Elizabeth Warren releases DNA analysis backing Native American ancestry claims

Boston25News.com ^ | October 15, 2018

[RubyR]

Thanks :)

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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[Mears]

“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.

.

[RubyR]

Oh I did for a while -- I thought the Malcolm X and Frank Marshall Davis ideas were interesting. But I probably tuned out on the discussion of his mother. I looked into it today after you posted and I'm just not there with it.

I find the possible Indonesian adoption and probable claim of citizenship on his Occidental application the most damaging to his legitimacy.

[PLMerite]

[Elizabeth Warren releases DNA analysis backing Native American ancestry claims]

Does this make it any easier for her to get season tickets?

[Swordmaker]

Funny, I don’t see what % she is, isn’t that standard on these analyses? 1%, 2%, what’s the true number.

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.

[bitt]

[Brown Deer]

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.

[Brown Deer]

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

[AndyTheBear]

I think a parent would be one generarion at 1/2.
Grand parent 2nd generation at 1/4.
Great grand parent 3rd at 1/8.
Great great grand parent 4th at 1/16.
Then 5th at 1/32
and 6th at 1/64.

[Brown Deer]

1 mother
2 grandmothers
4 great grandmothers
8 2d great grandmothers
16 3rd great grandmothers

[AndyTheBear]

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.

[Brown Deer]

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.

[AndyTheBear]

Just to clarify, I think Elizabeth Warren is a complete fraud here, because she claimed she had Cherokee ancestry and she claimed that her mother was recognized as Cherokee and suffered discrimination for it...which on the evidence is completely untrue. Warren is no more Cherokee than your average US non-Cherokee citizen, and there has been no evidence that she or her mother had any Cherokee ancestor much less one that was recent enough for her story to be plausible. My issue here is purely with how to do a math problem.

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.

[Atticus]

If wearing corn rows is cultural misappropriation in progressives’ eyes, what do they call this woman’s claim to a Native American heritage?

[Brown Deer]

However your math used generations outside of that range including fourth generation when the reported range was 6th to 10th and average of 8th.

Wrong.

[AndyTheBear]

The article about the report says:

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.

?

[Brown Deer]

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 don't appreciate you lying about what I used.

These are the first 5 generations:


What I originally wrote was:
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

and those are the 6th through 10th generations!

You then go on to say,
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.

and once again, you are mistaken. One and only one of those women (or men), was the original ancestor that provided the DNA. You cannot take the middle number between 64 and 1024 to determine what the odds are. That's nonsense.

But in any case, even the 0.1 percent is just an approximation, because the DNA percentages from each grandparent and/or great grandparent are not consistent from generation to generation. DNA gets passed on in chunks or segments of varying lengths. It is not always exactly 50/50.

Another fact:
You can send the exact same DNA file to three different genealogy sites who do DNA analysis and get completely different results on where your ancestors came from.

[AndyTheBear]

Members of differeent generations do not have an even chance of being the contributor of a specific gene.

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.

[RJS1950]

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.