Do you agree that DNA tests cannot determine one’s ethnicity but can only estimate it?

[reboun]

People already told him a lot of times but he continues this bs non-stop. I feel that he has nothing to do with Bosniaks and could rather be a Kurdo-armenoid troll.

Is it that easy to label people for being a troll? https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...oll-socklar-hk

And to all members: This thread has nothing to do with me or my origins. 100 years ago, people used to think that a person's ethnicity can be determined via skull metrics. However, this is now considered as pseudoscience. Now, people try to determine ethnicity via DNA test results and 100 later, such action will also be considered as pseudo science. These are my thoughts about DNA test based ethnicity estimations. You can call me crazy for that if you want.

[SouthDutch7991]

No, but think of the fact that people used o try to determine their ethnicity by their skull metrics about 100 years ago and now such action sounds really weird. Today, people are trying to determine their ethnicity by their DNA and 100 years later, such action will also be considered as really weird.

The skull measurements of Blumenbach actually correlate insanely closely with the same groupings we see in DNA, I'm surprised that his work is referred to as "outdated" when it perfectly mapped out which ethnic groups had more or less West Eurasian or East Eurasian despite their relative similarity. His work was no "pseudoscience" and used the exact same techniques every respected taxonomist used, that we now base our species classifications on. It's a baseless insult to him that people only ever use for the sole reason that he advocated for the existence of races, and this is not kosher in the modern world, scientific or otherwise.

[Jana]

Is it that easy to label people for being a troll? https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...oll-socklar-hk

And to all members: This thread has nothing to do with me or my origins. 100 years ago, people used to think that a person's ethnicity can be determined via skull metrics. However, this is now considered as pseudoscience. Now, people try to determine ethnicity via DNA test results and 100 later, such action will also be considered as pseudo science. These are my thoughts about DNA test based ethnicity estimations. You can call me crazy for that if you want.

Not really. Population genetics is exact science, nothing comparable with anthropology.
It can vaguely tell your ethnic origins, but it does not serve to determine ethnicity.

Vast majority of DNA test takers know what is their ethnicity long before testing.

[Petalpusher]

Thank you for the nice explanation. In my opinion it is an estimation rather than a determination. For example a person’s skull metrics are measured and it is close to Spanish average. Naturally we estimate this person to be ethnically Spanish. However they can also be an ethnic Portuguese, Italian, French, Greek or of another ethnicity. This is how I think about ethnicity estimations via DNA results.

I wouldn't say you can tell that from skull measurements if you are from one country or another in Europe, too much variation within a same given population to begin with. Measurements are still used in forensices but to determine the race of the skull, not his country of origin within the same race (sometimes no dna can be retrieved directly or time is of the essence).

For us DNA can do that on the other hand, pretty easily, given that the person has 4 grand parents from the same country, it's close to 100% accuracy with a few tests. It just gets more difficult for mixed ancestries or poorly sampled populations references, also countries or parts of countries that had geneticly very close ethnogenesis.

[Dušan]

Do you agree that DNA tests cannot determine one’s ethnicity but can only estimate it? Answer: Yes.

Do I think that this is at the level of pseudoscience? Answer: No.

It was very good for both you and Oszkar, as half German/English - half Hungarian, to determine your cca 50% within Hungarian cluster, and cca 50% within German/British cluster.

[reboun]

Not really. Population genetics is exact science, nothing comparable with anthropology.
It can vaguely tell your ethnic origins, but it does not serve to determine ethnicity.

Vast majority of DNA test takers know what is their ethnicity long before testing.

I really don't know if physical anthropology is considered as a real science or a pseudoscience 100 years ago. But my intuition says it used to be considered as a real science back then. If this is the case, I do not underestimate the probability of ancestral DNA tests to be seen as a pseudoscience 100 years later.

[Hektor12]

Is it that easy to label people for being a troll? https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...oll-socklar-hk

No, its not. Its hard and you earned it with your hard work of shitposting.

I really don't know if physical anthropology is considered as a real science or a pseudoscience 100 years ago. But my intuition says it used to be considered as a real science back then. If this is the case, I do not underestimate the probability of ancestral DNA tests to be seen as a pseudoscience 100 years later.

Dna tests are reliable. Dna can give you exact parental-ancestral breakdown. In Usa law enforcement use database of testing companies when needed. Calculators are different, they make it easier and cost-effective to non-professionals to see ancestry. Not perfect by any means but theyre as good as they can be and i like them.

[SouthDutch7991]

I really don't know if physical anthropology is considered as a real science or a pseudoscience 100 years ago. But my intuition says it used to be considered as a real science back then. If this is the case, I do not underestimate the probability of ancestral DNA tests to be seen as a pseudoscience 100 years later.

Anthropology/Taxonomy is not a pseudoscience, and never has been. Certain beliefs about it may have been, but it remains a reliable way to classify people on a continental scale and was the only way to classify humans and animals up until very, very recently. You need to stop taking what pop-sci articles say at face value.

Take a look at Blumenbachs racial map based on skull shape:




Then take a look at these sample populations divided according to an algorithmically determined K5 structure, mapped to their origin:





And if you question the validity of K5 as the ideal number, take a look at the "real K" probability calculated from running these samples through Ks 1-10, 10x1000 times each:

[Benyzero]

Is it that easy to label people for being a troll? https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...oll-socklar-hk

And to all members: This thread has nothing to do with me or my origins. 100 years ago, people used to think that a person's ethnicity can be determined via skull metrics. However, this is now considered as pseudoscience. Now, people try to determine ethnicity via DNA test results and 100 later, such action will also be considered as pseudo science. These are my thoughts about DNA test based ethnicity estimations. You can call me crazy for that if you want.

You are a real visionare atatürk nigga.

[Benyzero]

100 years ago noone said that ethnicity can be determined by skull measures, only coon and some weirdos believed that They did a good job tho, phenotypes are interesting, but there is no rule in them, as some like to believe.