You do not carry DNA from each of your ancestors
You do not carry DNA from each of your ancestors
After 32 generations (~800 years) you have more genealogical ancestors than there are base pairs in human DNA. There literally isn’t enough resolution to store a “record” of each of your ancestors, even if you inherited exactly 1 base pair from each ancestor.
Additional complications make it an even shorter timeline. After about 8 generations, you share no more DNA with your ancestors than you do with a random stranger.
Politically this should be more well known. Of course, racists and fascists rely on “blood quantum” arguments to justify racial or ethnic oppression. But they don’t invent this idea of strict genetic identity. It’s latent in the population.
Leftists should more frequently call out genetic tests like 23andMe as inherently racist because it’s based in race science nonsense. It may not be as obvious as Nazis invoking aryan genes or whatever; but it’s still just as incorrect when your aunt at Thanksgiving talks about how she discovered she’s 2% Choctaw or whatever
The keyword is each. You still have DNA from many of them. Plus DNA based ancestry works with key genes. A male has his father's Y chromosome, who has his father's Y chromosome, who has his father's Y chromosome and so on. The same goes for mitochondrial DNA through the maternal line. There are mutations of course, but those actually allow you to paint an (imperfect) timeline and create groupings (haplogroups). Men from Europe have more similar Y chromosomes to each other than to men from elsewhere.
Obviously none of that justifies racial or ethnic oppression nor indicates any significant differences between peoples, but it does allow for those trivial (as in, interesting bits of information that aren't all too useful otherwise) but imperfect groupings.
I don't know how the exact percentages are determined and I'm sure there is something closer to race science bullshit in there, but it's mixed with actual science. It's pretty simple to see for example that my mitochondrial DNA aligns more with people from Iberia while my Y chromosome is much more like men from England. Thus I am half Portuguese half English(-descended American). But it means absolutely nothing other indicating who my parents are. That of course tells you nothing about my intellectual or physical abilities or any predispositions despite what fascists claim.
I don't know how the exact percentages are determined
That's where most population genetics scientists get angry at 23andme, not necesarily because their statistical methods for genetic admixture are wrong but how average people will (expectedly) misunderstand the results. Let alone how they then will act with the new premise of
"I'm part moroccan, part finnish, part italian, part aztec and part korean"This is correct. I think part of the issue comes from assuming that because a few genes can be tracked as population markets means there is more variability between people of different backgrounds than people of the same background - when in reality having the same background only accounts for 15 percent of genetic difference, with the rest being individual variability.
Well said. Genetic information comes from many sources of descent and can be used to pinpoint lineage. Plus there's even talk of epigentic profiles being inherited (at least parent-child), which could be an extra coordinate.
Aren't all inhabitants of the British isles descended from Mil king of Galicia? So there is a better than 50/50 chance your y chromosome would also look Iberian.
Don't discount inbreeding tho. Not just cousins or whatever, but villages and groups of villages. Peoplehave gotten increasingly mobile over time of course but the reason there are groups of folks that look a bit different from one another is that we split off for a little while and became semi-isolated.
PS this isn't race theory, just genetics and a recognition of human variation. We are all modern humans and overall the same, our differences are very minor. One example would be lactose tolerance (which is the less common thing for humans to have than lactose intolerance) which has popped up a few times in human genetic history but did not spread out over the whole population in a couple thousand years.
need to upgrade to 64-bit DNA i guess.
DNAv6 when
Just you wait until some wacko invents homeopathic genetics to refute this. The blood has memory!
This is Abstergo erasure
Frozen 3: Blood Memory
interestingly, only the racist parts of my family used 23andMe. I know now against my will that I am 13,1569% "South Balkan" and 0.1456% Italian
"Genetic immortality" is a massive
from breeder fetishists for this and many other reasons, another one of which is that the offspring of such narcissists owe fucking nothing especially to people they may never meet as time goes on.Actually I carry their dna in my wallet
Oh yeah? Explain that to the heirloom jar of “dna” (similar to a sourdough starter) passed down to me that I literally carry everywhere
Assassin's Creed btfo
racists and fascists rely on “blood quantum” arguments
I have no idea what that is and I am too afraid to ask.
In North America, a certain percentage of your ethnicity must be Native American in order to qualify for recognition by the government to receive tribal benefits. I think it's a minimum of 1/12th. in the US (not 100% positive on the exact number). This is called the "blood quantum."
If you don't meet the minimum, regardless of how or where you were raised, or what you look like, or what languages you speak, you are automatically disqualified from stuff like scholarships, reparations, and official membership to a federally recognized tribe. This was put in place in the early 1900s by white people with no discussion about how Native Americans establish heritage or tribal membership.
A lot of racism in the US still lingers around this concept where a person is or isn't part of an ethnicity based on their blood quantum, rather than their lived experiences. Someone who is 1/4th. black, for example, may have their concerns dismissed because "they're not really black." That is until it becomes convenient for the racist to go by the "one drop rule," which is when a person has any non-white heritage, they are no longer considered white (even if it's something like 1/100th. black).
I think it's a minimum of 1/12th.
Depends on the tribe/nation, which is the insidious part of blood quantum. It's a genocidal tool developed by settlers but implemented and enforced by comprador governments themselves.
Someone who is 1/4th. black, for example, may have their concerns dismissed because "they're not really black." That is until it becomes convenient for the racist to go by the "one drop rule," which is when a person has any non-white heritage, they are no longer considered white (even if it's something like 1/100th. black)
Yea and the thing is, by 1/4 and 1/100 here, the implied meaning is genealogy ie one’s family tree, which from the posted video is absolutely different from one’s genetics.
From each grandparent, a child receives anywhere between zero and 1/2 of their genes. The only constraint is that the sum of contributions from both grandparents (on one side) is 1/2. That means it is possible to have almost no actual genetic relation with grandma, while bearing a striking similarity to grandpa due to his genes contributing 50% of the child’s DNA.
Blood quantum is on-its-face wrong. We don’t receive 1/4 of each grandparent’s DNA. That is only an average. And of course this doesn’t address the glaring issue of identifying race with genetics.
excuse me but what about mitochondrial dna
Not an expert but
In the first place, mitochondrial dna are shared among many people, for the basic fact that it is passed matrilineally. This allows us to prove the existence of the so-called Mitochondrial Eve, to whom all humans alive today are related.
Second, the mitochondrial dna encodes basically the production of ATP. Not genes that would be used to express any apparent difference between people.
Third, the number of base pairs in mitochondrial dna is very small, tens of thousands, compared to the 3.1 billion base pairs in nuclear dna.
Really highlights just how ass-backwards Richard Dawkins is when he suggests DNA is the begging and the end, the only thing that actually matters
Dawkins is a piece of shit for a number of reasons, but where did he ever say anything like that?
Most people wouldn't consider 800 years to be their ancestry. 3 generations is the typical.
800 years is just the hard cap, the theoretical maximum. In reality, not all 3 billion base pairs are relevant to distinguishing humans from each other. Much of the genome is just basic biology shit, which is why the human genome overlaps 70% with bananas, 96% with chimpanzees, etc.
This 800-year rule also ignores the fact that there were not 4 billion people on earth in 1250 AD. There is a lot of… ahem… crossover within our lineage.
The point is that the way many people think about identity is rooted in a wrong understanding of genetics. The whole point of these genetic tests is to discover a supposed “true” identity that is ostensibly encoded in one’s DNA. Closely related with this belief is a strictly biological view of race and ethnicity.
that's totally false. people feel all kinds of ways about things done hundreds, even thousands of years ago.
lots of people will tell you about their "line" being "traced" back to such n such. most prominently all royalty everywhere but lots of normal people have stories.
this feels pretty culturally disconnected/nuclear-family-brained tbh
I mean, same, but I wouldn't want to project that onto others. Feels like conflating these new age physiognomy peddlers' bullshit with actual connection to place and people
An incredible bait post for revealing lurking phrenologists.
I doubt you could find another human on the planet with whom you are more distantly related than 32 generations.
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
