Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Identical Twins Test 5 DNA Ancestry Kits, Get Different Results On Each (www.cbc.ca)

Posted by BeauHD on from the junk-science dept.

Freshly Exhumed writes: Uh-oh, something is not right with the results of most popular DNA ancestry kits, as a pair of identical twins have found. Charlsie Agro and her twin sister, Carly, bought home kits from AncestryDNA, MyHeritage, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA, and mailed samples of their DNA to each company for analysis. Despite having virtually identical DNA, the twins did not receive matching results from any of the companies. "The fact that they present different results for you and your sister, I find very mystifying," said Dr. Mark Gerstein, a computational biologist at Yale University. Gerstein's team analyzed the results, and he asserts that any results the Agro twins received from the same DNA testing company should have been identical. The raw data collected from both sisters' DNA is nearly exactly the same. "It's shockingly similar," he said.

258 comments

  1. See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Now stop stealing my clothes and trying to trick my girlfriend, asshole!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that. The results didn't even match when both sets of results were from THE SAME company. Of course, you'd have to read TFA to realize that ...

    2. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Shockingly Similar. Not only that, but they share 99% DNA with a fucking frog? What are the chances?

    3. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is bold from you to assume that I didnt read the TFA. Of course I did. Have I not mentioned different sampling of sequences of DNA? I have. The applied method of sampling is only focused on 700k out of the 3.5mill available. And not the EXACT same 700k from DNA samples either. So with this mathematically corrupted method of cutting and analizing it is only reasonable to predict that even twins DNA will yield variable results.

    4. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since you forgot to drop any citations:
      "western clawed frog, Xenopus tropicalis, has now been analysed by an international consortium of scientists from 24 institutions, and joins a list of sequenced model organisms including the mouse, zebrafish, nematode and fruit fly. What's most surprising, researchers say, is how closely the amphibian's genome resembles that of the mouse and the human, with large swathes of frog DNA on several chromosomes having genes arranged in the same order as in these mammals. The results of the analysis are published in Science this week1.

      "There are megabases of sequence where gene order has changed very little since the last common ancestor" of amphibians, birds and mammals about 360 million years ago, says bioinformaticist Uffe Hellsten at the US Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, California, a co-author on the study.

      That close genomic relationship doesn't hold true for all vertebrates, he notes. The zebrafish genome, for example, shows a much different gene order."
      Biologically we are all one big happy family : LIFE. Much of LIFE works very much the same way, be it cells, mitochondria, lung tissue or heart, muscle and bones, eating anf secretion, so no it really isnt that surprising to share DNA with other forms of LIFE as a whole.

    5. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, that's not how genetic testing is performed by these companies. There are anywhere from 10k-250k single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are tested by these direct-to-consumer ancestry and health products. The exact number depends on how many the genetics company decides to test, and for our purposes, not relevant anyway, except to say that it is several thousands. Testing these SNPs is not done randomly, they are targeted to specific genomic locations. To test that many SNPs from a single customer, the tests are performed on chips called microarrays, and these are mass produced so that every customer is tested on the same set of SNPs. (Some info on the chips and SNPs reportedly used by some of these companies can be found here: https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Testing )

      So it may not be surprising that genetic tests between companies yield different results, but they should yield nearly identical results for identical twins when tested by the same company, directly because identical twins share >99% of the same DNA sequence.

    6. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "It is bold from you to assume that I didnt read the TFA. Of course I did. "

      You must be new here. The DNA of Slashdot readers prevents us from reading TFA.

    7. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "You must be new here. The DNA of Slashdot readers prevents us from reading TFA."

      This is also valid for my identical twin.

    8. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frog - obviously they are French Canadian

    9. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... directly because identical twins share >99% of the same DNA sequence.

      They share 100% -- that's why they're identical. "Identical" is not a metaphor.
      You don't need to buffer your statement by saying ">99%."

      These places use demographic averaging and rarely actually perform a DNA study.
      Wanna completely mess them up? Use a name like A B where "A" is your first name
      and "B" is you last name. For the return address, use General Delivery in a large city.
      Come on, can people really be that gullible? If you have a Polish last name, (they'll say)
      you're going to have Polish DNA -- that's how these places work.

      CAP === 'retrofit'

    10. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say they matched pretty well within the same company. A few percentage points her and there look to me like a reflection of the internal noise on the measurement.

    11. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      No they do not. You need to do some studying.

    12. Re:See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Now stop stealing my clothes and trying to trick my girlfriend, asshole!

      Good use of commas there.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But I assume they sent both to the same site?
      Else this wouldn't add something you couldn't do without using twins.

      As a Swede of the older kind I wouldn't expect much of a surprise doing this. I don't then to have the DNA though.

    14. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean reptilian DNA?

    15. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no knowledge of any of this stuff. But calling someone "wrong" without clarification is rude and not helpful. By all means educate us, but not like this.

    16. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      "It is bold from you to assume that I didnt read the TFA. Of course I did. "

      You must be new here. The DNA of Slashdot readers prevents us from reading TFA.

      Wait- there's an article?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    17. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course, you'd have to read TFA to realize that ...

      He read an identical copy of the article but it gave him different results.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is people don't know what they're doing.

      Those %'s ? are meaningless. Two samples, one from different people who happen to be twins, should be 99.5% identical, however that doesn't mean that the chips used can read the DNA flawlessly.

      Like to give you an example. My DNA has 0.1% Japanese in it according to 23andMe. Neither of my parents, or my grandparents have this mystery 0.1% Japanese DNA. Likewise my Grandma has a 0.1% mystery Jewish DNA, it doesn't show up in my Mom's test.

      That's the thing about understanding how to interpet DNA tests, at best these ancestry systems are making a guess based on a perpetually changing data set. At worst, the precision of these data sets are affected by lack of interest by non-Europeans. Like my Dad, who is of Russian Descent, before a recent update to 23andMe, was categorically "Eastern European", no precision to that at all. Then in a recent update Polish and Armenian showed up as sub-categories under confidence, but still "Eastern European"

      Where as my mom shows a definite split between her mom and dad's DNA, her mom should be 100% Italian, yet it suggests otherwise.

      Which is to say, if you don't know how borders changed since the 1700's the DNA test might actually be right, or it would be wrong since we're talking about countries who's borders have been in flux. We've had the Russian Empire fall, the Turkish Empire fall, and the USSR (successor to the Russian Empire) also fell recently. We've had the UK stop taking over countries and has been divesting itself of overseas properties.

    19. Re:See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Scanning for reply by elrous1...

    20. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that. The results didn't even match when both sets of results were from THE SAME company. Of course, you'd have to read TFA to realize that ...

      Apparently author of article is mathematical idiot, who doesn't understand how % works and how rounding of % works to nearest whole number. Results ARE IDENTICAL. There is no story - there is simply no knowledge on issue how things work in general and to them science is like jibberish of magicians.

      What some of those companies are giving out is composed mostly(or only) of statistics of people, who live in different countries and who applied for DNA kit.

      The million dollar question is were those DNA kits submitted at the same time?
      The billion dollar question is were those DNA kits processed at the same time?

      Because, if that is not the case, there won't be exact match even to the same person, as in the meantime MANY THINGS CHANGE- INFORMATION is one of them and it is changing rapidly, because databases are not finite and are in process of building up.

    21. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS. DNA testing companies are not giving out information about your SNIPs - as they are too many(even though, I 'd wish they printed out whole information to customers and let them awe) - they are only giving out categories of groups and those can change over time.

    22. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Depends on what they define as "100% Italian". Having many generations born and bred in Italy does not mean 100% Italian.

    23. Re: See, I told you we were different, Aaron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did this very thing, and my ancestry results came back as I expected, based on the oral and documented history of my family. The name I used gave no indication of my ancestry.

  2. But Are They Real Twins? by mentil · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly, one of them was switched at birth. With their triplet.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:But Are They Real Twins? by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Clearly not. The Yale biologist analysed them and found their DNA to be 99.6% the same. This places them somewhere on the scale between human-human (99.9% the same) and human-chimpanzee (98.8% the same). If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that one of the twins is a neanderthal.

    2. Re:But Are They Real Twins? by kinko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      99.8% between humans and chimpanzees refers to the entire genome (~3 billion base pairs).

      23 And Me and related companies only look at about 3 million positions - the positions that are often different between different human populations/races (these are known as Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms).

    3. Re:But Are They Real Twins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You deserve a whoosh for missing an obvious joke.

    4. Re: But Are They Real Twins? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      If I understood it correctly 23andme likened the whole genome as a pair of 110 folders with 5000 pages of double sided printed text of data whereas the stuff the anchestery part used was 90 pages in all or as I think they put it 0.02%. Then again lots of data are likely the same. Then again I don't know how much is the same for all rather than within variations for humans. The people who claim there are no scientific human races seem to claim that's the case because the variations between people of the same "race" are almost as large as between them / larger difference between people than between races.

    5. Re:But Are They Real Twins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow one of them is President, but which one?

  3. The beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other was picked up by NCIS. the software was originally used on the TV show; the twin wanted to be like his idol on the show, M. Harmon.

  4. What if the same person submitted DNA twice by aberglas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should be identical. Will not be due to normal error. Or may not be even close due to incompetence.

    1. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by mentil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just curious, is it possible that people are normally chimeras to some degree? It may not be 'error' so much as 'unexpected true result'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, women are all chimeras, but each cell should be the same as every other except for which X chromosomes are switched off, which appears random and is where the chimera comes from. And why all three color cats are female. https://www.google.com/search?...

      It *is* true that blood tests of women who have been pregnant can pick up small amounts of the DNA of the fetus...but that's *SMALL* amounts. And that's blood tests, where the last time I read these tests used either spit or a biopsy from inside the cheek. (That was awhile ago, however, so check before you believe.)

      There's also a small amount of expected mutation during development, so identical twins aren't really exactly the same. Somewhat well over 99% however.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they should not be identical. These are probabilistic results and there are error bars. They should be close - and they were.

    4. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Measuring DNA results is always an exercise in statistical analysis. Mitosis does not produce exact copies. Every cell division has changes from its "parent" cell. When labs test your DNA, they rely on a large sample size, and calculate averages. Your results at a specific location might be 65% AA and 35% TT. They are going to show a result of AA in this case.

      DNA results ARE meaningful, but it is necessary to understand what the results, and the algorithms, actually mean before making conclusions from them.

      I've been tested by 3 labs; several hundred (of 700,000+) of my results differed between the three labs. When this happens, we geneticists throw out the mismatches as errors. I've never seen this change any results in a meaningful way.

    5. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by arth1 · · Score: 1

      This seems like it can be mitigated quite substantially by running three tests on each submitted sample. Of course, that would increase the costs.

    6. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 4, Informative

      The raw results are not in question. The story itself says that the raw data was nearly identical, as one would expect. It is only the extrapolation of that data to infer ethic lineage that didn't line up so well.

    7. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upvote this please. Herein lies the truth.

    8. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      They aren't so incompetent as to not cache their fake results. The errors are added by name to facilitate creating strife between family members, most of the matching is too for that matter.

    9. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We geneticists?

      So you are just here posting some lame ass bulkshit to cover up your fake pseudo science bullshit?

      These companies tell people how sciency it all is until they get busted then suddenly it is an art. What a load of crap.

      And of course none of them even pretend to adhere to hippa so you just gave your personal genetic code to some Silicon Valley startup scumbags who will package and sell you to your insurance company or hiss faster than you can say Google Is Ficking Evil!

    10. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The raw results are not in question. The story itself says that the raw data was nearly identical, as one would expect. It is only the extrapolation of that data to infer ethic lineage that didn't line up so well.

      And that's the important point - the interpretation can differ. Yet if you look at all the ads, they imply an exact location. Spit in the tube and you'll find which neighbourhood your ancestors grew up in.

      Of course, your results are basically guesses by the site - if you ask it for your real location, the best it can give is your continent. If you want what you see in the ad, you get a guess.

    11. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are apparently human chimeras who merged with fraternal twins in the womb to form one infant. One of the more bizarre but verified cases was Lydia Fairchild, who was found not to be genetically related to her children. The DNA of her cervical smear differed from that measured in other parts of her body, which helped establish her parentage of her own children.

    12. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by complete+loony · · Score: 2

      The people of reddit have been posting all kinds of 23&me related stories from doing tests over Christmas. While some stories were from parents coming clean about the skeletons in their closets, others may have been spurious results like this. I've always been skeptical of their methods and the validity of the results they have obtained.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    13. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      There are apparently human chimeras who merged with fraternal twins in the womb to form one infant. One of the more bizarre but verified cases was Lydia Fairchild, who was found not to be genetically related to her children. The DNA of her cervical smear differed from that measured in other parts of her body, which helped establish her parentage of her own children.

      A lot of men are finding out that they are not related to their children. DIY paternity testing kits are very popular. Although in France they are banned, and you can get a year in prison and 15000 Euro fine if you attempt it. How short sighted, the woman and her children need that money. Germany is working on that as well.

      I guess this is giving official government sanction and approval to cuckholding. In any event, that woman you spoke of need not worry, as parentage is officially unrelated to who mated with who in the EU. Koo Koo Ka Joo.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Twins aren't "identical".
      If you ever had seen two, you knew that.

      One is born bigger, one got a bit more of hormone X while in the womb, etc. p.p.

      Every human on the planet is far over 99% genetically identical to every other human ... perhaps you missed that fact in school.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Genetically identical individuals can have different expression of that genome based on environment. That doesn't make them any less genetically identical.

      If you ever looked at a biology book, you'd know that.

    16. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Actually I do know that.
      And, asshole: that is not written in biology books. You learn that either in university or by self studying.
      And again asshole: that was not the topic of the discussion, the topic was how identically twins actually are and not how their more or less identically genes are expressed (or how should the testing facility know from a simple sample how the genes are expressed?)
      Try harder next time.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by jd · · Score: 1

      I have submitted my data twice to FamilyTreeDNA and once to 23&Me. Absolutely identical results,as you'd expect. I then submitted (with permission) a fairly close relative on the same paternal line. The results differed to the degree one would expect and nothing more.

      However, I only tested autosomal (notoriously problematic) for 23&Me. Near relatives show up on the list at the same distance my family tree shows them at, but that's only a crude measure. That only tells me they got things mostly right.

      Note that this was before the point popularity of such tests exploded.

      This raises some very interesting questions.

      The examination of the results suggests lab procedures are mostly correct, with only a small amount of contamination. Expected from autosomal, spit samples are seriously bad.

      Don't expect procedures to stay good, as demand goes up, they'll downgrade quality. A proper analysis takes 3 days using Illumina gear (seriously cool brochures, with a seriously evil price tag on the hardware or I'd buy one) but you can do quick and dirty in an hour. Why use the hires setting when you can deal with 72x as many customers and nobody really cares?

      The main fault for now seems to be in interpretation and analysis, which everyone agrees is horrible right now. I know of nobody who speaks good of any of the analysis software. I've had a look at BLAST (open source) and a few other toolkit, and I have absolute faith that the software works. Eventually. Most of the time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poster did not read the artucle, mistakenly reacted to title. The results of https://www.cbc.ca/.../dna-ancestry-kits-twins... look identical when form the same company, up to a miniascule margin of error, the difference is in interpretation of the DNA "origin" from different companies.

    19. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by jd · · Score: 1

      It's now accepted that most people not born as twins are chimera and that identical twins are not absolutely genetically identical.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    20. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your meds, asshole

    21. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That escalated quickly.

    22. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well (I didn't read the article either), another poster said that they returned the raw data on sequence, an the difference was in the interpretation. But my comment remains correct. Less relevant to the article than to the post I was replying to, however. And, as someone else reported, non-standard chimeras can be created when something goes wrong during development. His example was a case of fraternal twins that merged into one body, but that's not the only possibility. E.g., maternal cells can be incorporated into the fetus. And, I suppose, externally fertilized eggs could become chimeras before implantation through sloppy lab techniques.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paternity test are illegal in France? Coo coo ka choo I'm indeed.

    24. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Paternity test are illegal in France? Coo coo ka choo I'm indeed.

      https://www.avoiceformen.com/m...

      Weirdest damn thing I ever saw. Apparently women are allowed to rut with whoever they feel like and their husbands must submit. Institutionalized approval of female infidelity.

      French Psychologists have determined that paternity is not related to biology, but society. Sorry Psychologists that's so wrong as to demand a total breakdown of society.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know, the same applies to much of Europe, since that's the way Napoleon's Civil Code worked and he conquered much of Europe.

      The point is that your father is the person that raised you, not the person who provided your genes.

    26. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, the same applies to much of Europe, since that's the way Napoleon's Civil Code worked and he conquered much of Europe.

      The point is that your father is the person that raised you, not the person who provided your genes.

      Is their any point to your wife going out and fucking some guy she met once, getting pregnant, and morally right and just that you have to pay for her infidelity?

      State sanctioned and approved women's right to have children with anyone they feel like while married. If you think that's moral, it explains so much about Europe.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    27. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paternity test are illegal in France? Coo coo ka choo I'm indeed.

      https://www.avoiceformen.com/m...

      Weirdest damn thing I ever saw. Apparently women are allowed to rut with whoever they feel like and their husbands must submit. Institutionalized approval of female infidelity.

      French Psychologists have determined that paternity is not related to biology, but society. Sorry Psychologists that's so wrong as to demand a total breakdown of society.

      Good job France, creating a situation where the man might lose less if he just kills his wife than trying to divorce her and/or paying child support for some bastard for 18 years.

    28. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that French law protects his infidelities also. The state marriage is an economic contract, not necessarily a mating contract. The religious marriage is separate and may have sexual requirements.

    29. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Correct. What the ethnicity predictions really say is that "you are statistically genetically similar to people who are known to be from region X or Y." They cannot tell where your ancestors actually came from.

    30. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by kriston · · Score: 1

      Mitosis does not produce exact copies

      I only had some college electives on genetics and biology and even I remember this decades later. Everything about genetics is about statistics.

      Of *course* DNS samples from two living twins are not identical anymore.

      --

      Kriston

    31. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to an evolutionary biologist. I already put in the earplugs so the laughter won't deafen me. Wherever they are.

    32. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Mutations are not part of it, at the sites being sequenced. If mutations could have played a significant part in it, the whole thing would have made a little sense.

      At this level scientists are looking at shuffling of the same genetic cards that were the same for many years, not the markings on them left by professional hasslers.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    33. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I'm from the USA and my insurance contract states that marriage for economic reasons and not "romantic" reasons is classified as insurance fraud. I guess quite a few people were getting married just because insurance is so expensive and the insurance company doesn't want to cover those "fraudsters". And it's not a bad company, it's a really good company. Low rates, lots of coverage, non-profit. They only work in my state and are located in my state, and they even will cover your "significant other", even if same sex and our state does not recognize same sex, regardless if your married or not. But you'd better not commit insurance fraud by marring for economic reasons.

    34. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I simply wanted you to spare the "wind magic" and "control wind" or "germany controls wind" bullshit.
      Seems it worked.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    35. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Mutations are precisely what the DNA tests look for. In fact, the specific locations that are read and reported by the DNA tests are ones that are known to mutate "slowly" (typically, once every few generations). Each location has a known mutation rate (with a random factor, of course), and this rate plays into the weight it is given when comparing two test results.

      The comparing of two test results is highly accurate, with an error rate of only a few hundred locations (SNPs) per million. Thus determining whether two kits belong to people who are closely related is very accurate, because this requires long stretches of the DNA to match. Distant relatives (beyond 5th cousin or so) are harder to determine, because statistically, there is a higher chance of "false matches" for very short segments.

      Determining ethnicity is similar to comparing kits of distantly related people. If the test says you are "Western European" that means that your DNA is similar to that of people who are known to be Western European. But there is a high margin for error, which is why these tests sometimes incorrectly identify ethnicity.

    36. Re:What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I suppose you being an utter idiot in field of energy generation isn't enough for you, and you wanted to show that you're an utter idiot in field of biology as well.

      Congratulations. You sure succeeded in pre-empting me pointing that obvious point out. I obviously don't need to call you an idiot if you do that yourself. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. I applaud your zeal, if not your sanity.

    37. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      DNA tests look for alleles. You are getting closer in:

      > typically, once every few generations

      Except that it's not few generations, but hundreds of generations. That's why the genetic tracing back to history is possible. They do not detect mutations, they rely on exactly the opposite: stability of genome in alleles.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    38. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Definition of allele: "any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation." (emphasis mine) https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

      If DNA testing relied on alleles that mutated only once every several hundred generations, they would be useless in estimating whether you are related to your first cousin or grandfather, because with recombination rates that slow, you would match pretty much everybody. DNA tests can tell the difference between a sibling and a cousin (with some margin of error--it's all probabilities); this is possible only because they look for changes that occurred within a few generations.

      For ethnicity reports, essentially these tests simply report that you have results that are statistically similar to those with a known ethnicity.

    39. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's attitudes like that that keep your wife from telling you about me. How bad a husband are you if your wife cheats on you? How terrible a judge of human character are you that you would marry someone who would do that?

      It's like manager class complaining about their workforce or unions. Who the hell do they think hired the workers or signed the contract with the union?

    40. Re: What if the same person submitted DNA twice by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >If DNA testing relied on alleles that mutated only once every several hundred generations, they would be useless in estimating whether you are related to your first cousin or grandfather, because with recombination rates that slow, you would match pretty much everybody

      That's not the kind of testing we are talking about. We are talking about tests that relates us to different ethnic groups, races.

      >DNA tests can tell the difference between a sibling and a cousin (with some margin of error--it's all probabilities); this is possible only because they look for changes that occurred within a few generations.

      Not the changes, combinations of alleles.

      I am not sure we are advancing anywhere in this conversation.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  5. These things are scams. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no regional information in your DNA!

  6. It becomes VERY obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From "results" like these it becomes very obvious that "DNA testing" is snake oil and a big money-grabbing scam. They take a little real science, mix it up with a ton of marketing, and boom - there ya go!

    1. Re:It becomes VERY obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. No no no. No way. A scam? Consumer DNA testing is a scam?

    2. Re:It becomes VERY obvious by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, same company assigned very similar results to both twins. Non-identical results because of error margin in testing methodology, but similar enough for error to be negligible.

      The problem is more about differential between companies, who clearly define "where you came from" in a very arbitrary fashion, making results highly questionable at best, and utterly worthless at worst.

  7. The true difficulty with these DNA services... by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    is making the random numbers come out the same when they detect twins submitting dna.

    1. Re:The true difficulty with these DNA services... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      If they are making stuff up, how would they "detect" twins, exactly? You have no idea what you are talking about.

    2. Re:The true difficulty with these DNA services... by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

      It's called humor. Perhaps you have heard of it?

    3. Re:The true difficulty with these DNA services... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same date of birth and same maiden name would cover most of the cases. Also, humor.

    4. Re:The true difficulty with these DNA services... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not obviously

  8. Mail-man Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also known as the USPS express delivery. In the industry, they call it DNA-dump or Genome-Letter-Deposit.

    1. Re: Mail-man Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I thought scenarios involving siblings with mismatched DNA was called the Milk-man Paradox. :)

    2. Re: Mail-man Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual term is NPE. Not Parent Expected.

  9. Re:The answer is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fucking idiot.

  10. Helped the case more than it hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at the numbers, they are pretty similar overall. Not less than one percent, like the original DNA, but not flagrantly of either. I was more skeptical of DNA ancestry before reading the article, anyway.

  11. You get the same effect from one person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send one person to different companies, you get different results. Send one person to different companies at different times, you get different results.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/magazine/dna-test-black-family.html

    I think they just don't have statistical significance on the ancestry data yet.

    1. Re:You get the same effect from one person by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That and the fact that there's an error margin within the test itself. If I remember correctly, replication of the sample for testing in the less rigorous (read: cheaper) methods is imperfect, leading to small variations.

  12. "Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're IDENTICAL twins, right? Why would their DNA be "virtually" the same? Why would there be ANY level of shock with that? ELI5 please.

    1. Re:"Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by Noumenal+World · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're IDENTICAL twins, right? Why would their DNA be "virtually" the same? Why would there be ANY level of shock with that? ELI5 please.

      Because, for each test, there are some SNPs that the lab is unable to determine ("no-calls"). But these are going to be different for each individual, and in fact for each test an individual takes.

      There also are likely to be a very small number of SNPs that are simply read incorrectly.

      Because of these two issues, the raw results for the two identical twins will almost certainly not be the same -- although the results would have been identical if they had been able to get (correct) results for every single SNP.

    2. Re:"Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Their DNA would only be 100% identical at the very moment the egg split in two. Your DNA is not static, the environment, nutrition, exercise and so on all can turn on and off genes in your DNA so as they age the difference between those twins DNA grows bigger and bigger.

    3. Re:"Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by HiThere · · Score: 1

      A small percentage of mutational changes is expected during development. DNA copying is not perfect, and has a non-zero uncorrected error rate (to repeat myself).

      But the difference should be a LOT less than 1%.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re: "Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Altering the expression of genes in your DNA doesnt change the DNA sequence. You're thinking of epigenetic changes, which are heritable but sits on top of the DNA rather than being encoded in it.

    5. Re:"Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Their DNA would only be 100% identical at the very moment the egg split in two.

      Not even then.

    6. Re:"Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poster did not read the article, and mistakenly reacted to title. The results of https://www.cbc.ca/.../dna-ancestry-kits-twins... look identical when form the same company, up to a miniascule margin of error, the difference is in interpretation of the DNA "origin" from different companies, each company for the two sisters gave pretty much the same result for both.

    7. Re: "Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by jd · · Score: 1

      Because it has been known for a VERY long time now that identical twins are not genetically identical.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re: "Virtually" the same? Shockingly "similar?" by jd · · Score: 1

      There are sufficient mutations to guarantee genetic divergence.

      The difference between identical twins is small, depending on exactly what point they divided, but it isn't zero. You could, in principle, have "identical" twins with different hair colour. It would be very unusual, but the number of mutations required is smaller than the genetic distance.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  13. The one test I really want to see by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Let's have the Hensel twins repeat this experiment. Hilarity ensues.

    1. Re:The one test I really want to see by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      How about the Thompson Twins?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  14. makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Last year it came out that these services were basically making up results to make white people think they have african or asian heritage in an effort to cure them of racism.
    The only way you can do that is if the results are randomly fabricated.

    1. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last year it came out that these services were basically making up results to make white people think they have african or asian heritage in an effort to cure them of racism.

      Or allow them to claim minority status for school and job applications and for their political careers.

    2. Re:makes sense by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Link some evidence or go away.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re: makes sense by jd · · Score: 1

      Ummm, most of these services don't offer ancestral breakdowns unless you buy that optional extra. Nobody believes the ancestral breakdowns, they've been discussed to death, they're a stupid idea based on tiny sample sizes and meaningless correlations.

      Nobody looks at those. The companies that give a breakdown should be informed that they should back off or go help populate Mars. Same with those who worship such results. They damage severely the credibility of the valuable data.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:makes sense by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      GP is greatly exaggerating (probably because he's a racist), but there was an interview where employees at these companies admitted to trolling racists by fudging the results with trace heritage to the ethnicity the racist didn't like, which is hilarious, awesome, and valuable:

      http://www.cracked.com/persona...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:makes sense by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yup, just like any large company, there are always some assholes. IMO it would be "hilarious, awesome, and valuable" if they had done it on their own time. Not so much when they implicate the business they work for.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  15. Why bother with twins? by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is the point of the identical twins (other than adding click-bait value)? Why not submit two samples from the same person under different names?

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Why bother with twins? by bobstreo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What is the point of the identical twins (other than adding click-bait value)? Why not submit two samples from the same person under different names?

      They are reporters, identical twin reporters. You can't have only one of them getting credit.

    2. Re:Why bother with twins? by Kohath · · Score: 0

      Most likely explanation for all of it: they're lying and they submitted samples from others.

      Not accusing them, just stating the simple answer that is more likely than 5 separate labs messing up tests. Maybe one or two labs could be fraudulent or incompetent, but all 5? That's not the most believable answer.

    3. Re:Why bother with twins? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      That's kinda like saying "Maybe one or two of those Three-card Monte players could be fraudulent, but all of them?"

    4. Re:Why bother with twins? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Most likely explanation for all of it: they're lying and they submitted samples from others.

      Why do you jump straight to that conclusion rather than researching how DNA tests are done in the first place and how uncertainty is inherently part of the process? Or has CSI Miami trained you to believe that lab samples are perfect? http://phdcomics.com/comics.ph...

    5. Re:Why bother with twins? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?

      Lab samples being imperfect would explain one or two anomalous results. If all 5 results are bad, that describes a counter-perfect system that would almost always get wrong results. Is there strong evidence that all the rest of the labs' analyses for every sample are indistinguishable from random noise?

      And I didn't "jump straight to that conclusion". I only said it was more likely than the other alternative conclusions. Why should we choose to believe a less likely answer over a more likely one?

    6. Re:Why bother with twins? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?

      Neither. Far more likely is that all five organisations are misrepresenting their capabilities and glossing over inevitable inaccuracies in their work.

    7. Re:Why bother with twins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that the twins submitted separate samples originally, with no thought of coordinating or writing a story. Then one told the other about "their heritage", only to be contradicted by the other.

      That led to an, "um, what? That should be impossible" moment. Only then was a story born.

      Note: I have only skimmed the story. The above is a logical deduction, not a fact.

    8. Re:Why bother with twins? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Simple: is it more likely that 2 people are lying about one thing one time, or is it more likely that 5 seperate organizations of people are lying about everything they do all the time?

      Neither. Far more likely is that all five organisations are misrepresenting their capabilities and glossing over inevitable inaccuracies in their work.

      That's the second one, where everyone else except the 2 people are lying (or whatever alternate words you prefer) almost all the time.

  16. Sounds Legit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. It's a scam. Because it's all over the TV's advertising .. people think it's solid.

    Scammers. Busted! :)

  17. Re: So glad I'm no subhuman SATANIC JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love you

  18. Accuracy by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    Somewhat begs the question of the accuracy of said tests doesn't it ?

    1. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did people think this was real? You can't do DNA analysis like that, especially at that price point. It is like Theranos: it doesn't work. Obviously a scam, but people keep falling for them.

    2. Re:Accuracy by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. It only emphasizes the need for education.

      The ethnicity results of the various labs are not empirical science, it's statistical analysis. In a sample size of 700,000+ results, you're going to see some variation.

    3. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually read the article the results are very similar. It shows that the accuracy of the test are similar to accuracy of polling data. Roughly correct, but guesses around the edges.

    4. Re:Accuracy by tflf · · Score: 1

      While the process is statistical analysis, the results are advertised as (or at least strongly implied to be) empirical science. Assuming the differing results published in the article are acceptable statistical variations, what value is there in the process as advertised? Hiding behind an expectation the general public should have a competent understanding of the science, and approach these tests as a meaningless fun lark of questionable individual accuracy, is unsupportable, and deceptive. Crap like this is just what we need in a world where way too many already doubt/deny/ignore science, and the scientific method.

    5. Re:Accuracy by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Have you seen medicines advertised recently? Do you suppose they make claims that go beyond what the science says?

      Yeah, the DNA labs are no different. They have a product to sell, they are going to make it seem better than it is.

      This over-advertising does not make the science behind medicine--or DNA--invalid.

  19. statistically identical or different results? by TurboStar · · Score: 1

    Don't panic, TFA said the raw data was "statistically identical". You can still use tools like SNPedia and Promethease to explore your own raw data.

    1. Re:statistically identical or different results? by kriston · · Score: 1

      Came here to emphasis this. I planned to use my raw data results with Promethease but thanks for letting me know about SNPedia, too!

      --

      Kriston

  20. Hmmmm, not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect the DNA testing tests against the existing database, so a pair of tests from twins would only be compared to the older database entries.

  21. (sing rennesance) lots and lots of fantasy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (tinkling piano background) sings-Do you believe in a unicorn?

    1. Re:(sing rennesance) lots and lots of fantasy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you're unable to disprove facts about JEW PIGS you replied to jewboy scumbag 1" cock thieving weasel. You low pig.

  22. wee wee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My penus is hard

    1. Re: wee wee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bla bla bla projection about LIMITED INTELLIGENCE bla bla bla

  23. So the real question is... by acroyear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...are the professional forensic kits that law enforcement use as bad as this?

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
    1. Re:So the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.

      forensics also only looks at and compares a relatively small number of base pairs.

    2. Re:So the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My sister had this testing done. I think this is unfair, suppose I want to be a serial killer. There is now dna linked to me somewhere in a database. Sure, it is not legal to be a serial killer currently, but this is not her decision to make.
      Should I sue her?

    3. Re:So the real question is... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...are the professional forensic kits that law enforcement use as bad as this?

      Yes and no. There's been several labs both owned by police and private that have been caught using this same junk science shotgun approach in policing, leading to retesting 30 years back and people walking out the door. Back a few years ago when this was the hot shit, they only used 10 genetic markers, most have moved to 20-30 markers. Here's a case from NY State where multiple people were hit with fake tests, manufacturing DNA tests and so on. There was a huge push by justice dept's for DNA testing vs physical evidence because it was believed to be 100% perfect all the time.

      There's probably more people then you can think of out there these days who are innocent because they were hit with a "common match" because their family has lived in the same area for generations, or because the person doing the testing lied for whatever reason - and shit there are a lot of reasons people lie when they 'certify' a test.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:So the real question is... by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 3, Informative

      These are not the same things.

      The story was discussing the labs' reporting of ethnic heritage, not matching two DNA samples against each other to find out if they are the same person's DNA.

      The story itself noted that the RAW DATA was nearly identical, as one would expect with identical twins. It was only the calculation of ethnic background that is (somewhat) in doubt.

    5. Re:So the real question is... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yes, but presumably they do further testing when a match is found. DNA tests have never been proven to give unique results, it's statistically unlikely within a certain geographical area, but possible that someone across the globe will have matches across the markers they test for in forensic labs.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:So the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law enforcement in Europe spend some time hunting a notorious killer present at several otherwise unconnected crime scenes. They started to offer rewards for any hints toward this "killer" and someone managed to track him down to a cotton swap factory. The various police departments looking for that killer didn't use a "professional forensic kit" they bought the cheapest cotton swaps on the market and the DNA they found belonged to one of the factory workers.

    7. Re:So the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law enforcement isn't using them to guess your ancestry going back hundreds of years. So you're question is pointless.

    8. Re:So the real question is... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      ...are the professional forensic kits that law enforcement use as bad as this?

      Law enforcement mostly wants to know: Is the DNA that we found at a crime scene identical to the DNA we took from a suspect? That's a much much simpler question, and can be decided clearly. If there is very little DNA, then they can say "the DNA matches, but it will be matching other people as well".

      They can also reasonable well decide that the DNA found at a crime scene belongs to a relative of someone in the system, if there is an unusual high number of markers matching, with a good number of mismatches added. But that's just a first step to figure out which of your relatives can be found that is an _exact_ match.

      I haven't heard of the police ever using something like "this person seems to come from France, with a bit of Scottish mixed in and a tiny bit of Japanese". You wouldn't be able to find someone with that information. The criminal himself or herself probably wouldn't know where they come from.

    9. Re:So the real question is... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Sadly juries are led to believe that DNA evidence is infallible, instead of being told to use it only to rule someone out of being guilty, never to use it as an indicator of guilt.

  24. Re: So glad I'm no subhuman SATANIC JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for making me scroll a lot, Hitler.

  25. This is not full genome sequencing by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some people don't realize that none of these services sequence the full genome. They sequence a collection of different sites as best they can (from the spit that you send them in a tube). Some sites will be sequenced really well and some not at all; it is the random nature of the system. What happens if twin 1 is sequenced really well at site ABC123 and has some rare mutation there but twin 2 is not sequenced at that site at all? They will assume that twin does not have the mutation - they will sub in "wild type" sequence at that locus as they won't have any thing better to go on - and you'll end up identifying them as being different. Take this many times over thousands of gene loci that they sequence and pretty soon you see how two identical twins can end up looking very different.

    If you want to see how similar they really are at the DNA level, you need Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) or at least you need to know what the coverage was at each locus for each twin. The former still costs thousands in most cases, the latter should be in the raw data (though they would need to convince the companies to release said raw data to them).

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:This is not full genome sequencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least 23andme does allow you to download the raw data. According to the article, the raw data was nearly identical.

    2. Re: This is not full genome sequencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sample submission methods vary by company. Ancestry DNA uses a spit tube (as does 23andMe). LivingDNA and FamilyTreeDNA use cheek swabs. FTDNA actually has you submit two cheek swabs, one from the left and one from the right, and I'd guess this is more accurate.

    3. Re:This is not full genome sequencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they didn't "look very different". TFA says the SNPs in their 23andme files were

      nearly exactly the same

      (99.6% match).

      They concluded the raw data used by the other four companies was also statistically identical.

      whatever they mean by "statistically identical". I wonder if the other 0.4% were loci that couldn't be read with certainty in one of the twins, or if this is the normal error margin. Maybe these 0.4% happened to contain important markers for ethnicity -- we don't know because the companies are keeping their methods secret. Maybe part of the secret sauce is a random number generator.

    4. Re:This is not full genome sequencing by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      This. It's a toy, a game. I just wish they didn't advertise it as a scientific test because it isn't.

      Out of curiosity last year I did one of these too. I live in the Midwest so it probably wasn't that surprising that my results came back with a small but noted percentage of Native American DNA. Thing is; I'm British. Grew up in Northern Ireland. My family heritage is pretty well documented going back to the time of the Vikings thanks to my grandmother's work many years ago. Unless there was some undocumented child of a Victorian-era show-Indian in my lineage then it's pretty unlikely...

      I think the results were based more upon my address than my DNA.

    5. Re:This is not full genome sequencing by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it still means their methodology is crap. If they put personX as heritageA, and personY as heritageB, and personX and personY are identical twins, then it means they either don't take a large enough sample, or...something...to accurately determine anything. That's the real point of the story.

    6. Re:This is not full genome sequencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even accepting everything you said 100% true at face value...you're still just using a lot of words to say these companies are complete frauds.

  26. Re:The answer is obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lyinwood's illiteracy isn't the reason he can't get laid in a whorehouse, but it is a contributing factor...

  27. Nothing to be surprised about by sentiblue · · Score: 1

    It's entirely possible that twins have different fathers. They should have DNA testing done in person at a well respected facility to know for sure.

    1. Re:Nothing to be surprised about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, that's not how identical twins work...

    2. Re:Nothing to be surprised about by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"It's entirely possible that twins have different fathers"

      But the article is about "identical" twins, not "fraternal" twins. Identical twins cannot have two fathers. It is pretty easy to identify identical twins because.... they look identical. That is not going to happen with fraternal twins.

    3. Re:Nothing to be surprised about by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

      The story doesn't imply this at all.

      Note that the story stated that the two sets of raw data were "nearly identical." It wasn't the data that was the issue, but rather, the calculation of the ethnic background FROM that data.

    4. Re:Nothing to be surprised about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the two fathers are twins?

    5. Re:Nothing to be surprised about by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"What if the two fathers are twins?"

      LOL!

      and

      Eeeeeeeew!

    6. Re:Nothing to be surprised about by bobby · · Score: 1

      I'm no doctor nor biologist, but a quick web search: "can 2 sperm fertilize 1 egg?" reveals a YES. So it's possible the twin girls have 2 different fathers. And that would be easy to prove if the mother would divulge the identity of the 2nd father.

  28. Re:Would YOU want to be a SATANIC JEW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hohohoho, look at "Rabbi JEWgle" money of /. down moderating your posts but unable to deny truth of their own SWINISH nature.

  29. Re:Question is, would YOU want to be a JEW pig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's making me laugh at the JEWS trying to down moderate hide your posts they can't deny, devil worshipping losers they are.

  30. I don't really care by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    about my DNA information, except maybe if it is something medical. Have always looked on these DNA services as useless scams.
    I can't help but think of Bill Murry in the movie Stripes! Something about we are Americans, were Mutts. Our forefathers got kicked out of every decent country in Europe. Well something l;ike that it was many years ago.
    But that memory has always stayed with me.

    On a side note one of these services has a commercial on TV that I think is idiotic. It has this smug woman talking about how she travels all over the world. And people are always asking what her nationality is? And she says, I used to say I was Latino, Now after getting my DNA checked I realize I am everything!
    I sit back in my chair and shake my head. They asked her what her nationality is! Not what her ethnicity is! Seems to me a non idiot would say I'm American. But hey what do I know.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re: I don't really care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the article points out, the raw dna data was good. The ethnicity/geolocation is mostly rubbish and only based on where people live now and groups that can tie to being in an area for a time (but how that is done is pseudoscience as different the results show.)

      For genealogy research dna cab help many get past "brick walls". For the adopted it is a miracle.

    2. Re:I don't really care by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Certainly that's your choice, and nobody should argue against it.

      In my old age, I've become more interested in my family genealogy, so doing an Ancestry kit about a year ago was very enlightening. My folks were divorced when I was still in diapers, so I knew next to nothing about my father's side since there was no contact. And, what I thought I knew about my mother's side was quickly tossed out the window. I knew her parents had German ancestry, but after getting my results back and spending just a few hours of searching back, I discovered French, Irish, Scottish, English and Polish lineage along with the German all the way back to the 1400s, and documentation to go with it. Along with a couple of Civil War officers buried about a hundred miles south of me, and some Scottish lords and ladies. Does it really mean anything...no, but it's kinda fun.

      FWIW, I'm 100% American, but it doesn't make me any less of a mutt who was curious where he came from.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  31. Re: I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neat

  32. Re:As long as they're not JEW pigs you're ok by acroyear · · Score: 1

    that's nice, dear. now take your medicine like your doctor told you and go back to bed.

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
  33. Re:JEWS are the children of CAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not kidding. I used to sell coke to jews at a major university. Biggest clients were jews.

  34. Re:JEWS are the children of CAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahaha, the CHILDREN of CoCAIN(e). They hate themselves and who can blame them soulless monsters they are.

  35. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This but unironically

  36. Insured? by dohzer · · Score: 2

    Did their insurance companies store all 10 results to deny both of them cover in the future?

    1. Re:Insured? by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Troll

      Wonder what the nation wide DNA generational crime search results are like too :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Insured? by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Did their insurance companies store all 10 results to deny both of them cover in the future?

      While I won't attempt to minimize the possibility, has there been any evidence that such a thing has actually occurred?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  37. Re:Question is, would YOU want to be a JEW pig? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    So did you take Bob Wilson's "Illuminatus!" as a history?

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  38. Re:As long as they're not JEW pigs you're ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your medicine (heroin or cocaine) & snort it up your rhinohorn you cutoff to be goy you wish you were inferior crooked devil jew.

  39. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why oh why did I view all comments? You are an idiot. And a blowhard. And a bigot.

  40. Re:So glad I'm no subhuman SATANIC JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still a blowhard and an idiot. and a bigot.

  41. Re:As long as they're not JEW pigs you're ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so tired. And you are still a bigot. And a blowhard. And an idiot.

  42. Re:Question is, would YOU want to be a JEW pig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having trouble with fact from the first paragraph alone I see. Odd you can't deny it JEW pig. You're hated. Fact. Go play with your gold loser.

  43. Re:As long as they're not JEW pigs you're ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your problem is you're tired of being a despised inferior crook jew. Why can't you deny facts? It's because it's fact you stupid Yahood.

  44. Maybe the real goal is spying by jbn-o · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spying is big business. For example, spying is Google's main theme for which services to keep and which to do away with. Perhaps spying is driving these ancestry services as well. We already know these ancestry services share client data with police (1, 2, 3). Perhaps this data sharing is listed in the terms of service, but either way the sharing helps authorities augment their database and helps them perform more surveillance on ordinary citizens (most citizens don't commit crimes and therefore should not face such treatment; I'm not convinced those who commit crimes deserve this treatment but the vast majority of the public absolutely don't).

    --
    Digital Citizen
  45. So these DNA companies are shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And coincidentally share your shit with everybody!

  46. Nationality, ethnicity...She'll be a Mormon anyway by denzacar · · Score: 2

    After she dies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    "FamilySearch is a genealogy organization operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the LDS Church). ...
    The resource is maintained to support the process of obtaining names and other genealogical information so that Latter-day Saints can perform temple ordinances for their kindred dead.[3] ...
    In February 2014, FamilySearch announced partnerships with Ancestry.com, findmypast and MyHeritage, which includes sharing massive amounts of their databases with those companies. They also have a standing relationship with BillionGraves, in which the photographed and indexed images of graves are both searchable on FamilySearch and are linked to individuals in the family tree.[6]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/......

    "The LDS Church teaches that deceased persons who have not accepted, or had the opportunity to accept, the gospel of Christ in this life will have such opportunity in the afterlife. The belief is that as all must follow Jesus Christ, they must also receive all the ordinances that a living person is expected to receive, including baptism. For this reason, members of the LDS Church are encouraged to research their genealogy. This research is then used as the basis for church performing temple ordinances for as many deceased persons as possible. As a part of these efforts, Mormons have performed temple ordinances on behalf of a number of high-profile people, including the Founding Fathers of the United States,[47][48][49] U.S. Presidents,[47] Pope John Paul II,[50] John Wesley,[47] Christopher Columbus,[47] Adolf Hitler,[51] Joan of Arc,[51] Genghis Khan,[51] Joseph Stalin,[51] and Gautama Buddha.[51] ...
    In February 2012, the issue re-emerged after it was found that the parents of Holocaust survivor and Jewish rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal were added to the genealogical database.[74] Shortly afterward, news stories announced that Anne Frank had been baptized by proxy for the ninth time, at the Santo Domingo Dominican Republic Temple.[75]"

    Mormons are playing the long game of baptizing everyone ever straight into their "free planets for everygod" heaven.
    If that means buying up banks of genetic data one by one... so be it.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  47. wat! And this just in, "two barometers in my house by eatvegetables · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey, just just bought two nearly identical barometers from crap-o-mart for $5 each. I put them next to each other in the same room. Imagine my horror when I noticed that their respective readings differ by as much as 10%.

    Oh, BTW, 23andme terms of service are clear, at least.

    "The laboratory may not be able to process your sample, and the laboratory process may result in errors ... Even for processing that meets our high standards, a small, unknown fraction of the data generated during the laboratory process may be un-interpretable or incorrect (referred to as "Errors" ..."

    Inexpensive direct to consumer DNA testing companies to not provide nor claim to provide results with statistically insignificant error rates. Don't we all already know this?

    The results are good enough to do fun things like find previously unknown relatives. To date, I've found three second cousins using 23andme. My ancestry information was likely not perfect but was accurate enough for intended purposes.

  48. Balkans/Eastern Europe. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    The article makes much of one difference: one service shows Eastern European heritage, while the other Balkans.

    But there is not a clear definition of "Eastern Europe" and it may include the Balkans, so this may be not more than a difference in semantics.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Balkans/Eastern Europe. by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to worry. Will all be part of glorious Russian motherland soon.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Balkans/Eastern Europe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rightfully so too.

    3. Re: Balkans/Eastern Europe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean glorious Israel

  49. Re: wat! And this just in, "two barometers in my h by eatvegetables · · Score: 2

    Now, get off my lawn you damn kids ... at least the ones that I can prove are not mine!

  50. Eh ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they were pretty close to each other. These things have a margin of error anyways. They are rough estimates.

  51. Re:Nationality, ethnicity...She'll be a Mormon any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds like a great deal. You mean I get my own friggin planet if I accept Mormonism?

    Sign me up!

  52. Here's the dark side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Law enforcement likes to snoop around in those databases, too. I don't think that's ethical since that data was entrusted for a different purpose, and because of the similarities across siblings that's a violation of privacy if not for the submitter, certainly for their relatives. But now there is also this:

    Essentially random "results" means that law enforcement even only using these companies' "matches" as a guide and not as proof, they are still essentially picking candidate culprits out of a hat. This is no way to do justice.

  53. Re: So glad I'm no subhuman SATANIC JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know... Jesus would probably disapprove your message because it is filled with so much hate. Try filling your heart and mind with love, instead. Just saying...

  54. Re: JEWS are the children of CAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Omg, I am so glad you showed up here tonight.

    Now I can refill my coke stash AND fuck your ass again!

    Life is wonderful when you are a satan loving Jew!

  55. Re: Question is, would YOU want to be a JEW pig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I may be a pig,but your dad is my subboi slut.FYI god and Satan are one of the same thing.

  56. It avoids violating their terms of service by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    e.g. Here's the relevant part of 23andMe's terms of service (emphasis added)

    Furthermore you agree not to use the Services to: (1) [...]; (2) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, anyone affiliated with 23andMe, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;

    I suspect if a reporter did submit samples under different names, a court would side with the press against their terms of service. Eventually.

    But by using identical twins, you sidesteps the possibility of wasting time, effort, and money because your report has been tied up by a gag order while a court mulls over what to do.

    1. Re:It avoids violating their terms of service by DocJohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No judge is going to issue a gag order after something has already been published. There's no reason to alert the companies ahead of publication with the exact details of your investigation. In fact, there's no need to even tell the companies ahead of publication. The only reason this is done to some degree is to get the BS public-relations comment that tries to explain away the discrepancy.

      Who is the reader going to believe? The DNA experts from Yale or some other university, or the for-profit company trying to defend their reputation?

  57. Re: Would U want to be a Satanic JEW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah hitler had a Jewish cock obsession too.We all love.being royally anally obliterated by the things we fear the most

  58. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by xonen · · Score: 1

    Slashdot has persisted, because of the (IMHO) amazing moderation on Slashdot had implemented from the beginning.

    • Unlike Reddit, it's not just a up/down bandwagon vote if you agree with the comment.

    True that. I can't talk for others, but on quite an occasion i upvote comments i disagree with but are well argumented and worth considering a thought, and downvote comments i might agree with due to offensive language.

    /. indeed being the only place i know where such can be observed, rest of the online world people seems to see a +/- button as an 'agree/disagree' instead of 'well-written/offensive'.

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
  59. The opposite by Lorens · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm reminded of the opposite story: someone forgets their password to the DNA site, and (instead of resetting the password) creates another account, sends in new DNA... and later calls their kid saying that it's incredible, wonderful, this DNA site has found that I have an identical twin somewhere!

    1. Re:The opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So the good news is you have an identical twin. The bad news is, he is just as dumb as you.

    2. Re:The opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that story, the identical twin has the same name and is in the same city as this forgetful person, who knows they've already done this before. Why would they think this twin is real?

  60. I know what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their ethics panel told them to fuzz the results to make them more ethical.

  61. Re: I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You poor sad fuck.

  62. Americans produce 99% of world supply of snake oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's the way it has always been, and always will be. But of course they love this ancestry bullshit make-believe, so there will always be a blooming business.

  63. Next test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send the two different DNA samples from the same person using two different names and personal data to the same company. That would confirm whether these DNA testing companies are accurate at all.

  64. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    While I agree that we should upvote well argued comments in spite of disagreeing with them, I may disagree with you on the downvoting of offensive language post. IMO, for something to be offensive, there must also be intent to offend...if that's what you're point is, then we're in agreement. However, far too often, we see people taking offense to wording such as Washington Redskins. If you find that offensive, it's on you, not the source of the words.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  65. Re: I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot persists because we, the elders of Slashdot, stick around and reinforce those norms with our very large bloc of mod points. We have perfect karma because the karma is set by our moderation. We even contribute a certain percentage of the trolling and complete waste of space spam.

    All of this is part of our plan. Free speech is a messy business.

  66. big puff over nothing by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Sad that Mark chimed in.

    Vast majority of differences are in one point, which is as we all know, naturally expected error if the number of digits presented is constructed correctly, to reflect that natural error.

    As for larger deviations it came from lack of statistics. They probably have a randomizer to present the data with low statistics so the distribution of results represents the fact that statistics is low. I would not do that, but it's a legit technic.

    My experience was laughable with one of the companies. They traced me back to Spain, to which I have absolutely no relation.

    I did not make a big deal out of it realizing that the culture I am from is very small and not well represented in reference data of these companies.

    In short:

    - This is a natural variation of results. Move along, nothing to see here.
    - If you have trusted to the point this data before this, you are a fool

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  67. Re:Makes you wonder by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    "She claimed to be part Cherokee"

    False. She claimed that her family claimed that she was part Cherokee. Nice try though

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  68. Re: I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, it's on the fact of the Washington teams use of a culture and ethos for their own gain.

    That said, there is no reason to downvote on that usage unless it is a case of defending it in some particularly asinine manner.

  69. Re: So glad I'm no subhuman SATANIC JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you and your love. I will walk over your dead body with a sarcastic smile on my face when the rest of us will be up in arms against the jews

  70. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that all of these genetic testing companies are run by jews, it's at least salient. So it's not exactly off topic.

  71. non anglais by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vive la FLQ, where's jean chretien when you need him!

  72. Read the article - The results actuleey match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should read more then the title of an article you are talking about. The results of
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/dna-ancestry-kits-twins-marketplace-1.4980976?fbclid=IwAR3Evx_kcRzujOCIzKUX6lqbZ2cso_-vJsE2_qz1kEQdECp5tRUb183DFyQ
    look identical when form the same company, up to a miniascule margin of error. The difference is in interpretation of the DNA "origin" from different companies.

  73. How about one person do two tests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need twins for this.. You just buy two tests, put your sample into both, and see what comes back

  74. They need to test Solidus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course testing Solid and Liquid Snake are going to show different results. They are failed clones. Solidus Snake is the only perfect clone of Big Boss.

  75. Oh millennials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have so fundamentally misunderstood what is going on here I wouldn't know where to start, and we are all getting so tired of trying to school your asses on just about everything I just don't have the energy. One thing is certain: no, you are not 'really smart' like your mom told you you were. Someone else explain, I just can't.

  76. Unlike intelligence, stupidity knows no bounds by jd · · Score: 1

    No, DNA companies are run by people of a furtherance of backgrounds. There is no "most", other than most are run by people still living.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  77. Incorrect Title by jd · · Score: 1

    What differed was ancestral breakdown, which is a flawed methodology based on correlating patterns with other patterns in a pseudoscientific way.

    The results were the same.

    Ancestral breakdown is not a result, it is a fable. You cannot determine ancestry by country or region through DNA, with the data set that currently exists, and it may not be possible at all. There's no reason to think it is.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  78. nothing to do with the sequencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each company associates sequences with its own pool of other "verified" genetics, using their own set of markers.
    The article is all about those differences, not that they didn't arrive at the same sequence for each...

  79. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Actually, being a "satan worshiping jew" sounds pretty cool.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  80. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    I can't talk for others, but on quite an occasion i upvote comments i disagree with but are well argumented and worth considering a thought, and downvote comments i might agree with due to offensive language.

    And here I thought I was the only one who did that.

    Yes, I may upvote a comment I disagree with if it's a well-formed argument or raises a valid point. And I may downvote comments that are technically correct but are written with an abusive form or tone.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  81. Re:Makes you wonder by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    How many different companies did Elizabeth Warren submit her DNA to before she could claim to be a Native American?

    FWIW, my daughter did only one, and it showed a sliver of Native American, which was most definitely an error...anticipating the jokers here to comment. Her other half is 100% Korean, and I have no Native American lineage. Our guess is that there's some commonality between Koreans and Native Americans that's too close to call for them.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  82. Yes, yes they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those pig fuckers lock up whoever they like, they don't actually care about you as citizens lololololololol

  83. Twins not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twins are not needed, regular siblings could be used for this test.

  84. 23andme found my half brother by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    I met him for the first time yesterday. It said we share 23.5% of our genes (not 25%) Other evidence corroborates it. It's 100% certain. Maybe this is an issue; maybe it isn't, but this "test" seems superficial to me.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  85. Re:I'm happy I'm no SATAN worshipping JEW by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    The taxonomical moderation of Slashdot allow that. Something can be Funny, Informative or Interesting even if I don't agree with it.

    Something can be Informative even if it offends me. Way too many people can't separate the content from how it makes them feel

  86. Upload the raw data to GEDmatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be very interesting to see what GEDmatch would show for these 10 samples. I don't know about MyHeritage, FamilyTreeDNA and Living DNA, but Ancestry and 23andMe allow downloading the raw data which can be uploaded to GEDmatch. GEDmatch is the one that was used to catch the criminal by looking at heritage; I made mine public, but I don't think one must to look at its analyses.

  87. Re:The answer is obvious... by Megol · · Score: 1

    Sleep: the greatest cause of genetic mutation. Only on /.

  88. Angry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet those results really make them Agro (Only Aussie readers will get that!)

  89. Re:Makes you wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I would say if I had lied on my college and job applications, too.

  90. People have multiple genomes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mothers carry some of the DNA of sons they've carried, including the Y chromosome. Blood transfusions import genetic material. I'm thinking there were a couple additional ways but I don't recall them specifically.

  91. Re: So glad I'm no subhuman SATANIC JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (rennesance women opera like singing) Come and live the fantasy!
    (man with piano tinkling in the background) Do you believe in a Unicorn?

  92. Re: So glad I'm no subhuman SATANIC JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a Jewish Catholic Islamic Satanic Nazi Commie Zombie and I come to this world to kick puppies!

  93. Identical twin clone genomes differ 10^-6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whereas any two non-clone humans differ 10^-3 to 10^-4, a hundred times more different.

    The identical twin is based an overall mutation rate of 10^-8 and about 50 cell divisions in the cheek skin since twin embryo bifurcated. This results in @ 50 x 10^-8 = 10^6 difference.

    On the other hand the difference between other kinds of individuals depends on the getting an (near) random half of genes from each parent, who are far more different from each other than identical twins.

  94. Ancestry matched my twin sisters by Joolz50 · · Score: 1

    Both my twin sisters submitted their DNA on Ancestry, and on the matches page, it said of the other twin - this person is either you, or an identical twin.

  95. Re:wat! And this just in, "two barometers in my ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you not read TFA? The actual raw DNA was nearly identical, it was the analysis that varied significantly. So, in your case, both barometers would have been 99.9% identical, you just read them 10% off.

    How do you know they were accurate enough? I hope you verified that those are your cousins by some authoritative means other than "23andme says so".