Have any of you done DNA testing ?

[buttslinger]

I passed the info on to seven family members, take a new set of pills (methylfolate) and have had a little benefit.

I would love to read a book on DNA, I remember when they first broke the code, we are 70% the same as a banana and like 99.5% the same as a chimp. I worry that to get a truly fascinating book I would need a four year college course on biology. I have NEURALLY MEDIATED HYPOTENSION, which is pretty rare, and it took me years to find a book that really covered it, because I was googling feinting when I should have googled syncope, which is what doctors call feinting.
I would think you could take the test to see your ancestry, and share it with your sibs, but I'm not sure sharing your gene medimap would help. You split those 23 genes each between Mom and Pop, which is like a lottery if you get blue eyes and your sister gets hazel. The only thing I am absolutely positive about is that my insurance won't cover it, talk about a racket.

[smalltownguy]

dna testing is a weapon against crime and should be implemented without hesitation

[Aticus100]

dna testing is a weapon against crime and should be implemented without hesitation

Everywhere in the world?

[smalltownguy]

Everywhere in the world?

you know better

[Aticus100]

you know better

I don’t understand. Better than what?

I was simply asking if you meant that DNA testing should be implimented everywhere that it is possible for the purpose of preventing crime?

[Ts RedVeX]

So it would specify what food I should eat to shit less, would it xD That would save me some time, in my line of work hahaha

[Stavros]

I would love to read a book on DNA,

I was given this book for Christmas:
Adam Rutherford, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived. The Stories in our Genes (2016)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-Histo.../dp/0297609378

The book is aimed at the common reader such as myself with no expertise in hard sciences but enough curiosity to read about it in the hope of being informed. The book succeeds in reaching readers like me with enough science to explain what DNA is without overloading the text with the intricate details of what DNA is and how it is interpreted.

Chapter 3 takes a harsh look at DNA profiling and while it agrees it can be useful in law enforcement it says nothing about who you are and where you come from that you probably do not already know, and cannot go further back in time as in any and all cases we are all related to each other. He doesn't go far enough to call it a scam, but he does for the most part consider it trivial and meaningless.

It's important to remember that the commercial DNA ancestry tests don't necessarily show your geographical origins in the past. They show with whom you have common ancestry today (p158 in the UK edition).

[buttslinger]

DNA is fascinating because it can "think"
There is a species of bird in California that has changed it's wingspan as a result of California Traffic. Flying out of the road.
Natural selection???
What is thinking?
I'm going to get my DNA book at the library, I'm plopping down 400 bucks next week to find out which meds do my body good though a genetic medimap.
My new psychiatrist looks like Vince Masuka.

[sukumvit boy]

I was given this book for Christmas:
Adam Rutherford, A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived. The Stories in our Genes (2016)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-Histo.../dp/0297609378

The book is aimed at the common reader such as myself with no expertise in hard sciences but enough curiosity to read about it in the hope of being informed. The book succeeds in reaching readers like me with enough science to explain what DNA is without overloading the text with the intricate details of what DNA is and how it is interpreted.

Chapter 3 takes a harsh look at DNA profiling and while it agrees it can be useful in law enforcement it says nothing about who you are and where you come from that you probably do not already know, and cannot go further back in time as in any and all cases we are all related to each other. He doesn't go far enough to call it a scam, but he does for the most part consider it trivial and meaningless.

It's important to remember that the commercial DNA ancestry tests don't necessarily show your geographical origins in the past. They show with whom you have common ancestry today (p158 in the UK edition).

Yes , excellent book. I just got a copy and am reading it now .
I read a lot of this type of thing and I am particularly impressed by the way this author has managed to leave absolutely nothing out regarding the important and recent discoveries and work in paleoanthropology / genetics yet presented it in a highly readable and understandable manner without "dumbing it down".
For anyone interested in further reading I recommend "The Neanderthals Rediscovered" and Svante Paabo's 2010 well written account of his team's groundbreaking work in successfully recovering the mitochondrial DNA if a 50,000 year old girl from nothing but a finger bone ,"Neanderthal Man" .
PBS and BBC have also produced some great TV programs on the subject.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/050...?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neanderthal-...ds=pabo+svante

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo

http://www.ted.com/talks/svante_paea...er_neanderthal

[Stavros]

Pleased to hear you have enjoyed Rutherford's book. Two interesting developments have caused much debate here -the claim that Cheddar Man, the remains of a Mesolithic (c9,1200 years ago) skeleton found in Cheddar Gorge in Somerset in the south-west of England, had a black skin. To the Wikipedia article I link a more satirical article on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man
https://www.salon.com/2018/02/12/che...-supremacists/

The other is the claim that Neanderthal Man was capable of producing 'art', something that had previously been dismissed, or that the 'cave paintings' found in France and Spain were the first example of homo sapiens producing art. The question, 'is it art'? has followed the claim that
a stencilled hand in Maltravieso cave is at least 66,700 years old – a date reached by testing the calcite deposits that have encrusted it over the millennia.
But as Jonathon Jones argues,
The significance of the new dating for Europe’s oldest cave art is not that it makes Neanderthals the inventors of art. It is actually bigger than that. The reason it is so eerie to think of a Neanderthal making a hand-image is that the painted hands – not to mention bison, horses and mammoths – found in European caves have come to be seen as the moment when the modern human mind itself is born: the first evidence not just of the intelligence of Homo sapiens but our capacity to imagine and dream, to reflect, in short to possess consciousness. What does it mean if another kind of human species shared those traits? Is there nothing special about us at all?
https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...es-every-human

Less controversially perhaps, homo sapiens inherited reflexivity from the neanderthals with whom they mated and evolution did the rest. It is I think accepted that homo sapiens did not invent fire or the use of fire to cook food, one of the key differences between us and primates such as Chimpanzees. This article from New Scientist offers a fascinating insight into why we eat cooked food and how it has been such a crucial part of the evolution of humans beings, and not just because food tastes better when it has been transformed by fire.
https://www.newscientist.com/article...t-cooked-meal/