• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Elizabeth Warren refuses to take DNA test

applecorped

Banned
applecorped
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
20,145
Last edited by a moderator:
I like Elizabeth Warren, and consider her to be a decent presidential candidate honestly.

But I think she should attempt to clear this up, even though it's a no-win, really.

Let's say she takes the test (hopefully on an episode of Maury) and it comes back she's like 1/128th Choctaw or something. She is technically telling the truth, but it still won't be good enough.

Or, let's say it comes back she's not native American at all. Then what? She apologizes or whatever, and then moves on.

But I think she looks like she's hiding something if she doesn't do something. And "Pocahontas" as much as I hate Trump, is a pretty funny jab that will stick.
 
Pterodactyl said:
I like Elizabeth Warren, and consider her to be a decent presidential candidate honestly.

But I think she should attempt to clear this up, even though it's a no-win, really.

Let's say she takes the test (hopefully on an episode of Maury) and it comes back she's like 1/128th Choctaw or something. She is technically telling the truth, but it still won't be good enough.

Or, let's say it comes back she's not native American at all. Then what? She apologizes or whatever, and then moves on.

But I think she looks like she's hiding something if she doesn't do something. And "Pocahontas" as much as I hate Trump, is a pretty funny jab that will stick.
Click to expand...

And will taking this test actually do anything to silence those critics? These are people who seem highly resistant to facts and reality, so why would a test saying she is 1/16 or what ever native do to silence them?

I think there is a real cost in acknowledging the criticism at all, and that might be rather higher than benefit of apologizing or even being proved technically correct but it will never matter in their eyes anyway.
 
applecorped said:
https://nypost.com/2018/03/12/warrens-native-american-problem-is-only-going-to-get-worse/

Rather than retracting or apologizing for past assertions of Native American identity that have been refuted by genealogists and historians, the Massachusetts Democrat is doubling down on her story about being a Cherokee or a Delaware.
Click to expand...

Her claims of Native American ancestry have not been refuted, they just haven't been proven. All she has to go on are stories that were passed down from her family. With Native Americans actively trying to avoid registering in the past, and the obvious problems of tracking down information from over a hundred years ago, the best anyone looking at the genealogical records have been able to say is they can neither confirm nor deny it.

As far as a DNA test goes, well, there are only 23 base pairs of DNA in your average human, and only a 50/50 chance of passing on any one particular gene to a child. After six or seven generations, odds are against any particular descendant having any DNA from any particular ancestor.

In short, it is entirely possible that she is telling the factual truth about her ancestry, and that she will never be able to prove it.
 
Random said:
Her claims of Native American ancestry have not been refuted, they just haven't been proven. All she has to go on are stories that were passed down from her family. With Native Americans actively trying to avoid registering in the past, and the obvious problems of tracking down information from over a hundred years ago, the best anyone looking at the genealogical records have been able to say is they can neither confirm nor deny it.

As far as a DNA test goes, well, there are only 23 base pairs of DNA in your average human, and only a 50/50 chance of passing on any one particular gene to a child. After six or seven generations, odds are against any particular descendant having any DNA from any particular ancestor.

In short, it is entirely possible that she is telling the factual truth about her ancestry, and that she will never be able to prove it.
Click to expand...

Well that's interesting. You're saying she might have no native American DNA but is still a native american?
 
Does anybody care?

In a similar note, Kathy Griffin is going back on tour.

On facebook, some of my Trump supporting friends are "up in arms" and annoyed at KG's tour announcement. They are posting their annoyance and suggesting boycotts and protests.

All of my friends on the left could not care less; none of them have posted a single nit about KG's tour.


I feel the same way about EW's refusal to take a DNA ancestry test.
 
Pterodactyl said:
Well that's interesting. You're saying she might have no native American DNA but is still a native american?
Click to expand...

In theory, yes.

Let's say her great-grand father was fully native american, and the markers used to identify genes as being native american are found on genes 1,2,3 and 4. Her grandfather gets all those genes, but since her great-grandmother was European, the matching genes 1', 2', 3', and 4' do not have those markers.

So her grand father has 11', 22', 33' and 44'. Her grandfather then has her mother with another European, by chance her mother only gets the markers from 1 and 3. So her mother has 11',2'2',3'3, and 4'4'.

Her mother then has her, and can only pass along 2' and 4', and by chance passes along 1' and 3'. So Warren would have 1'1',2'2',3'3', and 4'4'. So there's no markers left despite her great grandfather being Native American.

That's a very simplified example, and a lot would depend on the markers used and the accuracy of the test being done (to my knowledge many commercially available DNA tests do a pretty poor job). Finding markers can demonstrate lineage, but failure to find markers doesn't necessarily disprove lineage.
 
Last edited:
Pterodactyl said:
Well that's interesting. You're saying she might have no native American DNA but is still a native american?
Click to expand...

Not sure how you are defining Native American, but yes. She might have some ancestors who were Native Americans, but their DNA is not part of her genetic makeup.

There are probably only 46 chromosomes in your genetic makeup, but barring inbreeding, you had 64 great-great-great-great grandparents. Some of them you will no longer have a genetic link to, even though they obviously must have existed. If you mapped out your family tree that far back, it would be quite possible that you would not be able to prove ancestry to any one particular member by DNA alone*.

*With the notable exception of your direct patrilineal ancestor. The male X chromosome is what makes a male a male, and if it isn't passed on the result is a female, so you can trace those lines back with genetics as far as you have samples for.
 
ancestry is determined not through the code of the genes, but of SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms).
And yes, in pure theory such markers might disappear trough mutation and recombination - but that is extremely unlikely.

No, if Warren is descendant from known Native American populations, it would probably be detectable.
 
At the risk of whatabouting, Warren's ancestry, or even her understanding about her ancestry, has little relevance to her as a person, her politics, or her motivations. On the other hand, Trump's tax returns are potentially very relevant to those things, calls for them have gone entirely ignored, and it has had no negative impact on Trump's political career.

So, why is this important? Why is this not a distraction?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
ancestry is determined not through the code of the genes, but of SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms).
And yes, in pure theory such markers might disappear trough mutation and recombination - but that is extremely unlikely.

No, if Warren is descendant from known Native American populations, it would probably be detectable.
Click to expand...

Do certain group have more documented SNPs than others? How complete is this field, particularly for north American ancestry?
 
A. She shouldn't take a DNA test. Its a gross violation of privacy and we have no right nor need to know her ancestry.
B. Her story could be entirely true and she may not have Native American ancestry. It might just have been a family rumor that everybody believed. Nobody was lying they were just wrong.
C. It is funny to make fun of her for claiming Native American Ancestry, its a bit of a trope really. "I'm 1/32 Navajo on my mother's side"
D. This isn't going to change anyone's vote so who cares, other than a bid of schadenfreude.

Upchurch said:
At the risk of whatabouting, Warren's ancestry, or even her understanding about her ancestry, has little relevance to her as a person, her politics, or her motivations. On the other hand, Trump's tax returns are potentially very relevant to those things, calls for them have gone entirely ignored, and it has had no negative impact on Trump's political career.

So, why is this important? Why is this not a distraction?
Click to expand...
There is a teenie tiny bit of relevency, if she lied about it to get some sort of advantage. Its a bit of gaming the system if you are basically a WASP but use you're 1/16th Native ancestry to help with admissions to college. Doesn't matter for much and will be dismissed by those who like her and just added to the list for those who don't.

This story has zero impact except it gives grist to late night talk show hosts. I suppose when it comes to Dem primary, it may scuttle her chances but I don't think she has any more chance than Bernie did really.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
ancestry is determined not through the code of the genes, but of SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms).
And yes, in pure theory such markers might disappear trough mutation and recombination - but that is extremely unlikely.

No, if Warren is descendant from known Native American populations, it would probably be detectable.
Click to expand...

How would it be detectable if she didn't inherit any chromosomes from her Native American ancestor?
 
Upchurch said:
At the risk of whatabouting, Warren's ancestry, or even her understanding about her ancestry, has little relevance to her as a person, her politics, or her motivations. On the other hand, Trump's tax returns are potentially very relevant to those things, calls for them have gone entirely ignored, and it has had no negative impact on Trump's political career.

So, why is this important? Why is this not a distraction?
Click to expand...

Well it seems to me that a significant component of liberal politics is promoting diversity and equality across racial/cultural lines. If it turns out to be the case that a democrat claimed to be a minority in effort to further professional ambitions, that is a problem and a story worth covering. Just like Trump claiming to be a billionaire and actually being broke, or whatever.
 
Random said:
How would it be detectable if she didn't inherit any chromosomes from her Native American ancestor?
Click to expand...

Unless her ancestor managed to reproduce via parenthogenisis, she will have inherited parts of the DNA of her Native American ancestor.
What would be critical is knowing the relevant DNA sequences from known descendants of the tribes in question for comparison: she might be from an almost extinct tribe with insufficient data available.

I am curious why Warren hasn't done a private testing under a false name long ago: I assume she did an the results weren't convincing enough.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Unless her ancestor managed to reproduce via parenthogenisis, she will have inherited parts of the DNA of her Native American ancestor.
What would be critical is knowing the relevant DNA sequences from known descendants of the tribes in question for comparison: she might be from an almost extinct tribe with insufficient data available.

I am curious why Warren hasn't done a private testing under a false name long ago: I assume she did an the results weren't convincing enough.
Click to expand...

But each chromosome only has a 50/50 chance of being passed down, and there is a limited number of chromosomes. If it was more than a handful of generations ago, and the rest of her ancestry is European, there is a good chance she would not have inherited any of those chromosomes. What is distinctive about those Native American chromosomes would be irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom