Wait didn’t Warren say that her parents eloped because of disapproval of NA ancestry?

[Pogo]

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Bullshit.

That would mean nobody ever has children until they're at least 40 years old. Think about it.

That's why I said 20 years. You could look it up.

Well, as an example....
\

great great grandfather fathered 18 children by 2 wives.

(9 each)

Youngest born about a year after he celebrated his 65th birthday.

His second wife would not have passed on the same DNA materials his first wife did.

If his first wife had NA DNA, his first 9 children would have carried it, but if the second wife didn't, neither would the 9 children she bore.

And how is this in any way related to the post quoted?

It's a comment on your 20 years=1 generation.

by YOUR standards, his daughter was 3 generations (60 years) younger than him.


(Not all kids are born when their parents are in their early 20s.

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

 

[Foxfyre]

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Warren's "alleged" test results say she "may have Indian ancestry as far back as 10 generations ago?

Really?

700 Years Ago?

So back in 1318 someone in her family got it on with a Cherokee Indian or Delaware?

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

Using 40 as a generation you go back 400 years ago.

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Even using 20 years as a generation her claim is improbable.

Then there is the social aspect that typically half blooded Native Americans tend to stay within an Native American community, not seek marriage outside of their community for generations on end.

Again, generations as determined by genetics/relationships/DNA are based on the chain of births and not by a specified number of years.

Me - my mother - my grandmother - by great grandmother - my great great grandmother represent 5 generations. If everyone is an only child, and they all have their children young, say at 18, those five generations would represent only something over 70 years. In many families, however, those five generations could easily represent more than 150 years.

In either case, by the fifth generation, relationship and/or ethnicity will not be at all conclusive if it can be determined at all in a DNA test.

And let's be serious about this, who the hell identifies as a tiny sliver of a race/ethnicity instead of the vast majority of their race/ethnicity, particularly when the majority is also the community and culture in which they were raised?

My mother-in-law came to the US from Taiwan. She married my VERY white father-in-law. My husband is half-Chinese. If you ask, he'll tell you he's American. If you absolutely insist on it, he'll tell you he's half-Chinese. On the census, he marks both "white" and "Asian/Pacific Islander". Fair enough.

My half-Chinese husband married me, a white woman. Yes, I have more Native American in me than Elizabeth Warren does (because who doesn't?), but I'm white. Our adult son, mathematically, is 1/4 Chinese, 3/4 white. He also identifies as both Chinese and white; he specifically prefers the term "biracial American", because he also considers American to be the most important point. He identifies with the Asian part as strongly as he does because 1) it's apparent when you look at him (my boss met him and said, "He looks like a Chinese you!") and 2) he was very close to his grandmother, and the importance that she put on the first grandson from her first son was a very important cultural thing to her.

Now, if my 1/4 Chinese son marries another white female - which he most likely will - his kids are going to be 1/8 Chinese, 7/8 white. My mother-in-law has passed away. They're most likely going to identify as white Americans, with a really cool family story to tell.

That's the thing. Over time in societies that are less strict about racial or ethnic purity, most of us wind up being a broad composite of various human groups around the world. I know my own heritage includes British, Scotch, Irish, Welsh, Austrian, German, with a bit of Italian, Spanish, and Mexican mixed in there. And since the Mexican people are closer to the Native Americans in genetic makeup, I likely would test considerably more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. But the only evidence I have of Native American heritage is that elusive unidentifiable Cherokee somebody that made it into the family lore.

I used to think my father was of French descent, but when I was unable to turn up much of anything related to France in my ancestral tree, I did some more research. It seems it likely that one of my ancesters did a name change way back when from the original German to something that sounded more French. If so, then I likely have a strain of German Jews in my ancestry, and maybe can stumble onto the actual folks before I die. If not it's fun to contemplate.

Our daughter once sent us a Happy Hannukah card with the notation that we could have had at least one Jewish kid. Now I can tell her maybe I did.

 

[Auld Phart]

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Bullshit.

That would mean nobody ever has children until they're at least 40 years old. Think about it.

That's why I said 20 years. You could look it up.

Well, as an example....
\

great great grandfather fathered 18 children by 2 wives.

(9 each)

Youngest born about a year after he celebrated his 65th birthday.

His second wife would not have passed on the same DNA materials his first wife did.

If his first wife had NA DNA, his first 9 children would have carried it, but if the second wife didn't, neither would the 9 children she bore.

And how is this in any way related to the post quoted?

It's a comment on your 20 years=1 generation.

by YOUR standards, his daughter was 3 generations (60 years) younger than him.


(Not all kids are born when their parents are in their early 20s.

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

no. it isn't

 

[Cecilie1200]

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Warren's "alleged" test results say she "may have Indian ancestry as far back as 10 generations ago?

Really?

700 Years Ago?

So back in 1318 someone in her family got it on with a Cherokee Indian or Delaware?

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

Using 40 as a generation you go back 400 years ago.

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Even using 20 years as a generation her claim is improbable.

Then there is the social aspect that typically half blooded Native Americans tend to stay within an Native American community, not seek marriage outside of their community for generations on end.

Again, generations as determined by genetics/relationships/DNA are based on the chain of births and not by a specified number of years.

Me - my mother - my grandmother - by great grandmother - my great great grandmother represent 5 generations. If everyone is an only child, and they all have their children young, say at 18, those five generations would represent only something over 70 years. In many families, however, those five generations could easily represent more than 150 years.

In either case, by the fifth generation, relationship and/or ethnicity will not be at all conclusive if it can be determined at all in a DNA test.

And let's be serious about this, who the hell identifies as a tiny sliver of a race/ethnicity instead of the vast majority of their race/ethnicity, particularly when the majority is also the community and culture in which they were raised?

My mother-in-law came to the US from Taiwan. She married my VERY white father-in-law. My husband is half-Chinese. If you ask, he'll tell you he's American. If you absolutely insist on it, he'll tell you he's half-Chinese. On the census, he marks both "white" and "Asian/Pacific Islander". Fair enough.

My half-Chinese husband married me, a white woman. Yes, I have more Native American in me than Elizabeth Warren does (because who doesn't?), but I'm white. Our adult son, mathematically, is 1/4 Chinese, 3/4 white. He also identifies as both Chinese and white; he specifically prefers the term "biracial American", because he also considers American to be the most important point. He identifies with the Asian part as strongly as he does because 1) it's apparent when you look at him (my boss met him and said, "He looks like a Chinese you!") and 2) he was very close to his grandmother, and the importance that she put on the first grandson from her first son was a very important cultural thing to her.

Now, if my 1/4 Chinese son marries another white female - which he most likely will - his kids are going to be 1/8 Chinese, 7/8 white. My mother-in-law has passed away. They're most likely going to identify as white Americans, with a really cool family story to tell.

That's the thing. Over time in societies that are less strict about racial or ethnic purity, most of us wind up being a broad composite of various human groups around the world. I know my own heritage includes British, Scotch, Irish, Welsh, Austrian, German, with a bit of Italian, Spanish, and Mexican mixed in there. And since the Mexican people are closer to the Native Americans in genetic makeup, I likely would test considerably more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. But the only evidence I have of Native American heritage is that elusive unidentifiable Cherokee somebody that made it into the family lore.

I used to think my father was of French descent, but when I was unable to turn up much of anything related to France in my ancestral tree, I did some more research. It seems it likely that one of my ancesters did a name change way back when from the original German to something that sounded more French. If so, then I likely have a strain of German Jews in my ancestry, and maybe can stumble onto the actual folks before I die. If not it's fun to contemplate.

Our daughter once sent us a Happy Hannukah card with the notation that we could have had at least one Jewish kid. Now I can tell her maybe I did.

Well, that was always sort of the point of the US: that race and ethnicity don't HAVE to matter, beyond being fun and interesting stories. Unless one is a racist, all that has to matter in this country is what kind of person someone is.

The most recent few generations in my family have been a complete hodge-podge of races and ethnicities. My siblings and I, and our age-comparable cousins, have married and had children all over the board, genetically-speaking. If our grandkids decide to get genetic testing, 23andMe is going to throw up their hands in despair.

 

[BS Filter]

I’d still like a link to the context . And doesn’t that back up her story about her family oral history ?

Timmy,, to get the percentage they found in her DNA, the get together would have had to have taken place around the time of the first thanksgiving....

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

Actually five geneitc segments were identified as Native American with a 99% probability "defined at the 99% posterior probability value".and described as "clearly distinct from segments of European ancestry (nominal p-value 7.4 x 10-7, corrected p-value of 2.6 x 10-4) and is strongly associated with Native American ancestry". That's directly from the report obviously.

As far as claiming such chromosomes can't be traced beyond great-greats, you'll have to argue with the experts whose job it is.

The experts said she has less native blood than the average person. She's a fraud that claimed Native status to gain advantage in academia Affirmative Action.

 

[Foxfyre]

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Warren's "alleged" test results say she "may have Indian ancestry as far back as 10 generations ago?

Really?

700 Years Ago?

So back in 1318 someone in her family got it on with a Cherokee Indian or Delaware?

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

Using 40 as a generation you go back 400 years ago.

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Even using 20 years as a generation her claim is improbable.

Then there is the social aspect that typically half blooded Native Americans tend to stay within an Native American community, not seek marriage outside of their community for generations on end.

Again, generations as determined by genetics/relationships/DNA are based on the chain of births and not by a specified number of years.

Me - my mother - my grandmother - by great grandmother - my great great grandmother represent 5 generations. If everyone is an only child, and they all have their children young, say at 18, those five generations would represent only something over 70 years. In many families, however, those five generations could easily represent more than 150 years.

In either case, by the fifth generation, relationship and/or ethnicity will not be at all conclusive if it can be determined at all in a DNA test.

And let's be serious about this, who the hell identifies as a tiny sliver of a race/ethnicity instead of the vast majority of their race/ethnicity, particularly when the majority is also the community and culture in which they were raised?

My mother-in-law came to the US from Taiwan. She married my VERY white father-in-law. My husband is half-Chinese. If you ask, he'll tell you he's American. If you absolutely insist on it, he'll tell you he's half-Chinese. On the census, he marks both "white" and "Asian/Pacific Islander". Fair enough.

My half-Chinese husband married me, a white woman. Yes, I have more Native American in me than Elizabeth Warren does (because who doesn't?), but I'm white. Our adult son, mathematically, is 1/4 Chinese, 3/4 white. He also identifies as both Chinese and white; he specifically prefers the term "biracial American", because he also considers American to be the most important point. He identifies with the Asian part as strongly as he does because 1) it's apparent when you look at him (my boss met him and said, "He looks like a Chinese you!") and 2) he was very close to his grandmother, and the importance that she put on the first grandson from her first son was a very important cultural thing to her.

Now, if my 1/4 Chinese son marries another white female - which he most likely will - his kids are going to be 1/8 Chinese, 7/8 white. My mother-in-law has passed away. They're most likely going to identify as white Americans, with a really cool family story to tell.

That's the thing. Over time in societies that are less strict about racial or ethnic purity, most of us wind up being a broad composite of various human groups around the world. I know my own heritage includes British, Scotch, Irish, Welsh, Austrian, German, with a bit of Italian, Spanish, and Mexican mixed in there. And since the Mexican people are closer to the Native Americans in genetic makeup, I likely would test considerably more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. But the only evidence I have of Native American heritage is that elusive unidentifiable Cherokee somebody that made it into the family lore.

I used to think my father was of French descent, but when I was unable to turn up much of anything related to France in my ancestral tree, I did some more research. It seems it likely that one of my ancesters did a name change way back when from the original German to something that sounded more French. If so, then I likely have a strain of German Jews in my ancestry, and maybe can stumble onto the actual folks before I die. If not it's fun to contemplate.

Our daughter once sent us a Happy Hannukah card with the notation that we could have had at least one Jewish kid. Now I can tell her maybe I did.

Well, that was always sort of the point of the US: that race and ethnicity don't HAVE to matter, beyond being fun and interesting stories. Unless one is a racist, all that has to matter in this country is what kind of person someone is.

The most recent few generations in my family have been a complete hodge-podge of races and ethnicities. My siblings and I, and our age-comparable cousins, have married and had children all over the board, genetically-speaking. If our grandkids decide to get genetic testing, 23andMe is going to throw up their hands in despair.

Yes. It was always the hope of the Founders that race, ethnicity, religion, or social class would not define who and what we were or could become in this brave new world. It really is disheartening when some try to divide and conquer and take control by dividing us into all sorts of groups and categories and pitting us against each other. I long for a time when our genetics is just an interesting part of our history but does not define who and what we are as a person. I long for a time when skin color is of no more importance than eye color or hair color. I long for a time when there are no more hyphenated Americans but just Americans.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Warren's "alleged" test results say she "may have Indian ancestry as far back as 10 generations ago?

Really?

700 Years Ago?

So back in 1318 someone in her family got it on with a Cherokee Indian or Delaware?

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

Using 40 as a generation you go back 400 years ago.

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Even using 20 years as a generation her claim is improbable.

Then there is the social aspect that typically half blooded Native Americans tend to stay within an Native American community, not seek marriage outside of their community for generations on end.

Again, generations as determined by genetics/relationships/DNA are based on the chain of births and not by a specified number of years.

Me - my mother - my grandmother - by great grandmother - my great great grandmother represent 5 generations. If everyone is an only child, and they all have their children young, say at 18, those five generations would represent only something over 70 years. In many families, however, those five generations could easily represent more than 150 years.

In either case, by the fifth generation, relationship and/or ethnicity will not be at all conclusive if it can be determined at all in a DNA test.

And let's be serious about this, who the hell identifies as a tiny sliver of a race/ethnicity instead of the vast majority of their race/ethnicity, particularly when the majority is also the community and culture in which they were raised?

My mother-in-law came to the US from Taiwan. She married my VERY white father-in-law. My husband is half-Chinese. If you ask, he'll tell you he's American. If you absolutely insist on it, he'll tell you he's half-Chinese. On the census, he marks both "white" and "Asian/Pacific Islander". Fair enough.

My half-Chinese husband married me, a white woman. Yes, I have more Native American in me than Elizabeth Warren does (because who doesn't?), but I'm white. Our adult son, mathematically, is 1/4 Chinese, 3/4 white. He also identifies as both Chinese and white; he specifically prefers the term "biracial American", because he also considers American to be the most important point. He identifies with the Asian part as strongly as he does because 1) it's apparent when you look at him (my boss met him and said, "He looks like a Chinese you!") and 2) he was very close to his grandmother, and the importance that she put on the first grandson from her first son was a very important cultural thing to her.

Now, if my 1/4 Chinese son marries another white female - which he most likely will - his kids are going to be 1/8 Chinese, 7/8 white. My mother-in-law has passed away. They're most likely going to identify as white Americans, with a really cool family story to tell.

That's the thing. Over time in societies that are less strict about racial or ethnic purity, most of us wind up being a broad composite of various human groups around the world. I know my own heritage includes British, Scotch, Irish, Welsh, Austrian, German, with a bit of Italian, Spanish, and Mexican mixed in there. And since the Mexican people are closer to the Native Americans in genetic makeup, I likely would test considerably more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. But the only evidence I have of Native American heritage is that elusive unidentifiable Cherokee somebody that made it into the family lore.

I used to think my father was of French descent, but when I was unable to turn up much of anything related to France in my ancestral tree, I did some more research. It seems it likely that one of my ancesters did a name change way back when from the original German to something that sounded more French. If so, then I likely have a strain of German Jews in my ancestry, and maybe can stumble onto the actual folks before I die. If not it's fun to contemplate.

Our daughter once sent us a Happy Hannukah card with the notation that we could have had at least one Jewish kid. Now I can tell her maybe I did.

Well, that was always sort of the point of the US: that race and ethnicity don't HAVE to matter, beyond being fun and interesting stories. Unless one is a racist, all that has to matter in this country is what kind of person someone is.

The most recent few generations in my family have been a complete hodge-podge of races and ethnicities. My siblings and I, and our age-comparable cousins, have married and had children all over the board, genetically-speaking. If our grandkids decide to get genetic testing, 23andMe is going to throw up their hands in despair.

Yes. It was always the hope of the Founders that race, ethnicity, religion, or social class would not define who and what we were or could become in this brave new world. It really is disheartening when some try to divide and conquer and take control by dividing us into all sorts of groups and categories and pitting us against each other. I long for a time when our genetics is just an interesting part of our history but does not define who and what we are as a person. I long for a time when skin color is of no more importance than eye color or hair color. I long for a time when there are no more hyphenated Americans but just Americans.

We can divide ourselves into our own group. We'll call ourselves "People who have evolved past this shit".

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit.

That would mean nobody ever has children until they're at least 40 years old. Think about it.

That's why I said 20 years. You could look it up.

Well, as an example....
\

great great grandfather fathered 18 children by 2 wives.

(9 each)

Youngest born about a year after he celebrated his 65th birthday.

His second wife would not have passed on the same DNA materials his first wife did.

If his first wife had NA DNA, his first 9 children would have carried it, but if the second wife didn't, neither would the 9 children she bore.

And how is this in any way related to the post quoted?

It's a comment on your 20 years=1 generation.

by YOUR standards, his daughter was 3 generations (60 years) younger than him.


(Not all kids are born when their parents are in their early 20s.

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

no. it isn't

Oh isn't it.

In the phrase "40 to 70 years" the minimum quantity is "40".

He's saying ages 40 to 70 are the childbearing years.

Tell me with a straight face that you've never heard of anyone under 40 having a child.

As I said --- absurd.

Really? This degree of reality-suspension just to try to score partisan hack points on a message board? Really?

 

[Auld Phart]

Well, as an example....
\

great great grandfather fathered 18 children by 2 wives.

(9 each)

Youngest born about a year after he celebrated his 65th birthday.

His second wife would not have passed on the same DNA materials his first wife did.

If his first wife had NA DNA, his first 9 children would have carried it, but if the second wife didn't, neither would the 9 children she bore.

And how is this in any way related to the post quoted?

It's a comment on your 20 years=1 generation.

by YOUR standards, his daughter was 3 generations (60 years) younger than him.


(Not all kids are born when their parents are in their early 20s.

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

no. it isn't

Oh isn't it.

In the phrase "40 to 70 years" the minimum quantity is "40".

He's saying ages 40 to 70 are the childbearing years.

Tell me with a straight face that you've never heard of anyone under 40 having a child.

As I said --- absurd.

Really? This degree of reality-suspension just to try to score partisan hack points on a message board? Really?

No

what's absurd is you claiming a 'generation' is 20 years.

 

[Pogo]

And how is this in any way related to the post quoted?

It's a comment on your 20 years=1 generation.

by YOUR standards, his daughter was 3 generations (60 years) younger than him.


(Not all kids are born when their parents are in their early 20s.

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

no. it isn't

Oh isn't it.

In the phrase "40 to 70 years" the minimum quantity is "40".

He's saying ages 40 to 70 are the childbearing years.

Tell me with a straight face that you've never heard of anyone under 40 having a child.

As I said --- absurd.

Really? This degree of reality-suspension just to try to score partisan hack points on a message board? Really?

No

what's absurd is you claiming a 'generation' is 20 years.

At what age do humans start reproducing? Hm?

Just take a wild guess.

And here's a hint --- how many women do you know giving birth between ages 40 and 70?

 

[Crixus]

I’d still like a link to the context . And doesn’t that back up her story about her family oral history ?

Timmy,, to get the percentage they found in her DNA, the get together would have had to have taken place around the time of the first thanksgiving....

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Warren's "alleged" test results say she "may have Indian ancestry as far back as 10 generations ago?

Really?

700 Years Ago?

So back in 1318 someone in her family got it on with a Cherokee Indian or Delaware?

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

Using 40 as a generation you go back 400 years ago.

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Even using 20 years as a generation her claim is improbable.

Then there is the social aspect that typically half blooded Native Americans tend to stay within an Native American community, not seek marriage outside of their community for generations on end.

Lol, that or one of her ancestors raped a salve. Pe

I’d still like a link to the context . And doesn’t that back up her story about her family oral history ?

Timmy,, to get the percentage they found in her DNA, the get together would have had to have taken place around the time of the first thanksgiving....

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

Actually five geneitc segments were identified as Native American with a 99% probability "defined at the 99% posterior probability value".and described as "clearly distinct from segments of European ancestry (nominal p-value 7.4 x 10-7, corrected p-value of 2.6 x 10-4) and is strongly associated with Native American ancestry". That's directly from the report obviously.

As far as claiming such chromosomes can't be traced beyond great-greats, you'll have to argue with the experts whose job it is.

None of that backs Tantos own words when she said her mom and dad had to sneak off because her mom was part Delaware and part Cherokee. All you do with this post is try and push the same lie from another direction. Even this last post and every desperate attempt to not look like a fucking rube is torpedoed by one simple thing. Math dumbfuck. The numbers make it impossible for Tanto to be telling the truth. You are to stupid, or dishonest to recognize this. As quoted 5 million times already in Tanto Warrens own words,


“ My mom and dad were very much in love with each other and they wanted to get married and my father’s parents said absolutely not. You can’t marry her because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware. And um, after fighting it as long as they could, my parents went off, they eloped. It was an issue in our family the whole time I grew up about these two families. It was an issue still raised at my mom’s funeral. So what I know about my parents is I know that in that little town they grew up in that my father’s parents knew enough about my mom and her family to say I have no doubts.”

The stupid bitch told the lie because her mom was dead and couldn’t be asked. Typical politition. So simple math does not support your desperate attempt to not look like a fucking dumbass.

 

[Crixus]

FLASHBACK: Warren Said Her Parents Eloped Because Of Racism Against Her Mom's Native American Ancestry

FLASHBACK: Warren Said Her Parents Eloped Because Of Racism Against Her Mom's Native American Ancestry
by Hank BerrienOctober 16, 2018


In a June 29, 2012 interview with NECN’s Jim Braude on the BroadSide television program, Elizabeth Warren stated that her parents had to elope in 1932 because her father’s parents objected to her mother’s Cherokee and Delaware ancestry. Warren stated:

Actually, you have it wrong about what it is I believe. My mom and dad were very much in love with each other and they wanted to get married and my father’s parents said absolutely not. You can’t marry her because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware. And um, after fighting it as long as they could, my parents went off, they eloped. It was an issue in our family the whole time I grew up about these two families. It was an issue still raised at my mother’s funeral. So what I know about my parents is I know that in that little town they grew up in that my father’s parents knew enough about my mother and her family to say I have no doubts.”

 

[Pogo]

Timmy,, to get the percentage they found in her DNA, the get together would have had to have taken place around the time of the first thanksgiving....

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Warren's "alleged" test results say she "may have Indian ancestry as far back as 10 generations ago?

Really?

700 Years Ago?

So back in 1318 someone in her family got it on with a Cherokee Indian or Delaware?

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

Using 40 as a generation you go back 400 years ago.

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Even using 20 years as a generation her claim is improbable.

Then there is the social aspect that typically half blooded Native Americans tend to stay within an Native American community, not seek marriage outside of their community for generations on end.

Lol, that or one of her ancestors raped a salve. Pe

Timmy,, to get the percentage they found in her DNA, the get together would have had to have taken place around the time of the first thanksgiving....

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

Actually five geneitc segments were identified as Native American with a 99% probability "defined at the 99% posterior probability value".and described as "clearly distinct from segments of European ancestry (nominal p-value 7.4 x 10-7, corrected p-value of 2.6 x 10-4) and is strongly associated with Native American ancestry". That's directly from the report obviously.

As far as claiming such chromosomes can't be traced beyond great-greats, you'll have to argue with the experts whose job it is.

None of that backs Tantos own words when she said her mom and dad had to sneak off because her mom was part Delaware and part Cherokee. All you do with this post is try and push the same lie from another direction. Even this last post and every desperate attempt to not look like a fucking rube is torpedoed by one simple thing. Math dumbfuck. The numbers make it impossible for Tanto to be telling the truth. You are to stupid, or dishonest to recognize this. As quoted 5 million times already in Tanto Warrens own words,


“ My mom and dad were very much in love with each other and they wanted to get married and my father’s parents said absolutely not. You can’t marry her because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware. And um, after fighting it as long as they could, my parents went off, they eloped. It was an issue in our family the whole time I grew up about these two families. It was an issue still raised at my mom’s funeral. So what I know about my parents is I know that in that little town they grew up in that my father’s parents knew enough about my mom and her family to say I have no doubts.”

The stupid bitch told the lie because her mom was dead and couldn’t be asked. Typical politition. So simple math does not support your desperate attempt to not look like a fucking dumbass.

And once AGAIN you've been invited for a day and a half now to demonstrate where that lie is, and you can't do it.

And you can't do it because it doesn't exist.

And nothing you just wrote in any way relates to the post you quoted anyway.
You're a troll, nothing more. Dismissed.

 

[Pogo]

It's a comment on your 20 years=1 generation.

by YOUR standards, his daughter was 3 generations (60 years) younger than him.


(Not all kids are born when their parents are in their early 20s.

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

no. it isn't

Oh isn't it.

In the phrase "40 to 70 years" the minimum quantity is "40".

He's saying ages 40 to 70 are the childbearing years.

Tell me with a straight face that you've never heard of anyone under 40 having a child.

As I said --- absurd.

Really? This degree of reality-suspension just to try to score partisan hack points on a message board? Really?

No

what's absurd is you claiming a 'generation' is 20 years.

At what age do humans start reproducing? Hm?

Just take a wild guess.

And here's a hint --- how many women do you know giving birth between ages 40 and 70?

Here's another hint:

>> At 23, I was still in college, partying on Tuesday nights and flitting in and out of classes during the day. What were you doing? Even if you had a child, you definitely didn't have a grandchild, like 23-year-old Rifca Stanescu of Romania, who is said to be the world's youngest grandmother. Although, according to Wikipedia, the youngest grandmother was 17-year-old Mum-Zi of Nigeria.) << - Parenting
​

It's a shame you missed this but at some point maybe your parents should have had that talk about the "birds and bees". I'm afraid there's no stork involved.

 

[Crixus]

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Warren's "alleged" test results say she "may have Indian ancestry as far back as 10 generations ago?

Really?

700 Years Ago?

So back in 1318 someone in her family got it on with a Cherokee Indian or Delaware?

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

Using 40 as a generation you go back 400 years ago.

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Even using 20 years as a generation her claim is improbable.

Then there is the social aspect that typically half blooded Native Americans tend to stay within an Native American community, not seek marriage outside of their community for generations on end.

Lol, that or one of her ancestors raped a salve. Pe

6-10 generations.

.How long is a generation? 25 years on the average? warren born in 1950, Grandmother in 1900. Sometime before 1900, As you go back, 20 years would be more accurate as a generation.

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

In geneaology and biology, however, it is calculated by a chain of births

4 generations:
baby
mom and dad
grandma and grandpa
greatgrandma and greatgrandpa


And for those of us in our senior years the greats could easily have been born before the Civil War. And that is about as far back as DNA testing is at all reliable and it gets pretty iffy even then. By the great greats, unless there has been no racial mingling, a Native American ancestor would be pretty undeterminable in the maze of all our complex DNA. Virtually everybody of European descent will test for some Native American heritage but for most of us it will be well under 1% though statistically more than what they came up with for Elizabeth Warren. Which makes her less Native American than most of us of European descent.

And we don't even know that for sure since the guy who tested her didn't have a Native American sample to compare so used samples from Mexico, Peru, and some other central or South American country--can't remember which. And even then she came in hugely under 1% for those matches.

Actually five geneitc segments were identified as Native American with a 99% probability "defined at the 99% posterior probability value".and described as "clearly distinct from segments of European ancestry (nominal p-value 7.4 x 10-7, corrected p-value of 2.6 x 10-4) and is strongly associated with Native American ancestry". That's directly from the report obviously.

As far as claiming such chromosomes can't be traced beyond great-greats, you'll have to argue with the experts whose job it is.

None of that backs Tantos own words when she said her mom and dad had to sneak off because her mom was part Delaware and part Cherokee. All you do with this post is try and push the same lie from another direction. Even this last post and every desperate attempt to not look like a fucking rube is torpedoed by one simple thing. Math dumbfuck. The numbers make it impossible for Tanto to be telling the truth. You are to stupid, or dishonest to recognize this. As quoted 5 million times already in Tanto Warrens own words,


“ My mom and dad were very much in love with each other and they wanted to get married and my father’s parents said absolutely not. You can’t marry her because she’s part Cherokee and she’s part Delaware. And um, after fighting it as long as they could, my parents went off, they eloped. It was an issue in our family the whole time I grew up about these two families. It was an issue still raised at my mom’s funeral. So what I know about my parents is I know that in that little town they grew up in that my father’s parents knew enough about my mom and her family to say I have no doubts.”

The stupid bitch told the lie because her mom was dead and couldn’t be asked. Typical politition. So simple math does not support your desperate attempt to not look like a fucking dumbass.

And once AGAIN you've been invited for a day and a half now to demonstrate where that lie is, and you can't do it.

And you can't do it because it doesn't exist.

And nothing you just wrote in any way relates to the post you quoted anyway.
You're a troll, nothing more. Dismissed.

Okay light weight, bring the math. You can’t. By your own admission you lost this already. You are telling lies and trying to save face because I handed you tour ass every third page in this thread. No matter what you do, or lies you tell, you look stupid in this. So here is one more chanc to prove your shit pogo, explain the math of all of it? One, you can’t because you don’t know how to google it. Two, you won’t because you know you are talking out your ass. So come on Mr DNA and American history expert, splain the math.

 

[Crixus]

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

no. it isn't

Oh isn't it.

In the phrase "40 to 70 years" the minimum quantity is "40".

He's saying ages 40 to 70 are the childbearing years.

Tell me with a straight face that you've never heard of anyone under 40 having a child.

As I said --- absurd.

Really? This degree of reality-suspension just to try to score partisan hack points on a message board? Really?

No

what's absurd is you claiming a 'generation' is 20 years.

At what age do humans start reproducing? Hm?

Just take a wild guess.

And here's a hint --- how many women do you know giving birth between ages 40 and 70?

Here's another hint:

>> At 23, I was still in college, partying on Tuesday nights and flitting in and out of classes during the day. What were you doing? Even if you had a child, you definitely didn't have a grandchild, like 23-year-old Rifca Stanescu of Romania, who is said to be the world's youngest grandmother. Although, according to Wikipedia, the youngest grandmother was 17-year-old Mum-Zi of Nigeria.) << - Parenting
​

It's a shame you missed this but at some point maybe your parents should have had that talk about the "birds and bees". I'm afraid there's no stork involved.

Deflection. Pegs you as a weakling. Running away would be more honerable then that weak sauce.

 

[Auld Phart]

Of course they weren't. But what he tried to sell here was that a generation means "40 to 70 years".
Which is absurd.

no. it isn't

Oh isn't it.

In the phrase "40 to 70 years" the minimum quantity is "40".

He's saying ages 40 to 70 are the childbearing years.

Tell me with a straight face that you've never heard of anyone under 40 having a child.

As I said --- absurd.

Really? This degree of reality-suspension just to try to score partisan hack points on a message board? Really?

No

what's absurd is you claiming a 'generation' is 20 years.

At what age do humans start reproducing? Hm?

Just take a wild guess.

And here's a hint --- how many women do you know giving birth between ages 40 and 70?

Here's another hint:

>> At 23, I was still in college, partying on Tuesday nights and flitting in and out of classes during the day. What were you doing? Even if you had a child, you definitely didn't have a grandchild, like 23-year-old Rifca Stanescu of Romania, who is said to be the world's youngest grandmother. Although, according to Wikipedia, the youngest grandmother was 17-year-old Mum-Zi of Nigeria.) << - Parenting
​

It's a shame you missed this but at some point maybe your parents should have had that talk about the "birds and bees". I'm afraid there's no stork involved.

Here's a hint

some don't get married til middle age or later, few only have one child.



you want to use teenagers as mothers?

Fine.

here's a list of mothers giving birth into their 50s

15 World’s Oldest Mothers. Story of the Oldest Woman to Give Birth

 

[Pogo]

I used to think my father was of French descent, but when I was unable to turn up much of anything related to France in my ancestral tree, I did some more research. It seems it likely that one of my ancesters did a name change way back when from the original German to something that sounded more French. If so, then I likely have a strain of German Jews in my ancestry, and maybe can stumble onto the actual folks before I die. If not it's fun to contemplate.

Why that's a false comparison is this:

"French" and "German" are linguistically diverse, not genetically diverse. Ask anyone in Alsace-Lorraine. What was going on in this genetic report was an analysis of race. There's no way such an analysis could distinguish between "French" and "German"

When I had one of these tests done it correctly identified Ireland as high on the list but incorrectly named Serbia as the highest regional match --- an area that has no representation in my genealogy at all.

When I was a wee sprout we too were told we had French lineage. Only after one grew up to rational adulthood was it revealed that that meant Norman French and to get there you had to trace back literally a thousand years.

 

[Pogo]

no. it isn't

Oh isn't it.

In the phrase "40 to 70 years" the minimum quantity is "40".

He's saying ages 40 to 70 are the childbearing years.

Tell me with a straight face that you've never heard of anyone under 40 having a child.

As I said --- absurd.

Really? This degree of reality-suspension just to try to score partisan hack points on a message board? Really?

No

what's absurd is you claiming a 'generation' is 20 years.

At what age do humans start reproducing? Hm?

Just take a wild guess.

And here's a hint --- how many women do you know giving birth between ages 40 and 70?

Here's another hint:

>> At 23, I was still in college, partying on Tuesday nights and flitting in and out of classes during the day. What were you doing? Even if you had a child, you definitely didn't have a grandchild, like 23-year-old Rifca Stanescu of Romania, who is said to be the world's youngest grandmother. Although, according to Wikipedia, the youngest grandmother was 17-year-old Mum-Zi of Nigeria.) << - Parenting
​

It's a shame you missed this but at some point maybe your parents should have had that talk about the "birds and bees". I'm afraid there's no stork involved.

Here's a hint

some don't get married til middle age or later, few only have one child.



you want to use teenagers as mothers?

Fine.

here's a list of mothers giving birth into their 50s

15 World’s Oldest Mothers. Story of the Oldest Woman to Give Birth

Once AGAIN ---- in the phrase "40 to 70" ---- what is the minimum number??

Use Googles if you have to.

 

[Crixus]

Okay pogo, I’ll ask nicely. Pleas offer your opinion that accounts for the 700 or whatever years Tanto got her injun blood, the 1,024th, yet she says her parents had to elope due to racism because Mama Tanto was part Delaware and part Cherokee ? So where in the almost 800 years did Tanto wrong out all but 1/1,024th of her injun blood?