Is the sentence okay?

I would use mapping or identity rather than affirmation.

Thank you JPB

That's a very odd use of the word "affiliated".

Ascribed to?
Associated with?
Linked to?
Identified with?

Well, is this okay?

People seem eager to know whether the DNA mapping of the twins has been linked to the same father.

Not the mapping, the DNA;

something like

People seem eager to know whether DNA mapping of the twins has shown links to the same father.

Thank you McTag.

But:

If the father is the uncle of the twins, they will still have "links" to the man, while the intention of the original sentence to convey is that the DNA evidence shows the man is the true father of the twins.

In this case, will your sentence work?

I don't know how to answer your question. There is no suggestion or mention of an "uncle" in any of the previous writing.
From what little I know about DNA science, I think the results of the test would show whether there was a single father, and in the case of there not being a single father (although there is no suggestion of this in the article linked), what the family relationship is likely to be.

And, btw, from my own understanding of mixed parentage, the offspring of a mixed couple (one black, the other white) can be
a) black
b) white
c) mixed
I assume the probabilities of that are 25%, 25% and 50% respectively.
Here, the mother is evidently of mixed parentage herself, so the possibilities become more complicated.