Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just reading about the growing use of genetic ancestry and the analysis of relatedness to catch serial killers. If it’s good enough to identify and punish criminals, then the same kind of analysis ought to be accepted to validate Warren’s statement that there was a NA in the family woodpile.
But of course logic and science are simply not good enough for people who rely on their emotions for proof.
That's different. Yes, you can tell whether 2 people are related, but ethnicity is a little trickier.
If 2 people share 50% of their dna, then you are looking at a parent or a child of the subject. Where said dna originated is another matter.
Trump’s ethnic roots are no more recent than yours — they just happen to be in Europe. And I don’t think he criticized you. The general take on Warren is that she used her “minority” status to gain preferred treatment at Harvard.
OK. Exactly what preferred treatment did she receive? We already know that she was not hired by Harvard based on any kind of minority status. What grants did she receive because she claimed minority ancestry? What official titles did she receive? Did she get a corner office? Or what, exactly?
The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/512th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.
I would not hype this up as some sort of Trump lie.
3% Native American is the BEST estimate. The realistic estimate is .19%.
I take it that she had multiple efforts done prior to going to the Stanford "genius" on this... and this was the best she could do.
I expect Trump to further mock this.
You have to read all the way to the end of the "report" to get to the Bottom Line. The "report" is a lot of gobbledy **** -- they couldn't say what Native American Tribe (she claims Cherokee) or definitively ANY Native American Tribe ...... because they don't have genetic studies on Native American Tribes. They used European studies.
For maximal accuracy, we use reference populations that have been fully sequenced (complete genomes) rather than references that had been genotyped at only a subset of sites. These samples come from the 1000 Genomes research project, which sequenced full genomes from individuals around the world (1000 Genomes Project Consortium, 2012). For Native American references, we used samples within the 1000 Genomes project of Native American ancestry; these samples come from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. (It is not possible to use Native American reference sequences from inside the United States, since Native American groups within the US have not chosen to participate in recent population genetics studies.) The 1000 Genomes reference samples come from Nigerian Yoruba individuals (for Sub-Saharan Africa), Finnish, Tuscan Italian, and Spanish individuals (for Europe), and northern Chinese individuals for East Asia. (The latter reference was used to test for East Asian regional ancestry, since that can otherwise be mis-assigned as Native American). In our analysis, an individual with 100% ancestry assigned to a single population (e.g., European or African) is defined as an “unadmixed”.
She is 0.4% Native American with the statistically-likely range between 0.1% and 1.56%. What is means is that her great-great-great grandmother was anywhere from 1/2 to 1/32 Native.
The results do not mean that stories told her as a little girl were false. However, in applying that same standard to all of us leads to almost any story having a grain of truth to it. I think the average European American is 1/512th native (0.2%).
I think her pride is understandable as stories told to children by loved ones resonate very deeply.
Disclosure: I am 10-11% Native using DNA. I am more OK with her claims than any attempts to leverage that ancestry for monetary gains or the mockery and ugliness coming from the President. Pocahontas was arguably the first heroine of what became the American experience. She should be celebrated, not mocked.
Trump’s ethnic roots are no more recent than yours — they just happen to be in Europe. And I don’t think he criticized you. The general take on Warren is that she used her “minority” status to gain preferred treatment at Harvard.
I don't think that's the "general take". I think that's a false meme. After all, Harvard has stated that Warren never received any preferential treatment. What preferential treatment do you think would have been forthcoming?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
