View Single Post
  #47  
Old 04 February 2019, 07:57 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,788
Default

There's no such "ground truth" for any of those gene sets. They would have to get a large sample of high confidence data. In the case of indigenous groups, there are several problems, not least of which there has been some mixing on that side as well. In the case of groups like "French" as opposed to "various Mediterranean" for example, what would be the slice of time in history or prehistory that they even mean? How likely would it be, for example, to be from northern Great Britain (or anywhere else in Northern Europe for that matter) without having any Scandinavian at all? Given the history of those groups, it would be at least rather uncommon. So the stats are a bit nonsensical. All it means is that certain markers they have identified in current populations also exist in the donors, which really means nothing of great interest because they don't even necessarily correspond well to the prevalence of those genes at any other time or place in history. It's a bit better than a palm reading but, IMO, not much.

This is a bit like when they say "what's the most __ " in every state/country and they have a map and they're all unique. Well, it turns out that they had to do a bit of a trick on the way they figured out "most" - when you look at the fine print. But most of these companies don't actually give you the fine print. It's just, trust us, we're DNA experts.
Reply With Quote