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

[Pogo]

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

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

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Bullshit.

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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 **** 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.

It really chaps your hide that I actually own"books" huh. Must be unheard-of where you ooze from.

 

[Pogo]

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 **** 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?

You must not read at all.

The traditional Cherokee homeland is absolutely NOT "Oklahoma". I already told you this and you ignored it.

However here, roughly 400 miles from the ocean, I can get crab ... scallops... shrimp... all kinds of fish... whenever I want. Some of it even comes from China though I avoid that.

Amazing innit?

Again, all the Cherokee and Delaware Indians said Tanto ain’t being truthful. You still have yet to back your lies. You look very stupid and dishonest.

You just made up "Delaware said" and in the same post want to call somebody ELSE "dishonest".

Can't make this place up.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

A generation is between 40-70 years.

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

Really?

700 Years Ago?

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

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

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

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

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

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

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

 

[Pogo]

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

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

And who would these experts be?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If I show you the proof that she said that do you promise to never post on these boards again, Pigo?

You and your "I'm too stupid" games can go **** yourselves in the ass. Don't sit here and insult readers' intelligence.

You seem angry. Need a safe space or a hug? Missy my Senator indeed made these claims. Sorry. Facts don’t care about your feelings, Pigo.

Luckily she will easily be re elected.

But her aspirations to become the first female Native American president took a big hit.

I am so glad you are so proud that your President has to lle about people to won elections.

What does that say about dumbasss you?

lle? LOL

 

[sealybobo]

If I show you the proof that she said that do you promise to never post on these boards again, Pigo?

You and your "I'm too stupid" games can go **** yourselves in the ass. Don't sit here and insult readers' intelligence.

You seem angry. Need a safe space or a hug? Missy my Senator indeed made these claims. Sorry. Facts don’t care about your feelings, Pigo.

Luckily she will easily be re elected.

You and your "I'm too stupid" games can go **** yourselves in the ass. Don't sit here and insult readers' intelligence.

You seem angry. Need a safe space or a hug? Missy my Senator indeed made these claims. Sorry. Facts don’t care about your feelings, Pigo.

Luckily she will easily be re elected.

But her aspirations to become the first female Native American president took a big hit.

Hopefully we can vote her out. Our Gov is a Republican. It can happen in Liberal ass MA.

Hope y’all can to.

It's too ya red neck.

 

[Foxfyre]

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

And who would these experts be?

Hmmm. Let's see. How about a cousin who teaches concepts of genetics, what we can learn from DNA etc. Biology teachers. Another cousin who is a PhD Professor of Anthropology at a prominent university who has written papers on the connection between DNA and then and now. And pretty much any authority you want to take the time to Google and read.

Now please cite who you consult to pooh pooh what these folks teach us.

 

[Pogo]

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

And who would these experts be?

Hmmm. Let's see. How about a cousin who teaches concepts of genetics, what we can learn from DNA etc. Biology teachers. Another cousin who is a PhD Professor of Anthropology at a prominent university who has written papers on the connection between DNA and then and now. And pretty much any authority you want to take the time to Google and read.

Now please cite who you consult to pooh pooh what these folks teach us.

OK.

Dr. Carlos D. Bustamante is an internationally recognized leader in the application of data science and genomics technology to problems in medicine, agriculture, and biology. He received his Ph.D. in Biology and MS in Statistics from Harvard University (2001), was on the faculty at Cornell University (2002-9), and was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2010. He is currently Professor of Biomedical Data Science, Genetics, and (by courtesy) Biology at Stanford University. Dr. Bustamante has a passion for building new academic units, non-profits, and companies to solve pressing scientific challenges. He is Founding Director of the Stanford Center for Computational, Evolutionary, and Human Genomics (CEHG) and Inaugural Chair of the Department of Biomedical Data Science. He is the Owner and President of CDB Consulting, LTD. and also a Director at Eden Roc Biotech, founder of Arc-Bio (formerly IdentifyGenomics and BigData Bio), and an SAB member of Imprimed, Etalon DX, and Digitalis Ventures among others.

References

1. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491.7422 (2012): 56.

2. Alexander, David H., and Kenneth Lange. "Enhancements to the ADMIXTURE algorithm for individual ancestry estimation." BMC bioinformatics 12, no. 1 (2011): 246.

3. Gravel, Simon. "Population genetics models of local ancestry." Genetics (2012): genetics-112.

4. Huff, Chad, David Witherspoon, Tatum Simonson, Jinchuan Xing, Scott Watkins, Yuhua Zhang, Therese Tuohy et al. "Maximum-likelihood estimation of recent shared ancestry (ERSA)." Genome
research (2011): gr-115972.

5. Maples, B. K., Gravel, S., Kenny, E. E., & Bustamante, C. D. (2013). RFMix: a discriminative modeling approach for rapid and robust local-ancestry inference. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(2), 278-288.

6. Novembre, John, Toby Johnson, Katarzyna Bryc, Zoltán Kutalik, Adam R. Boyko, Adam Auton, Amit Indap et al. "Genes mirror geography within Europe." Nature 456, no. 7218 (2008): 98.


[1] 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491, no. 7422 (2012): 56.

[2] Reich, David, Nick Patterson, Desmond Campbell, Arti Tandon, Stéphane Mazieres, Nicolas Ray, Maria V. Parra et al. "Reconstructing native American population history." Nature 488, no. 7411 (2012): 370.

[3] Moreno-Estrada, Andrés, Simon Gravel, Fouad Zakharia, Jacob L. McCauley, Jake K. Byrnes, Christopher R. Gignoux, Patricia A. Ortiz-Tello, Ricardo J. Martínez, Dale J. Hedges, Richard W. Morris, Celeste Eng, Karla Sandoval, Suehelay Acevedo-Acevedo, Paul J. Norman, Zulay Layrisse, Peter Parham, Juan Carlos Martínez-Cruzado, Esteban González Burchard, Michael L. Cuccaro, Eden R. Martin , Carlos D. Bustamante. 2013. “Reconstructing the population genetic history of the Caribbean.” PLoS Genetics 9, no. 11 (2013): e1003925.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

A generation is between 40-70 years.

Bullshit.

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

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

Well, as an example....
\

great great grandfather fathered 18 children by 2 wives.

(9 each)

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

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

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

 

[Meathead]

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

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


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

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

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

And who would these experts be?

Hmmm. Let's see. How about a cousin who teaches concepts of genetics, what we can learn from DNA etc. Biology teachers. Another cousin who is a PhD Professor of Anthropology at a prominent university who has written papers on the connection between DNA and then and now. And pretty much any authority you want to take the time to Google and read.

Now please cite who you consult to pooh pooh what these folks teach us.

OK.

Dr. Carlos D. Bustamante is an internationally recognized leader in the application of data science and genomics technology to problems in medicine, agriculture, and biology. He received his Ph.D. in Biology and MS in Statistics from Harvard University (2001), was on the faculty at Cornell University (2002-9), and was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2010. He is currently Professor of Biomedical Data Science, Genetics, and (by courtesy) Biology at Stanford University. Dr. Bustamante has a passion for building new academic units, non-profits, and companies to solve pressing scientific challenges. He is Founding Director of the Stanford Center for Computational, Evolutionary, and Human Genomics (CEHG) and Inaugural Chair of the Department of Biomedical Data Science. He is the Owner and President of CDB Consulting, LTD. and also a Director at Eden Roc Biotech, founder of Arc-Bio (formerly IdentifyGenomics and BigData Bio), and an SAB member of Imprimed, Etalon DX, and Digitalis Ventures among others.

References

1. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491.7422 (2012): 56.

2. Alexander, David H., and Kenneth Lange. "Enhancements to the ADMIXTURE algorithm for individual ancestry estimation." BMC bioinformatics 12, no. 1 (2011): 246.

3. Gravel, Simon. "Population genetics models of local ancestry." Genetics (2012): genetics-112.

4. Huff, Chad, David Witherspoon, Tatum Simonson, Jinchuan Xing, Scott Watkins, Yuhua Zhang, Therese Tuohy et al. "Maximum-likelihood estimation of recent shared ancestry (ERSA)." Genome
research (2011): gr-115972.

5. Maples, B. K., Gravel, S., Kenny, E. E., & Bustamante, C. D. (2013). RFMix: a discriminative modeling approach for rapid and robust local-ancestry inference. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(2), 278-288.

6. Novembre, John, Toby Johnson, Katarzyna Bryc, Zoltán Kutalik, Adam R. Boyko, Adam Auton, Amit Indap et al. "Genes mirror geography within Europe." Nature 456, no. 7218 (2008): 98.


[1] 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491, no. 7422 (2012): 56.

[2] Reich, David, Nick Patterson, Desmond Campbell, Arti Tandon, Stéphane Mazieres, Nicolas Ray, Maria V. Parra et al. "Reconstructing native American population history." Nature 488, no. 7411 (2012): 370.

[3] Moreno-Estrada, Andrés, Simon Gravel, Fouad Zakharia, Jacob L. McCauley, Jake K. Byrnes, Christopher R. Gignoux, Patricia A. Ortiz-Tello, Ricardo J. Martínez, Dale J. Hedges, Richard W. Morris, Celeste Eng, Karla Sandoval, Suehelay Acevedo-Acevedo, Paul J. Norman, Zulay Layrisse, Peter Parham, Juan Carlos Martínez-Cruzado, Esteban González Burchard, Michael L. Cuccaro, Eden R. Martin , Carlos D. Bustamante. 2013. “Reconstructing the population genetic history of the Caribbean.” PLoS Genetics 9, no. 11 (2013): e1003925.

You really have no idea how funny this has become, do you?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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


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

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

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

And who would these experts be?

Hmmm. Let's see. How about a cousin who teaches concepts of genetics, what we can learn from DNA etc. Biology teachers. Another cousin who is a PhD Professor of Anthropology at a prominent university who has written papers on the connection between DNA and then and now. And pretty much any authority you want to take the time to Google and read.

Now please cite who you consult to pooh pooh what these folks teach us.

OK.

Dr. Carlos D. Bustamante is an internationally recognized leader in the application of data science and genomics technology to problems in medicine, agriculture, and biology. He received his Ph.D. in Biology and MS in Statistics from Harvard University (2001), was on the faculty at Cornell University (2002-9), and was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2010. He is currently Professor of Biomedical Data Science, Genetics, and (by courtesy) Biology at Stanford University. Dr. Bustamante has a passion for building new academic units, non-profits, and companies to solve pressing scientific challenges. He is Founding Director of the Stanford Center for Computational, Evolutionary, and Human Genomics (CEHG) and Inaugural Chair of the Department of Biomedical Data Science. He is the Owner and President of CDB Consulting, LTD. and also a Director at Eden Roc Biotech, founder of Arc-Bio (formerly IdentifyGenomics and BigData Bio), and an SAB member of Imprimed, Etalon DX, and Digitalis Ventures among others.

References

1. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491.7422 (2012): 56.

2. Alexander, David H., and Kenneth Lange. "Enhancements to the ADMIXTURE algorithm for individual ancestry estimation." BMC bioinformatics 12, no. 1 (2011): 246.

3. Gravel, Simon. "Population genetics models of local ancestry." Genetics (2012): genetics-112.

4. Huff, Chad, David Witherspoon, Tatum Simonson, Jinchuan Xing, Scott Watkins, Yuhua Zhang, Therese Tuohy et al. "Maximum-likelihood estimation of recent shared ancestry (ERSA)." Genome
research (2011): gr-115972.

5. Maples, B. K., Gravel, S., Kenny, E. E., & Bustamante, C. D. (2013). RFMix: a discriminative modeling approach for rapid and robust local-ancestry inference. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(2), 278-288.

6. Novembre, John, Toby Johnson, Katarzyna Bryc, Zoltán Kutalik, Adam R. Boyko, Adam Auton, Amit Indap et al. "Genes mirror geography within Europe." Nature 456, no. 7218 (2008): 98.


[1] 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491, no. 7422 (2012): 56.

[2] Reich, David, Nick Patterson, Desmond Campbell, Arti Tandon, Stéphane Mazieres, Nicolas Ray, Maria V. Parra et al. "Reconstructing native American population history." Nature 488, no. 7411 (2012): 370.

[3] Moreno-Estrada, Andrés, Simon Gravel, Fouad Zakharia, Jacob L. McCauley, Jake K. Byrnes, Christopher R. Gignoux, Patricia A. Ortiz-Tello, Ricardo J. Martínez, Dale J. Hedges, Richard W. Morris, Celeste Eng, Karla Sandoval, Suehelay Acevedo-Acevedo, Paul J. Norman, Zulay Layrisse, Peter Parham, Juan Carlos Martínez-Cruzado, Esteban González Burchard, Michael L. Cuccaro, Eden R. Martin , Carlos D. Bustamante. 2013. “Reconstructing the population genetic history of the Caribbean.” PLoS Genetics 9, no. 11 (2013): e1003925.

The man is not an expert in DNA tests. He applies the results of tests done by others to various components of his work. Period. He did not even use a Native American sample in his analysis of Elizabeth Warren's DNA. Her results showed even less connection to Native American DNA than most of us of European descent and most of us have under 1% Native American DNA.

The test is not in any way conclusive that Elizabeth Warren has any kind of Native American heritage that she claims. You can post page after page after page of data--that would only make you look desperately silly if you did that of course--and you still won't change that fact or how silly she now looks posting that video.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 **** 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?

Tulsa has a seaport.

Yes, and you only have to traverse three rivers to get between it and the actual sea.

There are no crabs indigenous to Oklahoma, Mensa Boy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

A generation is between 40-70 years.

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

Really?

700 Years Ago?

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

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

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

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

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

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

"Warren has got so little Indian blood in her it may just be because one of her ancestors got some on his shirt when he was killing one of them." - Andrew Klavan

Well, there you have it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

if not earlier.

6-10 generations.

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

A "generation" is typically calculated as 20 years.

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

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


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

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

A generation is between 40-70 years.

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

Really?

700 Years Ago?

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

Like before Europeans discovered America?

Before The Vikings made expeditions here?

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

So back in 1618 was her family here?

Inquiring minds want to know.

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

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

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.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

And who would these experts be?

Hmmm. Let's see. How about a cousin who teaches concepts of genetics, what we can learn from DNA etc. Biology teachers. Another cousin who is a PhD Professor of Anthropology at a prominent university who has written papers on the connection between DNA and then and now. And pretty much any authority you want to take the time to Google and read.

Now please cite who you consult to pooh pooh what these folks teach us.

OK.

Dr. Carlos D. Bustamante is an internationally recognized leader in the application of data science and genomics technology to problems in medicine, agriculture, and biology. He received his Ph.D. in Biology and MS in Statistics from Harvard University (2001), was on the faculty at Cornell University (2002-9), and was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2010. He is currently Professor of Biomedical Data Science, Genetics, and (by courtesy) Biology at Stanford University. Dr. Bustamante has a passion for building new academic units, non-profits, and companies to solve pressing scientific challenges. He is Founding Director of the Stanford Center for Computational, Evolutionary, and Human Genomics (CEHG) and Inaugural Chair of the Department of Biomedical Data Science. He is the Owner and President of CDB Consulting, LTD. and also a Director at Eden Roc Biotech, founder of Arc-Bio (formerly IdentifyGenomics and BigData Bio), and an SAB member of Imprimed, Etalon DX, and Digitalis Ventures among others.

References

1. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491.7422 (2012): 56.

2. Alexander, David H., and Kenneth Lange. "Enhancements to the ADMIXTURE algorithm for individual ancestry estimation." BMC bioinformatics 12, no. 1 (2011): 246.

3. Gravel, Simon. "Population genetics models of local ancestry." Genetics (2012): genetics-112.

4. Huff, Chad, David Witherspoon, Tatum Simonson, Jinchuan Xing, Scott Watkins, Yuhua Zhang, Therese Tuohy et al. "Maximum-likelihood estimation of recent shared ancestry (ERSA)." Genome
research (2011): gr-115972.

5. Maples, B. K., Gravel, S., Kenny, E. E., & Bustamante, C. D. (2013). RFMix: a discriminative modeling approach for rapid and robust local-ancestry inference. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(2), 278-288.

6. Novembre, John, Toby Johnson, Katarzyna Bryc, Zoltán Kutalik, Adam R. Boyko, Adam Auton, Amit Indap et al. "Genes mirror geography within Europe." Nature 456, no. 7218 (2008): 98.


[1] 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491, no. 7422 (2012): 56.

[2] Reich, David, Nick Patterson, Desmond Campbell, Arti Tandon, Stéphane Mazieres, Nicolas Ray, Maria V. Parra et al. "Reconstructing native American population history." Nature 488, no. 7411 (2012): 370.

[3] Moreno-Estrada, Andrés, Simon Gravel, Fouad Zakharia, Jacob L. McCauley, Jake K. Byrnes, Christopher R. Gignoux, Patricia A. Ortiz-Tello, Ricardo J. Martínez, Dale J. Hedges, Richard W. Morris, Celeste Eng, Karla Sandoval, Suehelay Acevedo-Acevedo, Paul J. Norman, Zulay Layrisse, Peter Parham, Juan Carlos Martínez-Cruzado, Esteban González Burchard, Michael L. Cuccaro, Eden R. Martin , Carlos D. Bustamante. 2013. “Reconstructing the population genetic history of the Caribbean.” PLoS Genetics 9, no. 11 (2013): e1003925.

The man is not an expert in DNA tests. He applies the results of tests done by others to various components of his work. Period. He did not even use a Native American sample in his analysis of Elizabeth Warren's DNA. Her results showed even less connection to Native American DNA than most of us of European descent and most of us have under 1% Native American DNA.

The test is not in any way conclusive that Elizabeth Warren has any kind of Native American heritage that she claims. You can post page after page after page of data--that would only make you look desperately silly if you did that of course--and you still won't change that fact or how silly she now looks posting that video.

You can deny what's right there on the page all you like and pretend that a Professor and Chair of Biomedical Data Science is "not an expert" (inviting the question 'what then is') since you seem to limit your critiques to one guy out of the whole list --- but the study doesn't go away. Nor do you have any basis --- STILL --- for this mythology of "even less connection to Native American DNA than most of us of European descent". There's no such comparison or data in the study at all. That's just made-up.

I don't know what "video" you refer to here. I have a "pdf". Here's what it says..... again. And just the relevant parts of course:

>> The analysis also identified 5 genetic segments as Native American in origin at high confidence, defined at the 99% posterior probability value. We performed several additional analyses to confirm the presence of Native American ancestry and to estimate the position of the ancestor in the individual’s pedigree.

(2) The largest segment identified as having Native American ancestry is on chromosome 10. This segment is 13.4 centiMorgans in genetic length, and spans approximately 4,700,000 DNA bases. Based on a principal components analysis (Novembre et al., 2008), this segment is clearly distinct from segments of European ancestry (nominal p-value 7.4 x 10-7, corrected p-value of 2.6 x 10-4) and is strongly associated with Native American ancestry.

(3) The total length of the 5 genetic segments identified as having Native American ancestry is 25.6 centiMorgans, and they span approximately 12,300,000 DNA bases. The average segment length is 5.8 centiMorgans. The total and average segment size suggest (via the method of moments) an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the pedigree at approximately 8 generations before the sample, although the actual number could be somewhat lower or higher (Gravel, 2012 and Huff et al., 2011).

(4) The sample was compared to the results of the 185 reference individuals with European ancestry, from Great Britain and Utah.

• The segment on chromosome 10 observed in the individual is larger than any of the segments identified as having Native American ancestry in any of the 185 reference individuals.

• The total length of Native American segments observed in the individual is greater than the average value for the reference individuals — by 12.4-fold (corresponding to 12.7 standard deviations) for the individuals from Great Britain and 10.5-fold (corresponding to 4.9 standard deviations) for the individuals from Utah. <<​

As far as the reference to "Utah" we should also note this from the methodology:

>> We also compared the ancestry segments seen in the sample to 185 reference individuals from Europe (Great Britain) as well as American individuals from Utah. A few of the Utah individuals have a small amount of Native American ancestry, and for this reason the standard deviation of Native American ancestry in the Utah individuals is somewhat higher than in the British samples. << --- hence the reading of 10.5-fold compared to 12.4-fold.

​

There it is, isn't it. I'm afraid that doesn't cease to be a study simply because you have "cousins".

We should additionally note that the report further notes, "Because available samples do not provide complete coverage of all Native American groups, some segments with Native American ancestry may be missed" --- so it's logical to expect that if more genomes from areas more likely than Peru and Colombia and Mexico were available, that more NA ancestry could be shown. But it also means that this limitation absolutely DOES NOT demonstrate what is not there since there's no database to do that. And that's what the WDS wags have been trying to claim here all day.

--- Which also returns us right back to that fake mythology of "even less connection to Native American DNA than most of us of European descent" since there's literally no way to know that. BUSTED.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Bullshit.

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

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

Well, as an example....
\

great great grandfather fathered 18 children by 2 wives.

(9 each)

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

I don't have to argue with them since it was experts who informed me.

And who would these experts be?

Hmmm. Let's see. How about a cousin who teaches concepts of genetics, what we can learn from DNA etc. Biology teachers. Another cousin who is a PhD Professor of Anthropology at a prominent university who has written papers on the connection between DNA and then and now. And pretty much any authority you want to take the time to Google and read.

Now please cite who you consult to pooh pooh what these folks teach us.

OK.

Dr. Carlos D. Bustamante is an internationally recognized leader in the application of data science and genomics technology to problems in medicine, agriculture, and biology. He received his Ph.D. in Biology and MS in Statistics from Harvard University (2001), was on the faculty at Cornell University (2002-9), and was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2010. He is currently Professor of Biomedical Data Science, Genetics, and (by courtesy) Biology at Stanford University. Dr. Bustamante has a passion for building new academic units, non-profits, and companies to solve pressing scientific challenges. He is Founding Director of the Stanford Center for Computational, Evolutionary, and Human Genomics (CEHG) and Inaugural Chair of the Department of Biomedical Data Science. He is the Owner and President of CDB Consulting, LTD. and also a Director at Eden Roc Biotech, founder of Arc-Bio (formerly IdentifyGenomics and BigData Bio), and an SAB member of Imprimed, Etalon DX, and Digitalis Ventures among others.

References

1. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491.7422 (2012): 56.

2. Alexander, David H., and Kenneth Lange. "Enhancements to the ADMIXTURE algorithm for individual ancestry estimation." BMC bioinformatics 12, no. 1 (2011): 246.

3. Gravel, Simon. "Population genetics models of local ancestry." Genetics (2012): genetics-112.

4. Huff, Chad, David Witherspoon, Tatum Simonson, Jinchuan Xing, Scott Watkins, Yuhua Zhang, Therese Tuohy et al. "Maximum-likelihood estimation of recent shared ancestry (ERSA)." Genome
research (2011): gr-115972.

5. Maples, B. K., Gravel, S., Kenny, E. E., & Bustamante, C. D. (2013). RFMix: a discriminative modeling approach for rapid and robust local-ancestry inference. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 93(2), 278-288.

6. Novembre, John, Toby Johnson, Katarzyna Bryc, Zoltán Kutalik, Adam R. Boyko, Adam Auton, Amit Indap et al. "Genes mirror geography within Europe." Nature 456, no. 7218 (2008): 98.


[1] 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. "An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes." Nature 491, no. 7422 (2012): 56.

[2] Reich, David, Nick Patterson, Desmond Campbell, Arti Tandon, Stéphane Mazieres, Nicolas Ray, Maria V. Parra et al. "Reconstructing native American population history." Nature 488, no. 7411 (2012): 370.

[3] Moreno-Estrada, Andrés, Simon Gravel, Fouad Zakharia, Jacob L. McCauley, Jake K. Byrnes, Christopher R. Gignoux, Patricia A. Ortiz-Tello, Ricardo J. Martínez, Dale J. Hedges, Richard W. Morris, Celeste Eng, Karla Sandoval, Suehelay Acevedo-Acevedo, Paul J. Norman, Zulay Layrisse, Peter Parham, Juan Carlos Martínez-Cruzado, Esteban González Burchard, Michael L. Cuccaro, Eden R. Martin , Carlos D. Bustamante. 2013. “Reconstructing the population genetic history of the Caribbean.” PLoS Genetics 9, no. 11 (2013): e1003925.

You really have no idea how funny this has become, do you?

For once you are absolutely correct.

I don't see the "humor" in any of this at all.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Bullshit.

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

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

Well, as an example....
\

great great grandfather fathered 18 children by 2 wives.

(9 each)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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