[HartleyMBaldwin]

One ancestor, 6 to 10 generations back (which doesn’t strike me as very precise), would contribute between about 1.5% and about 0.1% of a person’s DNA.

[StoneRainbow68]

-—One ancestor, 6 to 10 generations back (which doesn’t strike me as very precise), would contribute between about 1.5% and about 0.1% of a person’s DNA.——

So I guess she really is The One Percent.

[Pecos]

The exact percentage would depend on the number of Native American ancestors contributed to the DNA pool. That said, I had Ancestry.com do my DNA check. The relatively small pool of people from whom they or anyone else can derive a current estimate of the percentages and an undergraduate knowledge of statistics can easily be used to demonstrate that nearly any answer is possible.

It's like asking a lawyer for a correct answer to a math problem. The reply is likely to be "What do you want 2+2 to equal?"

[Starboard]

One ancestor, 6 to 10 generations back (which doesn’t strike me as very precise), would contribute between about 1.5% and about 0.1% of a person’s DNA.

*************

She’s 100% BS.

[Lou L]

One ancestor, 6 to 10 generations back (which doesn’t strike me as very precise), would contribute between about 1.5% and about 0.1% of a person’s DNA.

Yes, and it hardly gives one the "street cred" to claim that they deserve some special recognition because of some minute trace of DNA.

[rexthecat]

I think about. 0003