Replies

again, tracking ancestry and DNA are 2 different things.

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.

A slide of a slide of slide ?

It was you you made incorrect statements.
It was you who brought the following into the conversation w\o a smidgen of proof.

"I don't believe Warren's DNA report is not fudged. I believe they found a friend who does DNA tests, then found some random genomes they could claim show Indian heritage, and then did the report.

I will not bother you again about this after this.
It was you that said:
"People I know who are definitely part Indian, maybe 1/8th but had a living ancestor who was Indian, are coming up with bupkis when they get their DNA done."
That is legitimate situation. I pointed you to a half-way decent site that explained it and you choose to ignore it.

Thanks for the link. FreeRegards.

ok, I lied, but I didn't know I lied until now and I apologize.

I am looking at this now along your lines - with a jaundiced eye.

Assuming the report is what it says: From the report:

Request.
To analyze genetic data from an individual of European descent and determine if there is reliable evidence of Native American and/or African ancestry. The identity of the sample donor, Elizabeth Warren, was not known to the analyst during the time the work was performed.

Background. The individual’s DNA was previously sent to a DNA testing laboratory for genotyping, with a DNA microarray. The resulting DNA genotypes were sent to Dr. Bustamante for analysis. An expert in genetic ancestry analysis carried out the computational work described below under Dr. Bustamante’s supervision.

At what point did anybody know it was Warren's DNA ? Did Bustamante know ? Before or After ?

What brought me here was watching Warren's video that I start at the relevant part.

https://youtu.be/RHzbdZuVyAM?t=212"

contrived\staged - reminds me of Gephardt & Dashcle's dog & pony show phone call with Gore during the recount.

I really can't stand these people. Sorry and thanks again.