Posted on 10/15/2018 4:47:18 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
Senator Elizabeth Warren has released an analysis of her DNA showing that she has Native American blood.
An analysis of Warren's DNA sample showed she had a Native American ancestor in her family dating back six to 10 generations. The release of the analysis comes after President Trump has mocked her repeatedly for her claim that she has Native American blood and called her "Pocahontas." Critics have charged that Warren has advanced her career with a narrative she is a descendant of Cherokee and Delaware tribes.
A report released Monday says that the majority of Warren's ancestry is European but there is strong evidence to suggest that she has a Native American ancestor. A Stanford professor, Carlos D. Bustamante, who was awarded a MacArthur genius grant for his work tracking population migration via DNA, performed the analysis of the DNA, according to Warren's office.
The report notes with 99 percent confidence that five genetic segments on DNA were identified as "Native American in origin."
Warren's office also released a video to YouTube, "Elizabeth Warren's family story," which directly addresses the attacks on her heritage by the President and includes interviews with her family. A "Fact Squad" website with links to the DNA report and supporting documents was also launched.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston25news.com ...
I'm open to a lot of things - I joined this forum back in the summer of 2008 mainly due to the research on Obama's shady past and his family history.
But this theory is not for me.
I guess you didn’t frequent the long research threads much. It was clear even from the research that was public on the threads that Stanley Ann Dunham was not the mother and the Kenyan guy was not his father.
“It was clear even from the research that was public on the threads that Stanley Ann Dunham was not the mother and the Kenyan guy was not his father.”
—
No,it wasn’t clear,anymore than the many threads “proving” that the Boston Marathon bombings were fake were clear.
.
I find the possible Indonesian adoption and probable claim of citizenship on his Occidental application the most damaging to his legitimacy.
Does this make it any easier for her to get season tickets?
Rush Limbaugh was talking about it this morning and analysts put it at 1/1024 of her profile. Percentage wise that 0.0975% Native American DNA. It's negligible. It is not enough to qualify her to call herself an racial minority. The average European American has TWICE that percentage. . . or 0.195% Native American DNA.
One of my great great Grandmothers was Native American and that likely makes me 1/32nd to 1/16th Native American (why the uncertainty? Because my parents were both descended from her). . . but I don't have high cheekbones.
The Boston Globe originally claimed on Monday that the DNA test revealed Warren was somewhere between 1/32 and 1/512 Native American, however they then corrected their story saying the numbers are actually between 1/64 and 1/1,024.
32 4th great grandmothers +
64 5th great grandmothers +
128 6th great grandmothers +
256 7th great grandmothers +
512 8th great grandmothers = 992 women or 0.1 percent
1 mother
2 grandmothers
4 great grandmothers
8 2d great grandmothers
16 3rd great grandmothers
Not sure what you are getting at. To calculate the percent of the DNA contribution of one 8th generation ancestor requires only dividing by the number of 8th generation ancestors. This is 1 over 2 to the 8th or 1/256. Considering only female ancestors or adding the 2nd through 7th generations ancestors to the formula does not help. The 2nd through 7th all got their DNA from the 8th.
Wrong! There was no exact generation reported for her suspected “Indian” DNA. It was a range of generations, and so the original “Indian” ancestor would be one of 992 possible persons or approximately a 0.1 percent chance that she is part Indian, assuming that her DNA from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia is actually Indian DNA.
Wrong! There was no exact generation reported for her suspected Indian DNA.
I did not dispute that there is no exact generation reported, nor do vouch for the accuracy of the report, I merely ran the numbers. Nor do I vouch for the alleged ancestor in the report being native to North America rather than South America. I was only doing the math based on the reports claims. Based on the report at face value the math the range is 1/64th to 1/1024th.
It was a range of generations, and so the original Indian ancestor would be one of 992 possible persons or approximately a 0.1 percent chance that she is part Indian, assuming that her DNA from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia is actually Indian DNA.
Yes it was a range. However your math used generations outside of that range including fourth generation when the reported range was 6th to 10th and average of 8th. Moreover, summing the number of people in different generation as a denominator for DNA contribution of an individual is just an entirely incorrect approach to the problem. While all the ancestors in a particular generation with the same weight, ancestors in different generations have different weight. For example our parents each have a 1/2 contribution to our DNA by contrast our 10th generation ancestors each have a 1/1024th.
If wearing corn rows is cultural misappropriation in progressives’ eyes, what do they call this woman’s claim to a Native American heritage?
An analysis of Warren's DNA sample showed she had a Native American ancestor in her family dating back six to 10 generations.
From your post 269:
32 4th great grandmothers +
64 5th great grandmothers +
128 6th great grandmothers +
256 7th great grandmothers +
512 8th great grandmothers = 992 women or 0.1 percent
So how is it "wrong" to say:
However your math used generations outside of that range including fourth generation when the reported range was 6th to 10th and average of 8th.
?
I did not combine the chances into one number like you did because that would require knowing the relative likelihood of how far back the contributor was.
You are certainly correct to say that this is approximation.
Lastly it is rude to accuse somebody of lying when they misunderstood something you expressed ambiguously. Lying implies intention to deceive. Even if it was completely my negligence to think by "4th great grand mother" you meant "4th generation or in other words her great grand mother" it would mean I was mistaken about what you meant. From my perspective though it was because it was not expressed clearly enough.
You’ve got that right. My and my brother’s DNA did not show any traces of Amerind ancestry. With only two ancestors found, those markers are too diluted over 400 years to show up. Found the two 10th ggm by tracing reliable records of ancestors whose family names do show up in the DNA profiles. They are ancestors, duly noted, but with meaning only for our family history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.