DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[frogdreaming]

poor johnny,

Nothing in what you have presented is currently recognized as revolutionary. (By anybody other than you and your ilk.)

-The concept that people are different is not new.

-The concept that these differences include susceptibility to disease, is not new.

-The concept that these differences include reactivity to drugs, is not new.

-The concept that these differences are the result of genetic variations, is not new.

-The concept that we obtained these genetic variations from our parents (and they from theirs), is not new.

-That these people (parents, parent's parents etc.) are considered our ancestors is not new.

Who do you think (aside from you of course) is surprised to find that these genetic variations come from our ancestors?

Who then (aside from you) is surprised to find that the groupings that define us externally (geographical origin, skin color, eye color etc.) also occur in groups that affect us internally as well?

This 'revolution' that you describe has been expected and anticipated by the entire conscious world for the past 30 years. It was the entire reason that the Human Genome project was launched. To define/describe the genome in a way that would finally allow the extraction of the specific relationships between gene variation and the conditions that they affect, even though the general relationships were already understood.

Every genetic variation currently in play in the vast population of the world, has been passed down to the current generations from their ancestors. Every specific variation has been passed down through the ages, from ancestor to descendant, since its inception.

How then, is it possible for any genetic variation that affects a large number of people to not be ancestral?

Here's a concept for you, (try hard to get your head around it) every person that suffers from any specific disease or condition that is based upon a single genetic variation, is by definition related to every other person that shares that same variation. Furthermore everyone of them share a single common ancestor. In fact any two people that share a genetic variance, regardless of its effect, also share a common ancestor, whichever individual in the past was the first to have it and then pass it on to his/her descendants.

Work it backwards. Every group of people that carry a specific genetic variation, share not only an ancestor, but are a part of the same bio-geographical group that contains that individual ancestor.

So please don't try to suggest that the concept of ancestry, as it applies to the relationship between genetic variation and genetic based physiological effect, is in any way revolutionary.

So how's that, have I satisfied your curiosity?

Can you please explain the validity of Ancestry for the board?

The significance of ancestry is well known and has been for decades, your own understanding of "Ancestry" is perhaps what is in question.

regards,
frog