Again, you are super determined to make that distinction. No one cares.
I do research on Ancestry all the time. I have done that for about 13 years. That kind of work is called geneology. Thank you for pointing that out.
I have also been a keen follower of advances in genetic research, have read for 25 years books by Brian Sykes and people like that. I am interested in the movements of people that led to the creation of nations and peoples, and which continues to change and mold the people of the world. Tracking the Celts and Germans across Europe leads to, for me, interesting insights into the places where they ended up and into historical tales that on the surface involve kings and events instead of civilizations. Going farther back, and tracking the Aryan tribes from their origin eastward, southward and westward into Europe, Indo-Iranian and east Asian areas is also interesting. Following the debate about origins of the American Indians also interests me, and is fraught with political repurcussions that infect the scientific research. The discussion about Warren brings some of that into focus.
So, while it is certainly true that genetics and geneology are different things, the point you seem to be trying to make is more pedantic than informative. I am talking about Warren's DNA, and also about her geneology. She is trying to use her DNA to prove her family claims about geneology, and I am saying that I don't believe her DNA analysis, nor do I think that her family geneology would show any Indian ancestor. But this discussion has become a slide of a slide of a slide.
Interesting article on Cherokee DNA posted here: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3696751/posts.