Kimberly, doing that - adding a person who did not contribute genetic material to your creation and marking them "non-bioligic" was a so-calked fix created to passify a small but vocal minority who prefered the lineage of their adoptive family over their actual roots. It ABSOLUTELY effects the DNA structure of the tree in a negative fashion. To prove it, I added my two "adopted children" and flagged our relationship non-biologic. Both these adoptees are of the species canis lupus familiaris. Both are flagged as non-biologic relations to me. Both appear as siblings to my real daughter. When reviewing the DNA Ancestors report for my bitch Camera-53, the system says that she inherited her X chromosome and mitochondrial DNA from my family - despite the profiles being marked non-biological and the two of us being seperate species.
Likewise, the Wikitree DNA Ancestor report of my male German Shepherd insists he gets his X chromosome contribution from my lineage.
If these blatent errors exist on non-biologic profiles that so obviously do not carry any human DNA, much less mine, I shudder to think what kind of DNA mess will be on the tree after 10 or 20 years of adding non-biological "relatives". When the option of adding adopted parents to the profiles of adoptees was limited to only private profiles, the worst that could happen is that after the death of each party in the triad, decendent geneaologists who attempt to use DNA technology to prove their lineage will detect the absence of any shared genetic material and will disconnect the parents. Who knows how they will detect or correct the real relationships if the database is showing connections flagged as non-biologic as sharing chromosomes and DNA.