Elizabeth Warren refuses to take DNA test

[Mumbles]

Fauxcahontas can always just admit she lied to gain political favor as a "minority".

Except, again, it was her opponent Scott Brown who spent time blathering about this - Warren only refers to it in that context.

And since when did being a racial minority help anyone become a US Senator? All things considered, that's one of the dumbest political strategies I've ever heard of.

 

[theprestige]

Fauxcahontas can always just admit she lied to gain political favor as a "minority".

To be fair, this would probably be instantly fatal to her career, to the concept of diversity hiring, or both. So I don't think she can, really, admit that. Looking at it from her perspective, the ridicule from the right is clearly the lesser of two evils.

 

[theprestige]

Except, again, it was her opponent Scott Brown who spent time blathering about this - Warren only refers to it in that context.

And since when did being a racial minority help anyone become a US Senator? All things considered, that's one of the dumbest political strategies I've ever heard of.

It's a strategy she adopted for a few years during her academic career. Naturally she gave it up before moving from the ivory tower and into the public eye where people might actually question her self-identification.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's a strategy she adopted for a few years during her academic career. Naturally she gave it up before moving from the ivory tower and into the public eye where people might actually question her self-identification.

Ouija board?

Tea leaves?

Goat entrails?

Astrology?

Ergot?

A bit of bad mutton?



Could you share with us the source of your fantasy that you can divine intentions (in a totally unbiased non-partisan fashion, I'm sure)?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's a strategy she adopted for a few years during her academic career. Naturally she gave it up before moving from the ivory tower and into the public eye where people might actually question her self-identification.

Fake News.

She listed it on a early version of Social Media for teachers for a few years, there is zero evidence that she promoted it beyond that. The only other instance of it being promoted during her time as a professor was one line in an article that was all about how Harvard was hiring their first Black Female professor and according to the person responsible they took it from that previously mentioned site. Those that were involved with her hiring in her professional career have all flatly denied that her heritage was ever considered or even brought up during the hiring decision, and unlike the article introducing their first black female professor the article introducing Warren says nothing of her heritage.

There is absolutely zero evidence that it was used for anything beyond a purely social thing to meet others of similar backgrounds.

At the end of the day the evidence that she is not telling the truth is as flimsy as the evidence that she is telling it. Simply not having an ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls doesn't mean that she didn't have Cherokee ancestors, for multiple reasons, for instance the ancestor was born well before the rolls, and by the time of the rolls those who had descended from that person considered themselves "white" for obvious political reasons. That the descendants between that Ancestor and Warren who were around at the time were not in the state, weren't part of the tribe, or simply rejected having to be enrolled.

Even the tribes themselves admit that the Dawes Rolls are not a complete and perfect record of their members at the time and that people with legitimate heritage can find themselves unable to apply for membership because their ancestor avoided enrollment.

At the end of the day, neither side really has the ability to conclusively say that they are right, and since this whole thing started because Warren "didn't look native american" it really has some serious racist tones around the entire thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Do we need a new term, Warren derangement syndrome?

First off, the NYPost doesn't have a stellar news source reputation. But let's look at the content in your link:

If you had any doubt that Sen. Elizabeth Warren has her eye on the White House, it was dispelled this past weekend when she showed up on the Sunday morning talk shows to say she wasn’t running for president.

That's meaningless. There were several reasons she had for going on talk shows now, in particular a lot of Democratic legislators are making the rounds because Trump is melting down at an even more frightening rate and the idiot GOP legislators in the House are standing behind a serious train wreck of a POTUS. His administration is in shambles and it looks more and more everyday like it's an outright criminal enterprise.

Warren and her anti-big banks has every reason to be speaking up on the talk shows.

The GOP, for whatever reason are afraid Warren might run for POTUS so they are trying to demonize her ahead of time. Personally, I see no reason to think she is interested in running for POTUS. I think the GOP spouting that unsupported claim aren't very astute.

Then there is this:

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.

That's utter poppycock. Some individual professionals may have said her family story doesn't pan out (hardly some huge professional consensus of truth, more like truthiness).

She answered, it's a family story, end of issue. Why should she apologize for telling a family story? That is not evidence of lying.

As for 'refuses DNA test', that has been thoroughly discussed in this thread. The tests are still verging on producing incomplete to misleading results at the moment. Those news people are looking for scandal, it sells. They have zero expertise in the reliability of the tests.

Talk about BS hyperbole:

At this point, she’s only a degree away from being another Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who passed as African-American while becoming a local NAACP official.

That's as far as I could stomach. Your source is as valid as spit on a sidewalk.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

But not determinable, because the tests are not specific enough yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I am curious why people in this forum who sometimes exhibit the capacity to understand basic science don't seem to understand what has been explained and supported with citations none of which have been refuted with any equivalent scientific evidence or rationale.

The tests can only detect what is in the data base the company uses to find matches in.

Let me try again. The human genome has ~3 billion (with a B) nucleic acid base pairs. We only know what a small proportion of those sequences mean, or which populations they are descended from.

When the company tests your DNA, they may very well record that whole genome, all 3 billion base pairs. This has become very inexpensive to do. But the fraction of it they use to determine your ancestry is only a small fraction from that huge genome. You could have whole segments of Cherokee Indian ancestry but if those base pair sequences are not in the data base, the testing company will not recognize any of that Cherokee ancestry.

Could we at least move past the false claim that said American Indian ancestry will definitely show up on the tests? Or prove me wrong with some citation that relies on actual evidence and knowledge about DNA testing!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Any ancestry should be detectable via DNA analysis of there is enough comparison data available.
Genetic testing usually inbolves only small fragments of the genome - full sequencing is rare.

So yes, an off-the-shelf dna-based ancestry search might not turn up anything - but that doesn't mean that a more thorough investigation wouldn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Any ancestry should be detectable via DNA analysis of there is enough comparison data available.Genetic testing usually inbolves only small fragments of the genome - full sequencing is rare.

So yes, an off-the-shelf dna-based ancestry search might not turn up anything - but that doesn't mean that a more thorough investigation wouldn't.

Did what I wrote go over your head? What more thorough investigation would that be?
If there is enough comparison data available? Care to tell us who has this comparable data base? How would Jane Q Citizen take advantage of such 'enough data'?

You keep making unsupported assertions. What are they based on? It sounds logical to you?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

SG, I truly have no idea what you are upset about.
It seems to me that we actually agree with one another, yet for some reason it seems we don't.

I'm trying to make it clear that DNA analysis and comparison as done for scientific research using full sequences and alignment computations will, with a certain degree of certainty, detect if even only one of your ancestor was a Native American.
Compan-run analyses such as 23andMe might not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm trying to make it clear that DNA analysis and comparison as done for scientific research using full sequences and alignment computations will, with a certain degree of certainty, detect if even only one of your ancestor was a Native American.

I think you missed what SG was saying. It will only determine that to any degree of certainly if you actually have a verifiable data source that shows that those set of genes can only have come from a native american source.

SG is pointing out that there is no such data source currently to her knowledge.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think you missed what SG was saying. It will only determine that to any degree of certainly if you actually have a verifiable data source that shows that those set of genes can only have come from a native american source.

SG is pointing out that there is no such data source currently to her knowledge.

... which is why I always used the caveat the we need comparison data.

 

[Distracted1]

There's family lore that someone in my father's family tree was in the Trail of Tears, but as they don't ever say his name I can't check the Dawes Rolls. I guess I'm a 'fauxcahontas' too, which is doubly stupid because POCAHONTAS IS A NAME HER ENEMIES CALLED HER. What kind of idiot mocks a mocking epithet, besides a supporter?

My family also has a long held belief that we have a Native American ancestor from my Fathers side. No documentation of it exists, but I ( and my siblings ) have accepted it without question, and I probably "checked that box" myself once or twice way back in high school when those boxes were ubiquitous.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

My family also has a long held belief that we have a Native American ancestor from my Fathers side. No documentation of it exists, but I ( and my siblings ) have accepted it without question, and I probably "checked that box" myself once or twice way back in high school when those boxes were ubiquitous.

My grandmother used to always check the "Native American" box on forms. That's despite the fact she didn't have a drop of Native American ancestry in her. Her reasoning being that she was born in the US, thus is a native American. We constantly had to explain to her that's not what they mean....

 

[blutoski]

Any ancestry should be detectable via DNA analysis of there is enough comparison data available.
Genetic testing usually inbolves only small fragments of the genome - full sequencing is rare.

So yes, an off-the-shelf dna-based ancestry search might not turn up anything - but that doesn't mean that a more thorough investigation wouldn't.

I would say this is false. (disclaimer: graduate degree = research medicine + undergrad in psychology, early career was medical genetics, but I am not currently licensed)

There are no alleles that I have come across (and I've done some research as part of debunking these DNA test kits as the healthfraud they are) that will conclusively confirm or reject ethnic heritages.

As you point out, we compare with baseline samples. The best we come up with are statistical probabilities such as: "This allele is in 35% of Europeans and 20% of Amerinds, so you are proooooobably of European descent - check your family history to sort out the actual facts."

The kits are really just entertainment, like Ouiji boards, and there is no 'advanced professional' version out there with better results. They're the most advanced version of this, and they're still rubbish, it is what it is.



And the biology is missing the point, which is that the asset of having mixed heritage is empathy, and the enhanced ability that gives to those who work with minorities. When we grow up with family from different ethnicities there is an improved appreciation for how stereotypes are crap. This is true regardless of whether the family story is one of biological inheritance or even adoption.

Focusing on genetic testing is ignoring the skills she is claiming to be bringing to the table, which is the empathy of somebody from a mixed race family - not the alleles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG, I truly have no idea what you are upset about.
It seems to me that we actually agree with one another, yet for some reason it seems we don't.

I'm trying to make it clear that DNA analysis and comparison as done for scientific research using full sequences and alignment computations will, with a certain degree of certainty, detect if even only one of your ancestor was a Native American.
Compan-run analyses such as 23andMe might not.

You have a magical idea of what the current state of the science actually is. Researchers are only just now looking at Native American ancestry. It's fascinating actually, but the data base is very small and only now being developed.

I'm annoyed because it's been said over and over in this thread that some test is available somewhere which could determine Warren's ancestry in detail. If you have a million dollar grant and a few years to collect data and do more migration mapping, maybe.

Let me give you a different analogy. Current commercial DNA testing is about as accurate as a lie detector test. IOW, not very accurate, definitely not reliable. Brain researchers are looking at direct measurements of brain activity. In a decade we might have full-proof means of detecting lies by looking directly at brain activity.

You're saying there is a way to test Warren's ancestry is akin to saying someone can test right now, when in reality it is probably a decade and a lot more research away before that could be done.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... which is why I always used the caveat the we need comparison data.

... and a decade more research to develop that database.

Just make it clear that caveat is included.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't believe this conversation matters to anyone. I repeat.

We have a president who lies non-stop, yet Republicans totally disinterested in calling the President out over the diahrea of lies he tells are interested in whether Elizabeth Warren's claim to having some Indian blood in her is true?

Again, if I'm Elizabeth Warren, I would tell all the doubting kooks who thinks she should take a DNA test to go get a life, there are much more important issues to be concerned with like the removal of the pathetically weak banking protections being weakened even further.

Democrats need to grow a spine and start telling some of these reporters what trivial crap they are paying attention to when there are so many critical issues in the country and in the world today.

BTW, I'm in this thread for the science issues.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We are talking about an isolated population of humans, separated from European humans for tens of thousands of years. Characteristic SNPs would accumulate.
Again, we aren't talking genes but non-coding DNA, so we aren't looking at alleles of genes.
And of course it is a question of sufficient data to do the necessary statistical analysis, which in a proper scientific study could reveal both the presence of Native American DNA and the absence of DNA characteristic of pure European heritage.