the difference in appearances that exists between different African people then you are, which it seems I am...

As i've said,Considering how many Europeans and Arabs live in Africa..It would not make any difference.

Also it's special pleading.

(You made a mistake above you forget to use your new racial group i.e. "sub-sharan africans")

But they also exist elsewhere - they are not unique to "sub-Saharan African populations"

Actually the only place in the world where people look anywhere remotely close to Sub-Saharan Africans(Negroids) Would be native Australian aboriginals.

You don't see native people's of the European population who have the features that those who belong to the Negroid race have.

All, apart from the smallest picture, are Africans, the smallest picture is of a "European". Sp it appears that even you cannot tell Africans from Europeans...

Apparently you're not reading what Im saying...

I said that EVEN IF they happen to live in Africa it does not mean they belong to any African Race.
I've got a blonde haired blue eyed uncle who lives in south Africa...However that does not mean he is African by race.

Please pay attention to what I'm saying.

Now another racial group... have you perhaps ever considerd that these racial groups are not quite as distinct and unique as you thought they were?

Definitely not.

They are not obviously African to me and given you've just been shown not to be able to distinguish Africans from other "races" perhaps if you hadn't googled them you wouldn't have been able to correctly identify their race as "sub Saharan Africans".

So you're claiming that these people don't obviously belong to any African races?

And As I've said...Just because they happen to live in Africa it does not mean they are African by race(your photographs).



I really don't know if you are actually that unaware of the fact there are distinct races or you're just trying to be funny...

So I'll explain it as simply as I can...

I will define "Race" and I will tell you how we determine who belongs to which race.

Race-A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

These physical characteristics include facial features and Skin color.

People who belong to a specific race have these characteristics in common.

There are 3 major races.
1.Caucasoid(Europeans)
2.Negroid(Africans,Native Australians)
3.Mongoloid(Asians)

People who belong to a spcific race say "Negroids" have physical characteristics in common. Dark/black skin,Wide and flat nose,kinky dark hair..ect

How do we know that people who are native to Africa have these physical characteristics?
Obviously you're going to resort to special pleading and claim that Africans don't have these characteristics..So I will give you examples that are obvious to anyone.

1.When Europeans came to Africa and brought Africans over to America as slaves,Why did Racism even exist if Africans don't actually generally look different than Europeans like you're claiming?
Heck,Racism would not even exist if as you're claiming..There was no identifiable differences between various races. There would of been no slavery,There would of been no Holocaust,There would of been no segregation in America,There would of been none of these things if there were no identifiable physical characteristics between say people who's ancestors came from Europe and someone's who's came from Africa.

2.Why is it that anyone who claims to be "African American" has these physical characteristics? I.E. black skin and facial features similar to the photographs of africans I posted. Why don't we see any Pale white blonde haired blue eyed people with european facial features claiming to be African-American?

3.Why does the FBI identify fugitives by their "race" if there is indeed no general physical characteristics between the races,Like you're claiming? They I.D. a person as either White,Black,Hispanic or Asian. If as you're claiming there is no general physical differences between the races...How would this even work?

4.Why is it if we look at an African Tribe for instance,One who does not allow outsiders to come in and interbreed...We see they all have the same general physical characteristics..Black hair,Black skin,Similar facial features..ect. Why is it that we don't see a non-albino blonde haired blue eyed guy with european features who's ancestors all lived in the tribe for generations? Why do we see that they all have the same similar characteristics?



The fact of the matter is humans ARE separated into various and distinct "races" or "populations" or whatever you would like to call them. As humans migrated the populations separated and as they became separated they started to develop distinct physical characteristics. Africans skin stayed dark due to more exposure to harmful UV rays. Europeans skin tone lightened due to less exposure to UV rays.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Dustin-
Are you aware that your division of mankind into "races" is totally based on characters of appearance?

Are you aware that your apparent inability to distinguish between the appearance of Africans and Australian Aboriginals is a failing not shared by either people? I once saw a group of Chinese scientists wholly unable to tell four British scientists apart, because the four were dressed alike and the Chinese lacked the practice necessary to recognise clues to appearance in westerners.
The inhabitants of a Bantu village , town or city don't look alike to each other, only to you because you are unable to tell them apart. Your failing, not their lack of variability.

Are you aware that there is more variation in nuclear DNA between native Africans (ie excluding European settlers of the last 400 years) than among virtually everyone else on the planet?

The use of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA to establish "ethnic origin" is indeed full of potential error. So long as it's viewed as a possibly useful tool for palaeoanthropologists and as a bit of fun for the rest of us, this sort of procedure is fine- but it's at a very early stage. I would not put much faith in it's conclusions, which are also often misunderstood and misreported by journalists.

Are you aware that it's highly probable that you and I are both 100% African?

Are you aware your posts seem to be acquiring distinctly racist overtones?

Slavery as an economic system is not historically restricted to America. The Vikings kept slaves, for example, generally white ones. One difference was that an Icelander could be legally punished for maltreating a slave. To claim that slavery requires a physiological difference is silly.

Actually, this thread is getting pretty silly.

 

[drkitten]

Are you aware that there is more variation in nuclear DNA between native Africans (ie excluding European settlers of the last 400 years) than among virtually everyone else on the planet?

Which in and of itself suggests a method for testing race -- that is, a partial division between what you just called "native Africans," and "virtually everyone else on the planet." Just look at nuclear DNA and see how well it fits the the DNA pattern of a typical European, and if the variance is too large, then the person is probably sub-Saharan African.

You can't have it both ways....

Are you aware that it's highly probable that you and I are both 100% African?

If you go back far enough, sure.

Actually, this thread is getting pretty silly.

Yeah, but at least part of the reason is the politics masquerading as science. Of course there are obvious differences among national and continental sub-groups (as was pointed out earlier, if there weren't, the FBI wouldn't bother to put "race" on their APB's). Some are less obvious : see, for example this page for the geographic distribution of blood type (ABO system) in various "native" populations -- and observe how a clearly genetic trait varies geographically.

Superimpose enough of these geographic patterns atop each other and you'd be astonished at what will inevitably come out of the mix. It's a simple application of data mining.

 

[hammegk]

Dustin-
Are you aware that your division of mankind into "races" is totally based on characters of appearance?

Current state of the art medicine doesn't agree. DNA does provide the % of those groups: Caucasoid(Europeans), Negroid(Africans,Native Australians), and Mongoloid(Asians), and treatments are beginning to be keyed to ancestry.

And some people -- by no means all -- are 100% ers.

Most newer studies of human traits seem to me to place more and more emphasis on genetics rather than environment. Anyone have any good counter-examples of this apparent trend?

 

[delphi_ote]

When I saw it...They were doing what I said. They were taking samples from a few hundred people from each continent and then compairing the persons DNA to that.

What type of DNA were they comparing? How were they comparing it? How were they identifying "race" and what do you mean when you say that they used "a few hundred people from each continent?"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yeah, but at least part of the reason is the politics masquerading as science. Of course there are obvious differences among national and continental sub-groups (as was pointed out earlier, if there weren't, the FBI wouldn't bother to put "race" on their APB's). Some are less obvious : see, for example this page for the geographic distribution of blood type (ABO system) in various "native" populations -- and observe how a clearly genetic trait varies geographically.

This is exactly the point. It is genetic traits that vary geographically, not some sort of composite "race." We can certainly assign race names to clusters of genetic traits, but it's a complex matter of probabilities.

~~ Paul

 

[Rolfe]

.... see, for example this page for the geographic distribution of blood type (ABO system) in various "native" populations -- and observe how a clearly genetic trait varies geographically.

I see that map even (crudely) spots the difference between Scots (more type O) and English (more type A). It's quite marked actually - testing blood groups at school had nearly all the class saying, it's not working - very few people saw any agglutination because most were type O. Then at university the same thing happened. The next task on the worksheet said "take one drop of type A blood". Resulting in the entire class pursuing an English student round the room wielding blood lancets. (Ah, the happy days before HIV....)

When I moved to England, a medical friend said, the Blood Transfusion service will love you (O being the universal donor), and indeed it was so. The first time I went I noticed the donor cards were colour coded, and indeed the bulk in the nurse's hand were A-coloured and there were relatively few O. And I've more than once been called up for a special collection of O blood.

So, Scots and English are really quite distinct races? I don't think so....

Rolfe.