Elizabeth Warren's DNA test results point to Native American heritage

[Faun]

Since when do rightards give a shit when a pol embellishes? Isn’t that the message the right boasts when defending Donald “4000 lies and counting” Trump?

Nice deflection… Too bad it didn’t work

LOLOL

Oh, it worked alright. You don’t really think your acknowledgment is required, do ya??

In No way is she an American Indian... End of story

There are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightards

"We always have an excuse why our lies are okay." - American leftards

LOLOLOLOL

Too hysterical coming from a Trump fluffer.

 

[iceberg]

Nice deflection… Too bad it didn’t work

LOLOL

Oh, it worked alright. You don’t really think your acknowledgment is required, do ya??

In No way is she an American Indian... End of story

There are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightards

"We always have an excuse why our lies are okay." - American leftards

LOLOLOLOL

Too hysterical coming from a Trump fluffer.

just go back to making shit up, son. reality seems to really **** with you.

 

[Faun]

In No way is she an American Indian... End of story

There are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightards

She has been soundly rejected by the very tribe she claims have the heritage of...
She’s a lying *****

We are to believe that her mother had to elope when she got married because she was 1/1000 Native American?

Well.... They must have had some very meticulous bigots in town..you know...people who were a thousand times more prejudiced than normal!

And freaking psychic, to boot. Pretty sure no one can detect 1/1024th Native American purely by sight.

So? Did she ever claim to look like an Indian?

 

[Faun]

Oh? Where’s the lie? She said there was Indian in her heritage and she posted the results of a DNA test showing there’s Indian in her heritage.

please show where there was "indian" heritage in the test results.

will be interesting as no indian dna was used in the test itself.

Who told you no Indian blood was used??

the person who did the test. take up your stupidity with him.

LOL

I just showed you his test samples.

So who told you no Indian blood was used?

Um, the test summary itself. It's already been cited and linked numerous times. Are you telling us you're in here running off at the mouth, making definitive statements about the test, and you didn't actually look at the results yourself?

Damn, are YOU a gullible tool.

That’s from the actual test, ya moron. Indian samples were used.

 

[Faun]

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/64 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

what is 1/2 of 1/64th again?

hint - it's NOT 1/16th as you say above.

can you please for the love of god stop being so fundamentally stupid about math?

No worries. While I possess the character to own up to my mistakes, you apparently don’t. Even after you were shown that Indian blood was used in her DNA test, you can neither find it in yourself to admit you made a mistake by denying any Indian blood was used; nor will you admit from where you heard that nonsense.

i own up to them all the time when i make 'em. but your math is way off.

indian blood as far as i've read can't be used because american indians won't allow it. link provided several times. stop math and go google for a bit.

LOL

I showed you the test samples. What a pity you’re ineducable.

The same test samples that you didn't read, and thus didn't know they said that they didn't actually have any Native American samples from the US?

Dumbfuck, where did I say the samples were from the U.S.??

In fact, the section I posted from the report even identified them as being tribes located in Canada and Mexico.

 

[Faun]

No worries. While I possess the character to own up to my mistakes, you apparently don’t. Even after you were shown that Indian blood was used in her DNA test, you can neither find it in yourself to admit you made a mistake by denying any Indian blood was used; nor will you admit from where you heard that nonsense.

i own up to them all the time when i make 'em. but your math is way off.

indian blood as far as i've read can't be used because american indians won't allow it. link provided several times. stop math and go google for a bit.

LOL

I showed you the test samples. What a pity you’re ineducable.

The same test samples that you didn't read, and thus didn't know they said that they didn't actually have any Native American samples from the US?

AncestrySupport

North and South America were settled by at least three waves of migrants from Asia, who occupied the Americas from Canada to the southern tip of Chile. North America was initially occupied by people who came from Siberia and coastal North Asia.

Far fewer than 1,000 people crossed the Bering land bridge, and Native Americans appear to derive from this initial wave of migration. Evidence suggests they dispersed rapidly along the western coast of the Americas, perhaps by sea, within a period of only about a thousand years. Not long after humans first appeared in today’s Alaska and the western United States, they settled as far south as the tip of modern-day Chile.



Native American ancestry and DNA
Anyone with even a single Native American ancestor (no matter how far back) has Native American ancestry, but not everyone with a Native American ancestor has Native American DNA. Only half of a person’s DNA is passed on to their child, so with each generation that passes, the potential exists for DNA from any given ancestor to be lost.

The closer an ancestor is to you, the more likely it is that their DNA has been passed on to you. If your great-grandmother is 25% Native American, your original Native American ancestor was your great-great-great-grandparent. Although about 12.5% of your DNA comes from your great-grandmother, you may not have inherited her Native American DNA, or you may have inherited such a small amount that it doesn’t appear in a DNA test.

Though a child received 50% of each parent’s DNA, they do not typically receive 50% of each ethnicity present in the parents. A parent who’s half Nigerian and half Native American may pass on more Nigerian DNA than Native American DNA (or vice versa) to the child. Over generations, the randomness of inheritance results in DNA from some ethnicities being passed down more than others and in some ethnicities being lost entirely.

See more at link noted above.

Blah, blah, blah.

Chief Shitting Pants is less Indian than 98% of American White People.

She got a job at Harvard based on false heritage.

Let's be truthful here.

.

Harvard says you’re full of shit. I’ll go with their assessment.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Look at how excited y’all get when I make a mistake.

We are in a constant state of excitement with every post you make. If she’s 1/1,024th, her mom at best is 1/512th.

Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.

warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

 

[Meister]

There are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightards

She has been soundly rejected by the very tribe she claims have the heritage of...
She’s a lying *****

We are to believe that her mother had to elope when she got married because she was 1/1000 Native American?

Well.... They must have had some very meticulous bigots in town..you know...people who were a thousand times more prejudiced than normal!

And freaking psychic, to boot. Pretty sure no one can detect 1/1024th Native American purely by sight.

So? Did she ever claim to look like an Indian?

She stated that her mother told her that she had high cheek bone

 

[Meister]

We are in a constant state of excitement with every post you make. If she’s 1/1,024th, her mom at best is 1/512th.

Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.

warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

There still is a margin of error of 3.1%. You cannot get around that.

 

[iceberg]

Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.

warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

There still is a margin of error of 3.1%. You cannot get around that.

if he can say .097% of mexican/colombian/peruvian heritage = legal native american, he pretty much has shown he will do whatever the **** makes him happy then laugh at the rest of us for not following his tatoo-like fantasy island adventures.

 

[iceberg]

We are in a constant state of excitement with every post you make. If she’s 1/1,024th, her mom at best is 1/512th.

Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.

warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?

again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.

 

[justoffal]

warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

There still is a margin of error of 3.1%. You cannot get around that.

if he can say .097% of mexican/colombian/peruvian heritage = legal native american, he pretty much has shown he will do whatever the **** makes him happy then laugh at the rest of us for not following his tatoo-like fantasy island adventures.

How much do you suppose they paid him?

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.

warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?

again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.

I have the answer! Rachel Dolezal!

 

[iceberg]

warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?

again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.

I have the answer! Rachel Dolezal!

the left can be so fucked up.

born with a penis - questionable as to which gender you are.
some random DNA test says you're 0.097% mexican/colombian/peruvian, you're 100% american indian.

 

[Wry Catcher]

When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].

BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.

If she is an Indian, I am a black man.

That's the overall point.

She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.

THAT is the overall point.

You have no evidence she misused her ancestry to secure employment, if you had, you or someone else would have so stated (and you of course would have echoed it) and provided incontestable evidence.

If one is to question the Resume of every pol, they might find many who made false or misleading statement.

Donald J. Trump make claim being a self made billionaire, which seems to have been exposed by the NY Times recently; there is much more evidence that his pretense of being a self made business man / ;billionaire is well over stated; and, his claim to be an expert negotiator has been exposed as bullshit, he's nothing more than a bully and a scofflaw.

 

[iceberg]

When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].

BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.

If she is an Indian, I am a black man.

That's the overall point.

She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.

THAT is the overall point.

You have no evidence she misused her ancestry to secure employment, if you had, you or someone else would have so stated (and you of course would have echoed it) and provided incontestable evidence.

If one is to question the Resume of every pol, they might find many who made false or misleading statement.

Donald J. Trump make claim being a self made billionaire, which seems to have been exposed by the NY Times recently; there is much more evidence that his pretense of being a self made business man / ;billionaire is well over stated; and, his claim to be an expert negotiator has been exposed as bullshit, he's nothing more than a bully and a scofflaw.

well we had no evidence kavanaugh did shit to ford but hey - look what fun the left had.

 

[justoffal]

Holyshit.

Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?

And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?

again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.

I have the answer! Rachel Dolezal!

the left can be so fucked up.

born with a penis - questionable as to which gender you are.
some random DNA test says you're 0.097% mexican/colombian/peruvian, you're 100% american indian.

We are all Cherokees now!

Jo

 

[justoffal]

When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].

BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.

If she is an Indian, I am a black man.

That's the overall point.

She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.

THAT is the overall point.

You have no evidence she misused her ancestry to secure employment, if you had, you or someone else would have so stated (and you of course would have echoed it) and provided incontestable evidence.

If one is to question the Resume of every pol, they might find many who made false or misleading statement.

Donald J. Trump make claim being a self made billionaire, which seems to have been exposed by the NY Times recently; there is much more evidence that his pretense of being a self made business man / ;billionaire is well over stated; and, his claim to be an expert negotiator has been exposed as bullshit, he's nothing more than a bully and a scofflaw.

And yet she was gullible enough to have a DNA test done.

Jo

 

[Rustic]

When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].

BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.

If she is an Indian, I am a black man.

That's the overall point.

She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.

THAT is the overall point.

You have no evidence she misused her ancestry to secure employment, if you had, you or someone else would have so stated (and you of course would have echoed it) and provided incontestable evidence.

If one is to question the Resume of every pol, they might find many who made false or misleading statement.

Donald J. Trump make claim being a self made billionaire, which seems to have been exposed by the NY Times recently; there is much more evidence that his pretense of being a self made business man / ;billionaire is well over stated; and, his claim to be an expert negotiator has been exposed as bullshit, he's nothing more than a bully and a scofflaw.

And yet she was gullible enough to have a DNA test done.

Jo

Yep, Her little test proves she has no American Indian heritage

 

[iceberg]

Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.

GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.

In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.

The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.

At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.

Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.

and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?

again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.

I have the answer! Rachel Dolezal!

the left can be so fucked up.

born with a penis - questionable as to which gender you are.
some random DNA test says you're 0.097% mexican/colombian/peruvian, you're 100% american indian.

We are all Cherokees now!

Jo