Posted on 10/16/2018 6:27:59 AM PDT by Drango
I used to enjoy reading it on flights when I flew more often 20+ years ago. Now, the paper version seems to be 50% ads and blowout postcards, online 80% PC crap.
FO SA!
“How nice that the US population is voluntarily providing a database of its DNA, which (naturally) will be accessible to the government.”
Yeah, and at least a third, probably more, alleged right wingers think it’s just too cool to PAY MONEY to do this.
I had a subscription as a kid in the 60s.
It was great.
I havn’t looked at one in probably ten years.
The "new and improved" is neither. 23 & Me has now minimized, masked, or eliminated data that previously showed individuals as being Ashkenazi Jewish. There is such as thing as Ashkenazi genetics.
Since 23 & Me is owned by the wife of a Left wing Google executive, I suspect that they are doing this to appease their Muslim allies.
See post #44.
Absolutely have to consider those scenarios.
Also must consider what we know about the cretins at Deep State. What might they do with our freely-given DNA.
The genetic geneology part of finding recent ancestors is VERY strong and scientific.
It’s the ethnic part of the DNA that the author disputes.
We all are probably carriers of this very very early chordate discovered in the Burgess Shale
I read the article. It’s fine for what it is. And as you observed, unpolitical.
However, it didn’t really give me any new information and is certainly not a Scientific article in the manner that SA used to publish decades ago.
I seems to be more of a USA Today piece.
Yeah, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. The left are based on identity politics and if it were to come out that most people have ethnic ties, the left’s racist leash would be broken.
I think the ethnicity part of the DNA test is meant to attract people to take the test but is pretty much meaningless. However, if you are trying to break down a brick wall or two in your genealogical research, the DNA test can, and quite often does, play a huge role.
You are right. I'm getting old.
Well, if Orrin Hatch can have T-Rex DNA, I guess it's possible to have whale DNA--they are mammals, after all.
I think they might have a hard time distinguishing Bill Clinton’s DNA from that of a tomcat.
“However, if you are trying to break down a brick wall or two in your genealogical research, the DNA test can, and quite often does, play a huge role.”
That’s exactly why I did it.
My Grandfather’s parents were Swedish, but he was “adopted” by a Welch family in the early 1900’s and we don’t even know his true parents name. So linking up via DNA with someone else who’s had their analysis done is pretty much the only hope we have of making that connection.
Yes, thank you. Your last sentence said it better than me
1/32 or 1/1204. It’s too minuscule to matter or rely on. All it does is make for some interesting conversation
“That’s exactly why I did it.”
My grandmother was adopted in 1889, and we never had any idea who her biological parents were. I had my 96-year-old mother take the ancestry DNA test. It came back with several 2nd cousin matches that led us directly to both my grandmother’s birth mother and the biological father. You have to be prepared for any possibility when you are digging into adoptions. What I found out was terribly interesting, but I know that some people would not. Even my mother wasn’t particularly shocked at what we found out.
Indeed! I just don’t think it is wise to have your DNA floating around.
Indeed! I just don’t think it is wise to have your DNA floating around.
—
A lot of people feel that way. Me? I don’t really care. What are they gonna do with it? Grow another ME?
Scientific American is a popular magazine. Its not a peer-reviewed anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.