Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drewbot said:
Dr. Keith says:
Dr. Keith said:
Actually only one company, but it sounds better if you make it sound widespread.
Click to expand...
Proving he is only attacking the arguer, and not the argument.
Click to expand...

Drewbot said:
Definitely more than one company in that article.
Click to expand...


More than one company proclaimed Indigenous Ancestry to everyone, including dogs? Are you sure?


Drewbot said:
Wow, DNA testing companies have a tendency to proclaim Indigenous Ancestry to everyone, including dogs...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Of course there isn't. It isn't a question of dna or of ancestry. That was Tall Bear's point.

That has nothing to do with the quality of the science used in ancestry testing. That testing can prove that you have a native American ancestor, which is an entirely different question.
Click to expand...

sigh, another article, quoting more experts...

This british expert found out that he had traces (1/1024 perhaps?) of native American heritage which just happened to line up with family lore! aMAZEBALLS!

“As a geneticist, I am absolutely convinced that they’re not related,” he told me. “It’s just statistical noise that happens to coincide with this cool story.” Statistically, it’s unlikely that such tiny amount of Native American DNA would have been enough to show up on Rutherford’s test.

https://gizmodo.com/how-dna-testing-botched-my-familys-heritage-and-probab-1820932637
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'd be more worried about the privacy implications before taking such a test. Remember the rule of the internet: if you aren't paying, you are not the customer, you are the product. It applies here. The cheapness is subsidized by monetizing your data.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you wouldn't want to tip off the police about a distant cousin serial killer in your family tree, would you Doc?

Why do you hate Law Enforcement, Doc?
 
Drewbot said:
Dr. Keith says:


Proving he is only attacking the arguer, and not the argument.

Definitely more than one company in that article.
Click to expand...

No, I was attacking the argument. The argument, well really "claim", was that:

Wow, DNA testing companies have a tendency to proclaim Indigenous Ancestry to everyone, including dogs...
Click to expand...

There was only one company that did that. A second company, that was some sort of DNA based health report, simply failed to note that the DNA was from a dog.

I note carlitos already picked up this ball, but since I typed out a response I'll hit submit.
 
Elagabalus said:
Yeah, you wouldn't want to tip off the police about a distant cousin serial killer in your family tree, would you Doc?

Why do you hate Law Enforcement, Doc?
Click to expand...

What makes you think I'm not the distant cousin serial killer in your family tree? ******* narc.
 
carlitos said:
No. It's like a kid criticizing Smoke on the Water because it's lame, and you telling that kid that he only thinks that because he read it in Rolling Stone or Spin.
Click to expand...

I can see how you might take it that way. At least you can respond to what I actually wrote, rather than a strawman or only the first 2 words of a complex sentence.

I can't be bothered to go back through the many pages, but I think you are one who claims to think Warren is wrong to claim she has a Cherokee ancestor. If I have you mixed up with someone else, I apologize. If I have the right poster, can you explain how you came up with this opinion? How is she wrong?
 
Drewbot said:
One gave indigenous, one gave human ancestry to dogs. :)
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the same one twice? Because the the Orig3n test had nothing to do with ancestry, indigenous or otherwise.

Orig3n sells lifestyle DNA tests that purport to give consumers advice on things like diet and exercise.
Click to expand...

As such, the fact that they didn't notice that it was dog DNA is funny, but not surprising. They weren't looking at ancestry markers at all. Also, they were already "under legal scrutiny from the federal government last year for selling tests without the proper lab certifications."
 
Last edited:
while our correspondents are focusing on other posters (because of course), I will endeavor to continue to bring forth third party sources containing authoritative analysis:

In the case of Warren’s individual DNA test, Bustamante resorted to what he considered the next best reference: 37 individuals from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. According to Western scientists—who prefer migration theories that are culturally incongruent with indigenous origin stories—indigenous individuals from these countries represent the closest “sampled” biological relatives to Native Americans (that is, to those who originally inhabited what is now the United States).

This approach leaves a lot to be desired.

There is a great deal of diversity among the 573 federally recognized tribes in the contiguous U.S., all of which have unique cultural, linguistic, and historical traditions, as well as genetic differences. Of course, there exists even greater genetic heterogeneity among indigenous populations across the Americas. The terms Native American and indigenous are not interchangeable. While indigenous is ascribed globally, Native American is usually specific to the tribal peoples of the U.S.
Click to expand...

37 people....

Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Is Not Her Identity

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-make-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/573205/
 
theprestige said:
DNA Test: Warren maybe related to a few Central And South Americans.

Still no word on whether Warren has Cherokee ancestors.
Click to expand...

I know it's totally not a conservative talking point, but why do you guys always leave out the Canadian First Nation people? Would that somehow show the sleight of hand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom