Post by jul on Mar 6, 2004 2:34:30 GMT -5
Well i do have a dumb question (again)
I have a question about these percent thingy in populations, to prove that they *mixed*
(this is just a random example)
In fact it prove it very less do it?
I mean if in real life someone tell you his ancestor is asian or negroid or whatever and you would ask...oh well, do you do a test? how much is it?And he/she answered well i do have 1,5% mongoloid/negroid in me you would proberly laugh your ass of when he says he is mixed.
so i wonder why these percents got more importent in relation of a group. Do it means that a number of these group are actually more *mixed* (have a higher percentage) but the median of the group has a lack of this DNA?
Then i would understand why the result is that some individual look mixed and some dont.
I still have a problem relate the Genetic results with the real outcome.
(i mean who someone looks like)
I really hope someone can help me with that.
Thanks
I have a question about these percent thingy in populations, to prove that they *mixed*
...Russians is not 1% and 1.5%...
(this is just a random example)
In fact it prove it very less do it?
I mean if in real life someone tell you his ancestor is asian or negroid or whatever and you would ask...oh well, do you do a test? how much is it?And he/she answered well i do have 1,5% mongoloid/negroid in me you would proberly laugh your ass of when he says he is mixed.
so i wonder why these percents got more importent in relation of a group. Do it means that a number of these group are actually more *mixed* (have a higher percentage) but the median of the group has a lack of this DNA?
Then i would understand why the result is that some individual look mixed and some dont.
I still have a problem relate the Genetic results with the real outcome.
(i mean who someone looks like)
I really hope someone can help me with that.
Thanks