DNA nation and ancestry, what/who is really behind it?

Hi,
I am wondering what this DNA analyses really leads to, or for whom it is destined:

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/program/dna-nation

Pure curiosity or a way for our government to gain free information about everyone participating. Far cry?

The other thing which goes in the same direction is *ancestry.com.au*, another governmental incentive:

http://www.ancestry.com.au/?s_kwcid...7820&o_lid=47820&o_sch=Paid+Search+–+NonBrand

I don't know, what are your thoughts? Is my mind exaggerating this issue?
Cheers

 

Yes.

 

Always happy in receiving a honest reply,
cheers

 

It begs the question, why the DNA investigations didn't start in Australia beginning with "Mungo Man" considering it was an Australian based program.

 

Rabia, a young Hazara girl from Meherabad

Australians are mainly descended from British or Irish migrants. If you look at more specific ethnic groups, DNA studies get more interesting. For example, the Hazara and Pashtuns in Afghanistan. Haplogroup R1a makes up 51% among the Pashtun people but 16-18% of them also belong to Haplogroup Q, which is typically found in Mongolia. The Hazara and Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan have a mixture of western Eurasian and eastern Eurasian haplogroups because of their patrimonial and maternal relations to Mongol people. The frequency of the Asian haplogroup C in the Hazara is 40% and they cluster with the Pashtuns and other Afghan tribes in the PCA, plotted somewhere between East Asians and Caucasians. The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in the Pashtuns is R1a1a-M17, which has the highest diversity among populations of the Indus Valley, and the ancestors of the Pashtun people originally migrated from India and then admixed with local Asians in Afghanistan.

 

This makes sense.

Before roads and rail, goods were transported the length and breath of Australia by camels. The camel drivers came from Afghanistan so they left more behind than just camels. The famous train the Ghan that transverses Australia north to south, is named after the Afghani camel drivers and one of the routes the camel trains took.

 

Cannot pass their DNA onto a goat or camel. So inseminating anything with 2 legs & not 4 is a step up I suppose. LMFAO

 

You are sick. You really need help!

 

D'oh! Because human kind (and their DNA) coming out of Africa predates Mungo Man.

 

LMFAO

 

You know what is hilarious? LMFAO

Some of you clowns emphatically believe everything these scientists tell you about the evolution of humanity, until the same, or different scientist digs another bone out of the dirt that contradicts the original theory, or previous known theories.

Then you clowns start believing another theory about the evolution of humanity, without ever questioning it yourselves. Ever heard of sheep flock syndrome or mentality?

I am totally convinced that if these scientists wrapped up shyte in gold paper, they could convince you dumb people to eat it by saying it was corn & carrot chocolate.

Quote from Albert Einstein. Definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over & over again and expecting a different result."

 

I think it's just a moneyspinner for ancestry.com.au (or ancestry.co.uk). But interesting nonetheless.

 

I am almost tempted to take a test. Although I was born in Australia, I have mostly UK ancestry (Scottish with a bit of Welsh) and a bit of French, Italian, Spanish, American, Canadian and Argentinian in the mix as well. It could be interesting.....

 

Ancestory.com.au is the Australian branch service of Ancestory.com- an American for-profit service. It isn't "a governmental initiative " - it's a business, and from what read about the fees it charges people searching their family tree a pretty lucrative one.

Here's the Wikipedia link and an extract of the info

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry.com

Ancestry.com LLC is a privately held Internet company based in Lehi, Utah, United States. The largest for-profit genealogy company in the world, it operates a network of genealogical and historical record websites focused on the United States and nine foreign countries, develops and markets genealogical software, and offers a wide array of genealogical related services.[4


Your link to the DNA study report at SBS came up error 404, page not found. I hadn't heard about this study before so I don't know what they were looking for, but I'll try and find info on it later.

Could you tell me what sort of free information you think the government is getting from the DNA study and people using family tree search services like Ancestory.com.au and what use you think the government makes of the information ?

 

There has never been "another theory about the evolution of humanity": the theory of human evolution is modern man evolved from earlier hominims. That's it. That's the theory. It hasn't changed. There haven't been "previous known theories" in science that have been discarded.

Species places on the timeline has changed but the theory of human evolution has always been the same. Nothing "contradicts the original theory" because the theory hasn't changed since Darwin presented it in the 1900s.

"Ever heard of sheep flock syndrome or mentality?" Oh yes!

Faith without evidence-everything from creationism to the healing power of crystals to essential oils altering your DNA.

And I can think of a few paths science has led us down we shouldn't have followed. It's a shame you couldn't.

.Quote from Albert Einstein. Definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over & over again and expecting a different result."
Paraphrase from Sushisnake: Definition of insanity: trying to change historical fact by inventing new ones in the hope history itself will change. Closely allied to magical thinking.

 

One day we won't have passports anymore, your DNA coupled to your personal digit will replace it.
What more could any government ask for? Total control......
Cheerio

 

That will save the trip to the post office for the photos.

 

The point: scientists are touting this theory around as if it was factual, but its never been proven to be be factual. Its all guess-work. A theory should never be advocated as factual, unless its been proven.

I'm sorry, but in my reality. Just because someone wrote a book about the development of species without factual evidence, and a few people did some computer modelling without factual evidence, doesn't make something factual - it just makes it a theory. Doing the same modelling based on the same theory without factual evidence is not progressive, its stagnating.

 

First of all, we need to talk about the scientific method. A theory can never be proven - it can only be disproven. Theories can amass positive evidence over time and be accepted, but such acceptance is always provisional.

Secondly we need to distinguish between the phenomenon and the theory. The phenomenon is what we are trying to explain - the theory is the explanation. The phenomenon of evolution (not the theory that explains it) is factual and very well-established. The theory, as described by Darwin and modified by modern genetics, is our best explanation given what we know.

If you can come up with a better theory that explains the facts, by all means do so.

 

Without using "word-play", the phenomenon of human evolution is still just a theory, and it should not be touted around as fact without conclusive evidence, which has never been provided. There is still too much inconclusive evidence, and fragments genetic information to form a factual conclusive decision.

Suggesting modern humans descended from primates without producing the "missing link" is scientific negligence. Suggesting this is speculation and assumption, but children are being taught this information like it was factual.

If scientific negligence can be established in one link of the scientific theory, then its not difficult to make the assumption there is bound to be more scientific negligence throughout the entire human evolution scientific assumption.

Its not responsible science to teach people something is factual, and then dig up a bone tomorrow, and completely change the theory again to suit the new theory or agenda.

The science should be taught as a theory, not as a fact.

 

Cite example.

 

Cite example.

 

Because Mungo Man is 40,000 years old, not 60,000 as previously believed for a couple of decades. It was redated in 2003.

 

Do you mean this? Everything being taught before this find was being taught as fact.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/