All Content Protected Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act for Educational Purposes.
Exclusive Comparison DNA Study of North America's Native American Indians
There is a need for a DNA comparison study to be done with solely Blood Native people of North America as in
The Cherokee, The Saponi, The Creek, The Tuscarora, The Lakota, The Taino of the Caribbean, the Blackfoot, The Maya, The Pima, The Cree, and many of our other Original Indigenous groups of North America in order to compare the similarities between Native groups in our region.
A new haplogroup should be defined and created as solely Native American Indian Pre-Columbus.
The new haplogroup will be based on solely Indigenous origins in the western hemisphere and the fact that Natives were an isolated people before Columbus.
The older Pre-Columbus genetics and even blood types are still present in many Natives and that is what links us together as a people.
Did you know that Native American Indians were exclusively an O + blood type before other blood types were mixed in our people after colonization.
In order to make sure testing is accurate there should also be one on one comparison with the genome of
each Native American Indian to each foreign groups that came to our land during Columbus time, and after colonization.
These are all the current populations science uses for genome comparisons:
SNP frequencies for each population.
SSAFR stands for sub-Saharan Africa (Bantu, Biaka Pygmi, Mandenka, Mbuti Pygmi, San, Tanzan, Yoruba)
NA for North-Africa (Mozabite, Moroccan, Saharawi)
ME for Middle-East (Bedouin, Druze, Palestinian, Adygei)
EUROPE for Europeans (Basque, Catalan, French Basque, French, Continental Italian, Orcadian, Russian, Sardinian, Spanish)
CSASIA for Central/South Asia (Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Makrani, Pathan, Sindhi)
EASIA for East Asia (Cambodian, South China, North China, Han, Japanese, Yakut)
O for Oceania (Nan, Papuan)
*Note: The Human Genome Diversity Project presently uses just Central & South American Indigenous group DNA, as in...AME for America (Colombian, Karitiana, Maya, Pima and Surui Indians). See real SnpMap results below.
Below are my own SnpMap DNA raw data findings. My blood type as a Native American Indian is O+
DNA can be accurate but only when the participants sample is compared to the homeland groups.
See what happens when DNA is compared Native to Native,
then Native to Black African as in those of Sub Sahara Black African ancestry, Native to European,
and Native to Arab/Berber/North African(or those of Brown Spanish Moors ancestry)
These were the groups who interacted "the most" with our Indian people, this is why they are used in the comparison.
This study was done on chromosome X, the deep ancestry chromosome.
Please be respectful of these results, they remain my sole property.
I do not support DNA for race studies unless these studies are done within our own Native community
within our own gene pool.
How to read the Snp Map results:
The Recalculate button will perform the analysis of data against reference population data.
*The symbol that looks like an equals sign with a slash ( ≠ ) is the negative marker.
It indicates that your allele occurs in very low frequency within that region or population,
and there is at least one other region or population that shows frequencies several times higher.
*The (●) symbol is the positive marker. It indicates that your allele occurs several times more frequently than any of the other regions/populations.
This marker is not that common to get, especially when comparing many regions/populations, because there are not very many SNPs where a single region/population has a uniquely higher frequency for an allele.
*The ( ◦ ) symbol is the shared positive marker.
*One symbol means the person is at most 50% ancestry of that region/population at that location of their genome.
*Two symbols means the person may be 0% ancestry of that region/population at that location.
*The solid circle symbol (●) means the person is very like that region/population, and the SNP is a good marker for that region/population vs. all the others being compared.
*One solid circle (●) means probably at least 50% that region/population,
and two solid circle (●●) means probably 100% that region/population.
This Snp Map study was done raw data from chromosome X, known as the deep ancestry chromosome.
X chromosome DNA is informative for both recent and deep ancestry.
"Men also inherit their X Chromosome from their mother but, in contrast, they DO pass their X Chromosome to their daughters. However, they do NOT pass their X Chromosome to their sons. Further, the X Chromosome that a male inherits from his mother has genetic material traceable from many more of her ancestors than the mtDNA that he inherits from her. The X Chromosome will also include DNA from some of his mother's PATERNAL ancestral lines, unlike the mtDNA that only traces through her direct maternal ancestral line."
CLICK SIDE ARROWS TO VIEW ALL IMAGES
One to one comparison is the only way that makes sense instead of throwing genes into a gene soup and see what one can pick out of all the confusion.
For now you can do this at home yourself with SnpMap if you have your raw genome data.
One on one comparisons seem logical because if your trying to see if you match a population you can run your genome, or each chromosome from X and 1-22, against only that population.
With SnpMap you can do that easily.
Select each chromosome and run it, be sure you do this with all of them carefully, one at a time, run the app at 99% for better and more accurate results. See how much or how little you have in common with what ever population(s) you have an interest in.
SnpMap may have slightly different populations listed but they are still in the same region as those listed above.
Here is the SnpMap Browser Application if you already have your raw genome data.
DNA is only fair and accurate in its use when used in comparisons between groups who come from the same historical local region. Similarities on a regional level can be more accurate because they are not from a worldwide point of view but a regional one where blood ties, culture, and genetics are the closest between people from that region.
Native American Indians should not be lumped together and compared to the rest of the world.
With an honest DNA study we will see that Natives from different areas in North America are very similar to each other on a biological level. Many of our people are becoming hooked on DNA testing for race, and here is the problem with those test, and the fact that many are taking test results as the gospel of "who is what" so to speak. Yes, we Natives are a unique people because we match each other more than other people in the world but the thing that should make one suspicious about DNA testing for race is that no human is a different species from other humans so DNA test can come up with ambiguous results when lumping our people with others in a DNA soup as in lets toss all the worlds genes in the same pot and see what comes up, and also the fact that DNA haplogroups A, B, C, D and X are not just found in Natives but in Europe, Asia, and people in Turkey. You will see haplogroups of all kinds among Native American Indians in our hemisphere, and not just A, B, C, D and X. "Some of the haplotypes attributed to Native Americans are also found in people from other parts of the world. A, B, C, and D are found in North Asia, and X is found in southern Europe and Turkey. In fact, the principal marker of haplotype B is called the 9 base pair deletion, and is found in some Japanese and almost all Samoans..."
Our matching each other genetically is what's important, not these letters called Haplogroups attached to an OOA fairytale.
Samples of Currently Assigned Haplogroups for Ancient Native American Indians.
CLICK SIDE ARROWS TO VIEW ALL IMAGES
Though DNA testing for race has some good points for seeking Native to Native similarities/matches, especially similarity based on regions since we all don't exactly look alike, DNA testing for race has more speculative results when comparing us Indians to the rest of the world, and some of us will come up with Black, White, Australoid, or Asian markers when comparing markers like hair genes, melanin genes, hair color genes, eyes color genes, archaic genes, and things like genes for diabetes, high blood pressure, cancers, intelligence, and other traits found statistically in many populations.
Case in point: people from the Oceania region are not Black African (Example -The Aeta people of the Philippines are Australo-Melanesians, which includes other groups such as Aborigines in Australia; Papuans; and the Melanesians of the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, and the French overseas special collectivity of New Caledonia. The Aeta (Ayta, pronounced EYE-tə), or Agta, are an indigenous people who live in scattered, isolated mountainous parts of the island of Luzon, the Philippines. They are thought to be among the earliest inhabitants of the Philippines.), and though they have similar physical traits or phenotype as Black Africans such as skin color and hair texture, they are not Black African genetically.
Just as some of our Native American Indian people have some physical traits that are somewhat similar
(and NOT exactly the same by any means) to the Black African, the Asian, Australoid, and even the Caucasian.
Genealogy thru research should be trusted above DNA testing for race at least until they test honest comparison groups other than Maya, Pima, etc. and start using DNA samples from Sioux, Saponi, Cheraw, Cherokee, Tuscarora, Chickahominy, Pequot, Taino, etc. So don't rely on DNA testing for race with so little groups of Indians to compare DNA to, especially when we all, based on region, have different traits.
Its nearly impossible to draw a 100% conclusion of race based on DNA since we are all part of the human species first
then our Cultural Races and regional locations second.
You would have better odds hitting the lottery than guessing race at 100% based on a the "current DNA testing" for Indian ancestry because it does not test EXCLUSIVELY Native to Native.
This is exactly why tribes refuse to enroll based on non-American Indian haplogroup alone, they prefer ancestral connections by tribal affiliation thru an Ancestors, not thru current biological studies that do not connect our people to any known Native Ancestors "just in the Americas" because the DNA test done today do not have any category for
JUST Native American Indians without forcing a theorized connection to the Out of Africa theory, by way of current DNA testing which promote the lie of OOA and the Land Bridge and its "theorized" connection to the Americas.
Also just for those who don't understand the so called Out of Africa theory or "OOA"
its has nothing to do with the Black African race being the origin of Man, as the Afrocentric promotes, the science community theory states the first people in CONTINENT of Africa were brown-skinned persons, not black people.
Fact: Every race has its own creation story in their land of origin and science only confirms what was already known.
Even if the OOA theory was true for people overseas its has nothing to do with the Americas, or our people because our origins are the Americas, we are the evidence of this land. This our land of creation.
Europeans created the theory OOA in the 1800's because they could not explain HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of Natives/Red People living in the Americas before so called Adam and Eve and LUCY.
THE EUROPEAN MAKES UP THEORIES BASED ON EITHER RELIGION OR SCIENCE CONCERNING OUR PEOPLE AND HOW WE CAME TO BE IN OUR LAND THE AMERICAS.
OUT OF AFRICA "OOA" IS A EUROCENTRIC AND EVEN AFROCENTRIC THEORY
THAT WE AS NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS HAVE NO BUSINESS SUPPORTING
OR IGNORANTLY PROMOTING AS TRUTH SINCE WE HAVE CREATION STORIES IN THE AMERICAS
AND NOT ONE FROM OVERSEAS!!!.
DNA testing for our Native people on a large scale is really up in the air unless actual connections are made to a known Native relations in the Americas who are recognized and known by our tribes and or communities as
Native American Indians be the connection of North or South America Indian or "First Peoples".
FACT: Theories are not facts, they are assumptions.
Scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method;
theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses.
Trust your blood and your family oral history, and your KNOWN MIGRATION stories passed down from The Creator,
to the Ancestors, to you and me above the imperfections of science.
None of our Indian blood people are immigrants in our own homeland the Americas.
Including Natives south of the U.S. border or any of our Native people north of the U.S. border.
Our people don't have borders, the Americas is our homeland.
Our blood ties to our land and each other make us who we are as Native's above anything else beccuase factually we match each other more than any other race in the world. DNA just confirms what our blood already knows.
If any of us do indulge in DNA testing let us begin to put the puzzle back together by comparing ourselves to "each other" as "Natives" and not to the rest of the world, then we may actually get somewhere with DNA studies.
Note: There is a study that suggest mtDNA or Maternal DNA may not be fully from just the female line and that paternal DNA is also showing up on some peoples DNA. So mtDNA is not a pure mothers line with no male input on test after all, the possible recombination mtDNA is also something to think about as well.
"Until now, pathogenic mtDNA has been assumed to be maternally inherited or to have arisen spontaneously on a maternal mtDNA background. However, paternal mtDNA inheritance may go unrecognized in cases with sporadic, single, large-scale deletions, because mitochondrial haplotypes are rarely investigated in diagnostic analyses.""We report the case of a patient with severe exercise intolerance caused by a 2-bp deletion in the ND2 gene of mtDNA. A striking finding was that the mutation occurred on a paternal mtDNA background. Because the patient had an isolated myopathy due to a mutation found only in skeletal muscle, and because family members were unaffected and did not carry the mutation in blood or muscle, we conclude that the 2-bp deletion arose spontaneously in early embryogenesis or in the paternal germ line. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the father harbored this mutation at a low level in other tissues. The origin of the mutation could be similar to that of sporadic, single, large-scale deletions, which so far have been thought to arise spontaneously in maternal mtDNA, either in the germ line or in early embryogenesis.16 Mutations of mtDNA cause symptoms only when high levels of mutant mtDNA are present: typically, 50 to 60 percent for single, large-scale deletions and 80 to 90 percent for point mutations"
"Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited. Sperm mitochondria disappear in early embryogenesis by selective destruction, inactivation, or simple dilution by the vast surplus of oocyte mitochondria.
Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses. Studies of such hybrids and of mouse oocytes microinjected with sperm support the hypothesis that sperm mitochondria are targeted for destruction by nuclear-encoded proteins. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion in the ND2 gene (also known as MTND2), which encodes a subunit of the enzyme complex I of the mitochondrial respiratory chain. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient's muscle mtDNA."
FACT: "Others have have rolled out mitochondrial DNA testing, which is more problematic. Because such tests analyze less than 1 percent of a person’s genome, they will miss most of a person’s relatives. If you take a mitochondrial DNA test, you learn something about your mother’s ancestry. It leaves out completely your father’s ancestry. Plus, if you go back as little as 10 generations, that test is telling you something about only one ancestor out of more than a thousand from that part of your family tree." - https://skeptoid.com/blog/2015/08/18/dna-tell-ancestry/
>>---->Tracking "Native Blood" thru genealogy and blood ties is always the best way.
It is also factual Natives were predominantly O+ pre-Columbus, also many Natives are still carriers of the O+ blood type.
"All major ABO blood alleles are found in most populations worldwide, whereas the majority of Native Americans are nearly exclusively in the O group. O allele molecular characterization could aid in elucidating the possible causes of group O predominance in Native American populations. In this work, we studied exon 6 and 7 sequence diversity in 180 O blood group individuals from four different Mesoamerican populations." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862808
"Native Americans and Australian Aborigines were very likely 99-100% Rh+ before they began interbreeding with people from other parts of the world. This does not imply that Native Americans and Australian Aborigines are historically closely related to each other."
"Only about 1% of Native American Indian descendants have the RH-negative group"
Full Genome Mapping vs. (SNP) DNA Test Now that we've covered the mechanics and the costs, it is time to mention at least some of the more important issues related to DNA testing in general and phenotype or SNP DNA testing in particular.A big part of arguing for or against any test comes from understanding its goals, its accuracy and its implications. Thus, the first step of deciding, if it is worth doing for you or not, consists in finding out what the test does and does not do.For starters, make sure you are clear that this is not a complete mapping of your personal genome. What 23andMe offers is a SNP DNA test. This means is that it does not map and examine all your 3 billion genome base pairs but tests only what are arguably the most important 1 million snips of your DNA. While this may be a small part of your total genome it is supposed to be a rather revealing one. In fact, it is for this reason that the test is so affordable. Otherwise, you would be looking to pay upwards of many thousands of dollars rather than the mere couple of hundred you would be paying with 23andMe. In addition to cost, another advantage of the SNP test is that it is much faster while the main disadvantage is that it is less accurate. So, make sure you understand the differences and recognize the pro's and con's of each test.
"At present, genetic ancestry tests are not completely accurate or reliable. In addition, most of these tests are better at providing information about European, African, or Asian ancestry, but are not very good at providing information on Native American (Indian) ancestry.
One reason for this is that Native Americans (Indians) have not really participated in genetic research involving ancestry estimates, so scientists must make guesses about a person’s Native American (Indian) ancestry and these guesses are not always very accurate."
RACE is Real, and it is NOT a social construct.
Saying Race is just a social construct is an irresponsible move of "politically correct" scientist and anthropologist.
The Creator designed very unique "Races of Man" all over the Earth.
Races are unique and should be celebrated not shamed or suppressed
just because the politically correct want a certain group to benefit from a lie.
The human race is a SPECIES. The races of Man are UNIQUE GROUPS within our species.
Like trees, Races of Man also have genetic differences which make us all unique.
Its not Racist to celebrate those differences.
Indigenous people around the world have always celebrated our uniqueness through our cultures
by way of our unique visual arts, foods, music, and dance.
Posted Jan. 28, 2005
Special to World Science
Racial differences among people are real, new studies suggest, in findings that contradict the claims of some of the world’s leading experts and scientific institutions. These experts have declared race a “social construct,” or a figment of society’s collective imagination.
The new studies, some of which come from Stanford University, suggest that the way people classify themselves by race reflects real and clear genetic differences among them. This indicates there is some truth behind the racial distinctions that seem obvious to most ordinary people, the researchers said.
But they added that it’s important to define race correctly, since dangerous misconceptions, such as the notion that some races are superior to others, persist and can serve to excuse racism. What is true, they say, is that people of different races often have different ancestries—which means different genes, since genes are inherited from ancestors.
“The public in general is much more honest” about race than many academics are, “because the general public knows it signifies something rather than nothing,” said Jon Entine, a journalist and author of a critically well-received book, “Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It.”
The book’s title attests to the subject’s controversial nature, and the inflamed passions often triggered by any suggestion that racial differences reflect meaningful biological differences.
The emotions surrounding the debate arise from its origins in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, which led to widespread efforts to wipe out racism from society. Recognizing the evils that racial classification had created, from slavery to genocides,
many tried to fight racism by playing down racial differences as much as possible.
As these new attitudes spread, some experts began to say race didn’t exist at all. “Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification,” wrote the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals, in a May 3, 2001 editorial. “In medicine, there is only one race—the human race.’’
In support of the claim that racial differences don’t exist, many scientists cited findings from the Human Genome Project that humans are 99.9 percent genetically alike—findings that turned out to be possibly wrong (see exclusive World Science story of Sept. 8, 2004, “New findings undermine basis of ‘race isn’t real’ theory.”)
However, scientists, especially anthropologists, have continued to support the race-as-social-construct position.
The American Anthropological Association’s official statement on race declares: “physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them.” The group’s president-elect, Alan H. Goodman, was quoted in a Baltimore Sun article of last Oct. 10 as saying, “Race as an explanation for human biological variation is dead,” and comparing the race concept to a gun in the hands of racists.
The latest research to challenge the race-as-social-construct theory is a study of 3,636 people from across America and Taiwan, led by Neil Risch of the Stanford University School of Medicine. It found that “people’s self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background,” Risch said, according to a press release from the university.
This contradicts the notion that race is a social construct, Risch added in an email.
The study’s authors said it was the largest study of its kind. The participants identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. For each participant, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within functioning genes—some regions of the genome have no known use—but are simply genetic signposts that come in a variety of forms at the same place.
Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up.
And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.
“This work comes on the heels of several contradictory studies about the genetic basis of race. Some found that race is a social construct with no genetic basis while others suggested that clear genetic differences exist between people of different races,” the press release said.
“What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study.”
Although it was reported as the largest study to find genetic differences between races, Risch’s study is not the first. Previous studies have found that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically more susceptible than average for Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal nervous system disorder, for instance. Black populations have been found to carry higher levels of a mutation that leads to sickle-cell anemia.
Note: Sickle cell is found more frequently in persons of Middle Eastern, India (Hindustan), Mediterranean, North African, as well as Sub Saharan African heritage because those geographic regions are most prone to malaria. The gene variant for sickle cell disease is related to malaria, not skin color or race.
Risch’s study, however, is not only the largest study but also the first to find that these genetic differences are not isolated cases involving a handful of genes, but are spread throughout the genome.
These differences should be of more than passing interest to the medical community, Risch added, because recognizing them can help tailor treatments and prevention programs to better serve specific ethnic groups. It can also help geneticists avoid a major problem: failing to for account for differences among populations can throw off the results of studies in which researchers look for a link between a mutation and a disease.
New findings undermine basis of “race isn’t real” theory
Sept. 8, 2004
Special to World Science
New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real.
"All human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9 percent the same," U.S. President Bill Clinton said in 2000. It turns out that might not be true.
For years, mainstream scientists have said there are no real racial differences among people. Race is purely a “social construct” – in other words, it’s imaginary, some have argued.
But two new studies raise doubts about a key calculation on which this argument rests.
This calculation, often cited publicly by world-renowned geneticists, is that all humans are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical. As geneticist Eric Lander told Wired Magazine in February, 2001, any two humans are “more than 99.9 percent identical at the molecular level. Racial and ethnic differences are all indeed only skin deep.”
Even U.S. President Bill Clinton said, in a 2000 speech: “All human beings, regardless of race, are more than 99.9 percent the same.”
But two new studies suggest that percentage is too high, researchers say – although it's unclear whether the real number is much lower, or just a little.
“The 99.9 percent number is pure nonsense,” wrote Michael Wigler, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, in a recent email. “I will not say anything more about it.” However, he added, “it is true that humans are more like each other than many other species.”
Wigler is a co-author of one of the two studies, which is published in the July 23 advance online edition of the prestigious research journal Science. In it, the researchers wrote that they were surprised to find large-scale differences in human DNA. “There is considerable structural variation in the human genome [genetic code], most of which was not previously apparent,” they wrote.
Some researchers don't think the new findings should change the 99.9 percent figure that much. “Taking all types of DNA variation into consideration and looking at the entire 'content' of the genome, I would now say we are 99.7-99.8 percent identical,” said Stephen W. Scherer of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Scherer co-authored another study, whose conclusions were similar to those published in Science. His was published in the Aug. 1 advance online issue of the research journal Nature Genetics.
Scherer declined to say whether he thinks the findings mean race is real.
Lander – a researcher who has been quoted in published reports giving the 99.9 percent figure, and who works with the Whitehead Institute in Boston – didn’t respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment for this story. His secretary said he was abroad.
Also unreachable was Craig Venter, chairman of the Institute for Genomics Research in Rockville, Md., U.S.A. He was president of a company whose research produced the 99.9 percent figure in 2001, Celera Genomics. He didn't return phone calls or repeated emails.
In one of the new studies, Wigler’s group sampled DNA from 20 people from around the world. They detected 76 major differences among the people, differences known as copy number polymorphisms. This means that some sections of genetic code are repeated, but the number of repetitions vary among people.
This “could explain why people are different” – although whether it in fact does explain it, is unknown, said Scherer, whose team reached similar findings to those of the Cold Spring Harbor group.
“At first we were astonished and didn't believe our results because for years we had been taught that most variation in DNA was limited to very small changes,” Scherer said. But later, he added, he learned Harvard University researchers were making similar observations, so the groups combined their data and reached the same conclusion.
The Cold Spring Harbor team found that these changes affected the code for 70 genes. These included genes involved in Cohen syndrome – a form of mental retardation – as well as brain development, leukemia, drug resistant forms of breast cancer, regulation of eating and body weight.
The “race-isn't real” proponents have other arguments besides the 99.9 percent figure to back up their case. But that figure has become one of the most prominent pieces of their argument since about four years ago, when the number came out from scientists associated with the Human Genome Project, a 13-year program to map the human genetic code.
Another key argument that scientists have made to back up the statement that race isn’t real, is that most of the genetic differences between people are local ones, not differences between "races." In other words, as the U.S. public television channel PBS states on its website: “two random Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.”
However, those findings came out before the new genetic variation studies. Some researchers have suggested that the type of genetic variation these studies identified – the copy number differences – could be used as a new test for comparing the relative importance of local and group variation.
“My guess is we will see all types of LCVs [large-scale copy variations], so there will be some population or group 'prevalent'” ones, Scherer said.
Some people disputed whether any percentages, whether 99.9 or otherwise, should be cited as a measure of human differences. The figure is “entirely meaningless as a measure of functional population differences,” said Miami University’s Jon Entine, author of “Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It,” in an email.
“Dogs and wolves are 100 percent identical but functionally different,” Entine added. “Rats are about 95 percent the genetic equivalent of humans. These are ridiculous statements, although technically accurate. The use of the 99.9 percent figure by the popular press and scientists is, frankly scandalous.”
Whether or not race is real, researchers said, it doesn’t mean one race is better than another. “Great abuse has occurred in the past with notions of 'genetic superiority' of one particular group,” Stanford University's Neil Risch wrote in the July 1, 2002 issue of the research journal Genome Biology. “The notion of superiority is not scientific, only political, and can only be used for political purposes.”
Evolution is NOT a Part of Our CREATION Story, Evolution is a fairy tale and has NOTHING to do with RACE:
For those who actually believe in the white man's tale of evolution, or that our people came over a land bridge, THAT is exactly why Indian DNA testing will never give real results, we are not from over seas. First the government/corporations control the DNA tests, they CHOOSE what one ancestor to "highlight" from those DNA test. They can choose your one African ancestor, your one White ancestor, or NOT EVEN ONE of your 10,000 Indian ancestors.
Do you really trust the science of those who want every Indian dead on paper and other wise.
Here is a tip DNA test Indian to Indian, or don't test at all.
Fact remains that we Native American Indians were created from the RED clay of the Americas.
The white man tells the world Indians come from Asians who come from Africans,
who are said to come from a monkey named Lucy. So do you come from the Americas,
or do you come from a monkey in Africa named Lucy?
We are not African, Asian, or European so why do they use haplogroups based on foreign populations overseas to define our people, we need a NEW haplogroup based on our own people in our own land, not the fairy-tale land bridge, or the so called out of Africa theory. We as the first and original peoples of this land, were created in the Americas, we are not out of Africa, and we did not migrate out of Asia over a fairy-tale land bridge.
Agreeing with the CURRENT haplogroups is basically agreeing with the falsehoods of the out of Africa, and Land bridge theories concocted by Europeans concerning Native American Indians of the Americas.
The fact remains we are from the Americas and have always been from here!
My Ancestors were created from the Red Clay of the Americas, that is our origin story passed down for eons.
The Ancestors Blood in our veins STILL proclaims to this day...NATIVE BLOOD is what makes us
Native American Indians, always has been, always will be.
Paternal Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA
Marianne Schwartz, Ph.D., and John Vissing, M.D., Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2002; 347:576-580 August 22, 2002 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa020350
Lancet. 2000 Jan 15;355(9199):200.Failure of elimination of paternal mitochondrial DNA in abnormal embryos.St John J, Sakkas D, Dimitriadi K, Barnes A, Maclin V, Ramey J, Barratt C, De Jonge C.Abstract
Paternal mitochondrial DNA is normally eliminated from mammalian embryos. We have shown the presence of paternal mtDNA at the blastocyst stage in some abnormal human embryos.
Copyright © 2014-2018 Paper Genocide. All Rights Reserved.
SEE MORE ARTICLES FROM PAPERGENOCIDE.ORG IN THE LINKS BELOW