100% English?

[andyandy]

hiya

i've just watched the channel 4 program "100% English?"..... which basically went round the country finding people ranging from the "proud to be English" to the "people with black skin aren't English" and "Any less than 12 generations and you're not English..."

and then made them take a DNA test....


their results were typically a surprise to them - standard seemed to be rather a mixture of N.European, S.E European, Middle Eastern and Far East.....

it was rather fun to see the shock....one lady who was told she fitted a Romany gypsy DNA profile threatened to sue

but my question is as to how the DNA profile works - they were typically saying things like "30% N European, 20% m. eastern....."
how is this calculated? Is it accurate - or very much an approximation?

and wouldn't DNA all trace back to Africa? I'm a little confused as to how such things are calculated....

 

[AmateurScientist]

I'm no expert, but the human genome changes over time. Therefore, you can follow changes that appear only in certain populations and sub-populations. You can do this for 1000s of generations.

Because of those changes, we can find genetic markers that are present which appeared first in some populations from a mutation that occurred say, approximately 10,000 years ago. That mutation might not be present in a different population that lived 5,000 miles away at the same time. Anyway, there are enough genetic markers that have been identified as appearing only or mostly within a given sub-population living in a certain region such that we can say that a given person has markers X, Y, and Z that mean he shares genetic ancestory with certain sub-populations.

Yeah, we may all share genetic markers that were common to a single ancestor, but that doesn't mean all our genes are alike. There have been tremendous changes to our DNA since then, so that we can look at a modern person and see 1000s of mutations that have accumulated over time that are not found in "Eve's" DNA.

Along the way there are identifiable markers that are not shared by all populations, which eliminate some. Do that with enough markers, and you can identify traces of a person's ancestory using only their DNA.

AS

 

[PopeTom]

This seems a goo place to plug the Genographic Project.

 

[andyandy]

I'm no expert, but the human genome changes over time. Therefore, you can follow changes that appear only in certain populations and sub-populations. You can do this for 1000s of generations.

Because of those changes, we can find genetic markers that are present which appeared first in some populations from a mutation that occurred say, approximately 10,000 years ago. That mutation might not be present in a different population that lived 5,000 miles away at the same time. Anyway, there are enough genetic markers that have been identified as appearing only or mostly within a given sub-population living in a certain region such that we can say that a given person has markers X, Y, and Z that mean he shares genetic ancestory with certain sub-populations.

Yeah, we may all share genetic markers that were common to a single ancestor, but that doesn't mean all our genes are alike. There have been tremendous changes to our DNA since then, so that we can look at a modern person and see 1000s of mutations that have accumulated over time that are not found in "Eve's" DNA.

Along the way there are identifiable markers that are not shared by all populations, which eliminate some. Do that with enough markers, and you can identify traces of a person's ancestory using only their DNA.

AS

cheers - that makes some sense...

 

[Cuddles]

But who do they call English? England has been invaded, conquered and colonised by pretty much everyone at some point. Are the "true" English those originally from Germany, Scandinavia, Italy, France, or what? And we all probably came from Africa anyway. It shouldn't take a DNA test to point out that claiming some people are English and some aren't is just silly.

 

[I less than three logic]

But who do they call English? England has been invaded, conquered and colonised by pretty much everyone at some point. Are the "true" English those originally from Germany, Scandinavia, Italy, France, or what? And we all probably came from Africa anyway. It shouldn't take a DNA test to point out that claiming some people are English and some aren't is just silly.

Yep, but just silly makes for a good show sometimes.

 

[Big Les]

Well, things like this suggest that there's been much more continuity than many have claimed of late. Not "English" (in fact the above suggests that the English are in a minority compared to "native Britons"), but perhaps most of us are distinctly "British" in genetic terms as well as cultural ones.