If Race Doesn't Exist Why Are Their DNA Tests That Can Tell the Perecentage of Your Ethnicity?

Question

race is man-made thing right? i have read that there is no such thing as race to be found in DNA

but then i have seen and heard about those DNA tests u can get to determine what ethnicities you are made up of...

the results look something like this...

80% ecuadorian

10% chinese

5% african

5% white

so...What the @#$^? this is soo confusing EXPLAIN

* also what is the name of those ''ethnicity tests'' ?

i want to know more about it

Answer 1

Wow I have read a lot of interesting ideas as answers to this question. Only one person somewhat brought up the idea that race and ethnicity are not the same, which is essential and you also brought up nationality within your answer, which is something completely different as well. I would suggest taking a course on anthropology or maybe reading some biological anthropology books that can better answer your question, from my training it is completely understood that race is not biological by any means. Let me repeat. Race is not biological by any means, to say so would be preposterous. If this were to be true, how would you classify the indigenous groups in Australia. How would you classify groups in Brazil? We share so much of the same DNA that it is would be insane to make the claim that we are so inherently different, even with cases such as sickle cell anemia, it was only prevalent in societies that had high incidents of malaria yes, but sickle cell anemia is found in many countries outside of Africa such as those found within the Mediterranean. It is also a known fact that penguins have more genetic variation between them then we do as humans. But if you are curious then maybe you could look online you could find some test that will be able to tell you where you may have a common shared genotype with other people within a certain geographic location.

Answer 2

because ethnicity exists?

Answer 3

It doesn't exist for the politically correct people, who are afraid to get lawsuits...

Answer 4

It's not really saying that you have Ecuadorian DNA and Chinese DNA, etc.  What these tests do is look for specific mutations that they relate back to a database they've created by analyzing the DNA of people from all over the world.  Based on these mutations, the testers take a look at other populations with the same mutation.  

Let's say you have mutations A, B, and C in your DNA.  Mutations A and B are found only in South Americans, a lot in Ecuador, and C is found exclusively in Taiwan.  The test may say something along the lines that you are 66% Ecuadorian and 33% Taiwanese.  

So, basically, it's not that there are specific ethnic DNAs, but that the mutations are passed down among certain populations that can sometimes be traced.

Answer 5

I've only heard of DNA being broken down into haplogroups, which isn't the same thing as race by any means.  And I think it's accepted that everyone alive today is a cousin, although some more distant than others, of everyone else living.  This fact seems to indicate that the concept of race isn't a biological distinction.

Answer 6

The races exist. Just some weak minded fools calling themselves political corrected politicians still close their eyes for that fact.

Answer 7

Race does exist, however only as a social construct (i.e. in our minds). The idea of race probably did not emerge until the late 1600's. Unfortunately, you are confusing race and ethnicity, a common mistake. I suggest you pick up a copy of Principles of Human Evolution by Lewin and Foley which is written for students :)

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Human-E...

You can also read about The Geographic Project here. It is the largest attempt by population geneticists to collect and identify mitochondrial DNA.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/geno...

This website has a good, clear explanation of race and a glossary of related terms.

http://www.understandingrace.org/home.ht...

Answer 8

Don't get me started.

You can get a racial breakdown of your DNA from DNAwitness.

http://www.dnawitness.net/

4% of the 'human only' DNA divides us into racial groups. We are actually 99.7 the same, not  99.9% (the old figure), and we share 98.6% of outr DNA with Bonobos, and 95% with dogs. 0.4 % of the total DNA of a species is enough to define a whole new species (cichlid fishes).

The majority of forensic anthropologists support race, as do biology PHD's. It's cultural anthropologists that made the statement against it. Someone surveyed these PHD's in the nineties, and 'race is real' won.

"by George W. Gill

Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the “racial lens.”

Are there differences in the research concentrations of these two groups of experts? Yes, most decidedly there are. As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races, and yet those who work with blood-group data, for instance, tend to reject the biological reality of racial categories." Ctd on link

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpre...

"We review the history of the race concept and report the current status of the concept in textbooks and among professors. Responses to surveys of faculty at Ph.D.-granting departments indicate that 67% of biologists accept the concept of biological races in the species Homo sapiens, while only 50% of physical anthropologists do so." Ctd

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JRScT....

The 'race is a social construct' apparent consensus is a media construct. When surveyed they don't hold that view as a group, it's the viewpoint the media tell people they hold. Not the same thing.

Answer 9

If you mean skin color, that is encoded in DNA.  However, I believe what they are saying when race isn't part of DNA is that humans of any color can mix and procreate a child.

You as a human cannot procreate with a dog, or a cat, or a hippo, or any other animal.

But if you are white, you can procreate with a black person and make a kid.

There are also "tendencies" in races that may help.  For example, sickle-cell anemia tends to be more prevalent among black people than other races.  But that is because in  Africa, malaria was a big problem; as opposed to Europe or pre-United States Americas, or Asia, etc.  The Malaria virus has trouble attaching itself to red blood cells that have the sickle shape.  So anyone with sickle-cell anemia has a very good chance of never getting malaria.

Because of that, the sickle cell gene formed in and remains prevalent among black people who originated in Africa.  So if a person has the sickle-cell gene, its probable that he has African in his background.

There are various tendencies in each race, based mostly on situations and circumstances from their original homelands that are now mixing into other races because the races are coming into contact.  When only black people were in Africa, they were the only ones to adapt to malaria.  But now white people have moved there, and the anti-malaria sickle cell gene is starting to be found in white people as well.

So by finding certain genes that deal with those situations, you can infer some of their racial background with their genetics.  

But DNA molecules are built the same way and with the same amount of genes in each race.  Some animals have more genes, some less than humans.  But none have the same DNA structure and so we cannot procreate with animals.  But black people and white people and all other human races can mix, because they have the same number of genes and set up in the exact same way.

Answer 10

This is a stupid question.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Wherever you learned that there are no races you need to ask that source your ignoramous question.

Answer 11

Ethnicity --that's the key. It's possible to pinpoint what specific group various ancestors came from.

But when you try to bung those groups into larger "racial" groups, the concept falls apart. There's no consistent, coherent way to divide the species into a few races.

When people mostly lived in relatively isolated groups, it's easy to make genetic distinctions. As we mix and move around more and more, it's going to get harder to do the sort of testing you're talking about.

Most people through most of history pretty much stayed put, and died near where they were born, living their lives within relatively small groups. Hence, the genetic markers specific to various groups.

Answer 12

Um, those DNA tests are man-made too, and they are made to fit how the idea of race works. Certain genes are concentrated in certain populations, and your particular mix reflects your ancestry. Either you have a Chinese member on your family tree somewhere back there, or you happen to carry some genetic markers that also happen to be common in Chinese people.

It's like how the pharmaceutical industry might introduce a new disease and a new drug that cures it at the same time. "Well, if twitching eyebrow syndrome isn't a real condition, why are they selling medicine for it?" Like that, get it?

Answer 13

They are proof of how stupid and Racist are the normal Paleontologists.

Answer 14

Really good point!  If ethnicity can be detected then surely there are different races to some degree but could DNA detect difference between say a Palestinian and someone Jewish?