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

So she listed her race as Natice American for her professorship...then told us a story about how her parents eloped because of disapproval of native ancestry. Really...someone actually objected to maybe (best case scenario, also unlikely) to 1/32 of being Native American?

Yeah.

So?

This just in for the uninitiated ---- that's how bigotry works ... from ignorance. Doesn't matter if it's 1/32nd or any degree at all, doesn't matter if it's even accurate --- just as it doesn't matter if that lynch victim really is guilty. Ignorance isn't interested in rationality.

What's your point here?
You are a fucking idiot.

Warren is not native at all and her mother is barely more native than she is.

She fucking lied. Do you need a picture to understand that?

"Lied" huh.

--- About what?

Another victim walks right into his own hole.

See that post right above yours? That guy tried to sell this same bullshit yesterday. I called him out on it. Now look where he is -- melted down into a babbling blob of incoherency.
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.
 
In other words recipes FROM 5 Indian tribes. Not some white wanna be .

Correct.

Just as if I gave you a recipe for jalfreezi curry it doesn't mean I've even been near India.
A white woman does NOT have recipes from the 5 tribes.

Why the fuck not?
What, you think there are "racial secrets"?

That's weird bruh.
Oklahoma is a landlocked area...where on earth would the Cherokee be getting the crab for crab meat omelets?


They traded with the Soux who traded with the Nezperce who traded with the Maidu who caught the crabs. Ask Pogo, his great grand peepaw had a collage library on the subject that only he can see so he knows.
Those sons of bitches were holding out on us with the refrigeration technology...we gave them guns and horses...
 
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.
We both probably have more genetic markers than warren, the natives came over from the land bridge from the ice age. Both NA and Chinese have genes that make some poor at processing alcohol. I have some mongol in me from the khans apparently, but that’s coming from ancestry.com so who knows. Didn’t know the khans tangled all that much with us. Anyway, you get my point.
 
Correct.

Just as if I gave you a recipe for jalfreezi curry it doesn't mean I've even been near India.
A white woman does NOT have recipes from the 5 tribes.

Why the fuck not?
What, you think there are "racial secrets"?

That's weird bruh.
Oklahoma is a landlocked area...where on earth would the Cherokee be getting the crab for crab meat omelets?


They traded with the Soux who traded with the Nezperce who traded with the Maidu who caught the crabs. Ask Pogo, his great grand peepaw had a collage library on the subject that only he can see so he knows.
Those sons of bitches were holding out on us with the refrigeration technology...we gave them guns and horses...



And booze.
 
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.

However, I was not speaking of genetics in the post you referred to but was having a conversation re family lineage and how it gets muddled after so many generations.
 
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.
We both probably have more genetic markers than warren, the natives came over from the land bridge from the ice age. Both NA and Chinese have genes that make some poor at processing alcohol. I have some mongol in me from the khans apparently, but that’s coming from ancestry.com so who knows. Didn’t know the khans tangled all that much with us. Anyway, you get my point.

Word is that Genghis and his hordes spread their genes so far and wide that tons of people carry those genes now.
 
Yeah.

So?

This just in for the uninitiated ---- that's how bigotry works ... from ignorance. Doesn't matter if it's 1/32nd or any degree at all, doesn't matter if it's even accurate --- just as it doesn't matter if that lynch victim really is guilty. Ignorance isn't interested in rationality.

What's your point here?
You are a fucking idiot.

Warren is not native at all and her mother is barely more native than she is.

She fucking lied. Do you need a picture to understand that?

"Lied" huh.

--- About what?

Another victim walks right into his own hole.

See that post right above yours? That guy tried to sell this same bullshit yesterday. I called him out on it. Now look where he is -- melted down into a babbling blob of incoherency.
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
 
Last edited:
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.

However, I was not speaking of genetics in the post you referred to but was having a conversation re family lineage and how it gets muddled after so many generations.

I understand that and I agree with you. So I shared my own example of the same thing.
 
Why is it that everybody that attacks Trump ends up permanently damaging themselves? (I already know, just seeing if you do)

It's actually funny to watch.

warren%20-%20dna%20test.jpg
 
You are a fucking idiot.

Warren is not native at all and her mother is barely more native than she is.

She fucking lied. Do you need a picture to understand that?

"Lied" huh.

--- About what?

Another victim walks right into his own hole.

See that post right above yours? That guy tried to sell this same bullshit yesterday. I called him out on it. Now look where he is -- melted down into a babbling blob of incoherency.
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
You are a fucking idiot.

Warren is not native at all and her mother is barely more native than she is.

She fucking lied. Do you need a picture to understand that?

"Lied" huh.

--- About what?

Another victim walks right into his own hole.

See that post right above yours? That guy tried to sell this same bullshit yesterday. I called him out on it. Now look where he is -- melted down into a babbling blob of incoherency.
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
No, what you are doing is comparing European DNA testing standards to Natives. A few big problems with that. It’s correct that it is not an exact science. Mainly because there has been a vast amount of mixing, especially in Europe and Asia. Why more so there than other parts of the world...HORSEBACK RIDING. The American continents did not have horses or anything comparable like camels until they were introduced by Europeans. It makes things that cause a lot of the ethnic mixing vastly easier. Things like trading, conquest, and travel. Very hard to trade when A. You have to walk wherever you are trading B. You can only transport what you are able to carry. Also, hard to hold conquered territory when your forces are limited to walking everywhere they go. It also makes things like logistics pretty damn hard. There were dozens of large ranging empires through Asian and European history, that wasn’t really possible without horses. Horses made wide scale national warfare much easier, empire or not, so without the large empires, people were still conquering each other. A common domination technique used back then was to also forcibly migrate the people you have conquered into another foreign region, kind of hard to start an uprising with a smaller group of people surrounded by strangers. The travel part is obvious. Another technology along the same lines making mixing much easier was sailing and navigation. Not developed by natives. Made trade, warfare, and travel much easier for many of the same regions. Except you could carry a hell of a lot more goods and people on a boat than one could a carriage or caravan.

Now I’m not saying that things like trade, war, or travel never happened among natives, just that it was severely limited without horses and sailing. You never hear about the Sioux or Inuits coming down to conquer the Lenape or whatever. You don’t hear about the Mayans coming up to trade with the Navajo. You do however hear about Alexander’s empire stretching as far as India, the Khans stretching as far as Europe, and the Romans stretching as far as Great Britain. Even with all that ethnic mixing, we still have pretty good, but definitely not perfect, genetic markers that give us a pretty good idea of where you came from. So if the tribes did participate in genetic testing, we’d have a much cleaner indication of where somebody came from.

Also, I guess Latin America isn’t a thing now? Might as well do away with the term Latino.
 
"Lied" huh.

--- About what?

Another victim walks right into his own hole.

See that post right above yours? That guy tried to sell this same bullshit yesterday. I called him out on it. Now look where he is -- melted down into a babbling blob of incoherency.
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
"Lied" huh.

--- About what?

Another victim walks right into his own hole.

See that post right above yours? That guy tried to sell this same bullshit yesterday. I called him out on it. Now look where he is -- melted down into a babbling blob of incoherency.
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
No, what you are doing is comparing European DNA testing standards to Natives. A few big problems with that. It’s correct that it is not an exact science. Mainly because there has been a vast amount of mixing, especially in Europe and Asia. Why more so there than other parts of the world...HORSEBACK RIDING. The American continents did not have horses or anything comparable like camels until they were introduced by Europeans. It makes things that cause a lot of the ethnic mixing vastly easier. Things like trading, conquest, and travel. Very hard to trade when A. You have to walk wherever you are trading B. You can only transport what you are able to carry. Also, hard to hold conquered territory when your forces are limited to walking everywhere they go. It also makes things like logistics pretty damn hard. There were dozens of large ranging empires through Asian and European history, that wasn’t really possible without horses. Horses made wide scale national warfare much easier, empire or not, so without the large empires, people were still conquering each other. A common domination technique used back then was to also forcibly migrate the people you have conquered into another foreign region, kind of hard to start an uprising with a smaller group of people surrounded by strangers. The travel part is obvious. Another technology along the same lines making mixing much easier was sailing and navigation. Not developed by natives. Made trade, warfare, and travel much easier for many of the same regions. Except you could carry a hell of a lot more goods and people on a boat than one could a carriage or caravan.

Now I’m not saying that things like trade, war, or travel never happened among natives, just that it was severely limited without horses and sailing. You never hear about the Sioux or Inuits coming down to conquer the Lenape or whatever. You don’t hear about the Mayans coming up to trade with the Navajo. You do however hear about Alexander’s empire stretching as far as India, the Khans stretching as far as Europe, and the Romans stretching as far as Great Britain. Even with all that ethnic mixing, we still have pretty good, but definitely not perfect, genetic markers that give us a pretty good idea of where you came from. So if the tribes did participate in genetic testing, we’d have a much cleaner indication of where somebody came from.

Also, I guess Latin America isn’t a thing now? Might as well do away with the term Latino.

Still not sure what the point of all that verbiage was but on the end part, "Latin America" refers to a continent colonized by speakers of Latin-derived languages (Spanish, Portuguese and French). What the genome project needed was samples from as far as possible those people who were NOT colonized, who retained their own cells of breeding. Yanomami for instance can't be considered "Latin Americans" to any greater extent than that the political entities that surround their lands are run by governments that speak Portuguese or Spanish. But that certainly doesn't make them "Latin".
 
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
Incoherency? Because I type on my phone for this and don’t have the patience to correct typos for strangers? Run with that if you have too.

Your latest point has been that the report says nothing about Cherokee ancestry, because there isn’t a great pool of genetic data points for the Cherokee...The rest of the report says pretty definitively the rest of her genetic makeup is of European origin. So, I assume your overall point was going to be that “we don’t know if she does have Cherokee ancestry because there isn’t that great of a pool with those indetified Cherokee genetic traits.” Okay, so if we know that if she has something around .2 percent of South American native in her makeup, and the rest European...where is she going to magically going to gain more Cherokee DNA? Is she going to grow more chromosomes? Are we going to instal an extra mitochondria in all her cells?

Again where her extremely minimal native ancestry most likely came from, is someone in her family line was a son/daughter of a Tejano, (right by Oklahoma) mixed with a European about 4-5, maybe 6 or so generations ago.

My favorite tweet I’ve seen concerning this, although I don’t know who attribute it to. Was now that Richard spencer found out that Warren is 99.8% white, He has decided to endorsing her

The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
No, what you are doing is comparing European DNA testing standards to Natives. A few big problems with that. It’s correct that it is not an exact science. Mainly because there has been a vast amount of mixing, especially in Europe and Asia. Why more so there than other parts of the world...HORSEBACK RIDING. The American continents did not have horses or anything comparable like camels until they were introduced by Europeans. It makes things that cause a lot of the ethnic mixing vastly easier. Things like trading, conquest, and travel. Very hard to trade when A. You have to walk wherever you are trading B. You can only transport what you are able to carry. Also, hard to hold conquered territory when your forces are limited to walking everywhere they go. It also makes things like logistics pretty damn hard. There were dozens of large ranging empires through Asian and European history, that wasn’t really possible without horses. Horses made wide scale national warfare much easier, empire or not, so without the large empires, people were still conquering each other. A common domination technique used back then was to also forcibly migrate the people you have conquered into another foreign region, kind of hard to start an uprising with a smaller group of people surrounded by strangers. The travel part is obvious. Another technology along the same lines making mixing much easier was sailing and navigation. Not developed by natives. Made trade, warfare, and travel much easier for many of the same regions. Except you could carry a hell of a lot more goods and people on a boat than one could a carriage or caravan.

Now I’m not saying that things like trade, war, or travel never happened among natives, just that it was severely limited without horses and sailing. You never hear about the Sioux or Inuits coming down to conquer the Lenape or whatever. You don’t hear about the Mayans coming up to trade with the Navajo. You do however hear about Alexander’s empire stretching as far as India, the Khans stretching as far as Europe, and the Romans stretching as far as Great Britain. Even with all that ethnic mixing, we still have pretty good, but definitely not perfect, genetic markers that give us a pretty good idea of where you came from. So if the tribes did participate in genetic testing, we’d have a much cleaner indication of where somebody came from.

Also, I guess Latin America isn’t a thing now? Might as well do away with the term Latino.

Still not sure what the point of all that verbiage was but on the end part, "Latin America" refers to a continent colonized by speakers of Latin-derived languages (Spanish, Portuguese and French). What the genome project needed was samples from as far as possible those people who were NOT colonized, who retained their own cells of breeding. Yanomami for instance can't be considered "Latin Americans" to any greater extent than that the political entities that surround their lands are run by governments that speak Portuguese or Spanish. But that certainly doesn't make them "Latin".
Well Latino is basically Central American and some of the Caribbean in my book, same for the people who’d call themselves Latino.
 
The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
The "post right above yours (his)" is not even your post, ergo it's not "your" incoherency. Start there. Wake me when you catch up.

NOR, just to look ahead, does the report say anything about the subject having "South American native" ancestry as such. Nor (AGAIN) does it say anything about "Tejano" --- which is not even a genetic group --- or "Oklahoma". In fact what it does say, immediately at the top of the first page, is that the lab had no knowledge of who the subject was.
The expert who did the test does explain that the genetic markers used to compare Warrens DNA against are those of natives from south/Latin America. Sure the tejanos were a people, official peoples or tribe, I really don’t care. That’s what they called themselves and that’s where we get the word Texas from. So we named the biggest state in the lower 48 after them, so I’d say they were a specific group. A group that on average has around 12% of South/Latin American dna in them.

Again the rest of her is all European, so where’s that Cherokee blood? The Cherokee’s were from much further north north east than Mexico. And then got kicked out of Oklahoma so Europeans could settle there.

Once AGAIN ------------ and this is at least the SEVENTH TIME NOW -------------- there is no mention of, or attempted mention of, or allusion to, or implication of, or suggestion of, anything remotely resembling the term "Cherokee" ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE REPORT. DOES NOT EXIST.

PERIOD
.


Any question of "Cherokee", from anyone anywhere, is entirely irrelevant here.
Fatter o' mact the report takes pains to point out that any such tribal identification would in fact be impossible, just in case it's not already obvious to the reader.

NOR
is there any mention anywhere of "Latin America" or "Latin" anything. Latin is a European language and as such also irrelevant. The genome samples from the Americas would be, by definition, NATIVE, not "Latin".

Now as far as geographies of the Cherokee that were never mentioned, or any other tribe (why do y'all keep leaving out the Lenape? Inconvenient?) --- perhaps the most critical single sentence of this report that keeps flying over y'all WDS-mongers' heads is this:

"Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed."

That means (a) if there is Cherokee, Lenape, Lakota, whatever North American chromosome content there, it can't be matched, which in turn means it cannot eliminate, for example, "Cherokee" as an element, if it were even possible to narrow to "tribe". Thus it's not possible for the analyzed content to be less NA than analyzed but it is possible that it's more. This is not an exact science as I've pointed out to you klowns for years -- it can identify certain markers while with others it has to throw up its hands and shrug. There are elements we know that we know we know, and other elements that we know we don't know.

Again quoting:
>> (5) The sample also contained smaller segments that could not be reliably assigned to any specific ancestry group (at 99% posterior probability). The total length of these unassigned segments was 366 centiMorgans, and they span 267,650,000 DNA bases. <<​

This is all completely over your head. You should venture into a simpler thread since this is clearly beyond your comprehension.
No, what you are doing is comparing European DNA testing standards to Natives. A few big problems with that. It’s correct that it is not an exact science. Mainly because there has been a vast amount of mixing, especially in Europe and Asia. Why more so there than other parts of the world...HORSEBACK RIDING. The American continents did not have horses or anything comparable like camels until they were introduced by Europeans. It makes things that cause a lot of the ethnic mixing vastly easier. Things like trading, conquest, and travel. Very hard to trade when A. You have to walk wherever you are trading B. You can only transport what you are able to carry. Also, hard to hold conquered territory when your forces are limited to walking everywhere they go. It also makes things like logistics pretty damn hard. There were dozens of large ranging empires through Asian and European history, that wasn’t really possible without horses. Horses made wide scale national warfare much easier, empire or not, so without the large empires, people were still conquering each other. A common domination technique used back then was to also forcibly migrate the people you have conquered into another foreign region, kind of hard to start an uprising with a smaller group of people surrounded by strangers. The travel part is obvious. Another technology along the same lines making mixing much easier was sailing and navigation. Not developed by natives. Made trade, warfare, and travel much easier for many of the same regions. Except you could carry a hell of a lot more goods and people on a boat than one could a carriage or caravan.

Now I’m not saying that things like trade, war, or travel never happened among natives, just that it was severely limited without horses and sailing. You never hear about the Sioux or Inuits coming down to conquer the Lenape or whatever. You don’t hear about the Mayans coming up to trade with the Navajo. You do however hear about Alexander’s empire stretching as far as India, the Khans stretching as far as Europe, and the Romans stretching as far as Great Britain. Even with all that ethnic mixing, we still have pretty good, but definitely not perfect, genetic markers that give us a pretty good idea of where you came from. So if the tribes did participate in genetic testing, we’d have a much cleaner indication of where somebody came from.

Also, I guess Latin America isn’t a thing now? Might as well do away with the term Latino.

Still not sure what the point of all that verbiage was but on the end part, "Latin America" refers to a continent colonized by speakers of Latin-derived languages (Spanish, Portuguese and French). What the genome project needed was samples from as far as possible those people who were NOT colonized, who retained their own cells of breeding. Yanomami for instance can't be considered "Latin Americans" to any greater extent than that the political entities that surround their lands are run by governments that speak Portuguese or Spanish. But that certainly doesn't make them "Latin".
Well Latino is basically Central American and some of the Caribbean in my book, same for the people who’d call themselves Latino.

If you're not speaking Spanish, Portuguese or French, "Latin" really doesn't have a basis does it.

"Carib" would be more to the point for genomic study. That's an actual indigenous race.
 
So she listed her race as Natice American for her professorship...then told us a story about how her parents eloped because of disapproval of native ancestry. Really...someone actually objected to maybe (best case scenario, also unlikely) to 1/32 of being Native American?

Yeah.

So?

This just in for the uninitiated ---- that's how bigotry works ... from ignorance. Doesn't matter if it's 1/32nd or any degree at all, doesn't matter if it's even accurate --- just as it doesn't matter if that lynch victim really is guilty. Ignorance isn't interested in rationality.

What's your point here?
It matters when you expect us to believe it, moron.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top