Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOLOLOLOLThere are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightardsIn No way is she an American Indian... End of storyLOLOLNice deflection… Too bad it didn’t workSince when do rightards give a shit when a pol embellishes? Isn’t that the message the right boasts when defending Donald “4000 lies and counting” Trump?
Oh, it worked alright. You don’t really think your acknowledgment is required, do ya??
"We always have an excuse why our lies are okay." - American leftards
just go back to making shit up, son. reality seems to really fuck with you.LOLOLOLOLThere are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightardsIn No way is she an American Indian... End of storyLOLOLNice deflection… Too bad it didn’t work
Oh, it worked alright. You don’t really think your acknowledgment is required, do ya??
"We always have an excuse why our lies are okay." - American leftards
Too hysterical coming from a Trump fluffer.
So? Did she ever claim to look like an Indian?She has been soundly rejected by the very tribe she claims have the heritage of...There are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightardsIn No way is she an American Indian... End of story
She’s a lying bitch
We are to believe that her mother had to elope when she got married because she was 1/1000 Native American?
Well.... They must have had some very meticulous bigots in town..you know...people who were a thousand times more prejudiced than normal!
And freaking psychic, to boot. Pretty sure no one can detect 1/1024th Native American purely by sight.
That’s from the actual test, ya moron. Indian samples were used.LOLthe person who did the test. take up your stupidity with him.Who told you no Indian blood was used??please show where there was "indian" heritage in the test results.Oh? Where’s the lie? She said there was Indian in her heritage and she posted the results of a DNA test showing there’s Indian in her heritage.
will be interesting as no indian dna was used in the test itself.
I just showed you his test samples.
So who told you no Indian blood was used?
Um, the test summary itself. It's already been cited and linked numerous times. Are you telling us you're in here running off at the mouth, making definitive statements about the test, and you didn't actually look at the results yourself?
Damn, are YOU a gullible tool.
Dumbfuck, where did I say the samples were from the U.S.??LOLi own up to them all the time when i make 'em. but your math is way off.No worries. While I possess the character to own up to my mistakes, you apparently don’t. Even after you were shown that Indian blood was used in her DNA test, you can neither find it in yourself to admit you made a mistake by denying any Indian blood was used; nor will you admit from where you heard that nonsense.what is 1/2 of 1/64th again?Holyshit.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/64 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
hint - it's NOT 1/16th as you say above.
can you please for the love of god stop being so fundamentally stupid about math?
indian blood as far as i've read can't be used because american indians won't allow it. link provided several times. stop math and go google for a bit.
I showed you the test samples. What a pity you’re ineducable.
The same test samples that you didn't read, and thus didn't know they said that they didn't actually have any Native American samples from the US?
Harvard says you’re full of shit. I’ll go with their assessment.Blah, blah, blah.LOLi own up to them all the time when i make 'em. but your math is way off.No worries. While I possess the character to own up to my mistakes, you apparently don’t. Even after you were shown that Indian blood was used in her DNA test, you can neither find it in yourself to admit you made a mistake by denying any Indian blood was used; nor will you admit from where you heard that nonsense.
indian blood as far as i've read can't be used because american indians won't allow it. link provided several times. stop math and go google for a bit.
I showed you the test samples. What a pity you’re ineducable.
The same test samples that you didn't read, and thus didn't know they said that they didn't actually have any Native American samples from the US?
AncestrySupport
North and South America were settled by at least three waves of migrants from Asia, who occupied the Americas from Canada to the southern tip of Chile. North America was initially occupied by people who came from Siberia and coastal North Asia.
Far fewer than 1,000 people crossed the Bering land bridge, and Native Americans appear to derive from this initial wave of migration. Evidence suggests they dispersed rapidly along the western coast of the Americas, perhaps by sea, within a period of only about a thousand years. Not long after humans first appeared in today’s Alaska and the western United States, they settled as far south as the tip of modern-day Chile.
Native American ancestry and DNA
Anyone with even a single Native American ancestor (no matter how far back) has Native American ancestry, but not everyone with a Native American ancestor has Native American DNA. Only half of a person’s DNA is passed on to their child, so with each generation that passes, the potential exists for DNA from any given ancestor to be lost.
The closer an ancestor is to you, the more likely it is that their DNA has been passed on to you. If your great-grandmother is 25% Native American, your original Native American ancestor was your great-great-great-grandparent. Although about 12.5% of your DNA comes from your great-grandmother, you may not have inherited her Native American DNA, or you may have inherited such a small amount that it doesn’t appear in a DNA test.
Though a child received 50% of each parent’s DNA, they do not typically receive 50% of each ethnicity present in the parents. A parent who’s half Nigerian and half Native American may pass on more Nigerian DNA than Native American DNA (or vice versa) to the child. Over generations, the randomness of inheritance results in DNA from some ethnicities being passed down more than others and in some ethnicities being lost entirely.
See more at link noted above.
Chief Shitting Pants is less Indian than 98% of American White People.
She got a job at Harvard based on false heritage.
Let's be truthful here.
.
Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.We are in a constant state of excitement with every post you make. If she’s 1/1,024th, her mom at best is 1/512th.LOLOL
Look at how excited y’all get when I make a mistake.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
She stated that her mother told her that she had high cheek boneSo? Did she ever claim to look like an Indian?She has been soundly rejected by the very tribe she claims have the heritage of...There are no lies, only embellishments ~ American rightards
She’s a lying bitch
We are to believe that her mother had to elope when she got married because she was 1/1000 Native American?
Well.... They must have had some very meticulous bigots in town..you know...people who were a thousand times more prejudiced than normal!
And freaking psychic, to boot. Pretty sure no one can detect 1/1024th Native American purely by sight.
There still is a margin of error of 3.1%. You cannot get around that.Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.We are in a constant state of excitement with every post you make. If she’s 1/1,024th, her mom at best is 1/512th.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
if he can say .097% of mexican/colombian/peruvian heritage = legal native american, he pretty much has shown he will do whatever the fuck makes him happy then laugh at the rest of us for not following his tatoo-like fantasy island adventures.There still is a margin of error of 3.1%. You cannot get around that.Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.We are in a constant state of excitement with every post you make. If she’s 1/1,024th, her mom at best is 1/512th.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
if he can say .097% of mexican/colombian/peruvian heritage = legal native american, he pretty much has shown he will do whatever the fuck makes him happy then laugh at the rest of us for not following his tatoo-like fantasy island adventures.There still is a margin of error of 3.1%. You cannot get around that.Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.Wrong as always. 1/512 was her mom’s worst case. Her best is 1/16.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.
the left can be so fucked up.and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.warren herself showed to be no better than 1/64th which would make her mom, and i'll do this your way, 2/64th. you're again missing a generation.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.
I have the answer! Rachel Dolezal!
If she is an Indian, I am a black man.When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].
BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.
That's the overall point.
She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.
THAT is the overall point.
well we had no evidence kavanaugh did shit to ford but hey - look what fun the left had.If she is an Indian, I am a black man.When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].
BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.
That's the overall point.
She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.
THAT is the overall point.
You have no evidence she misused her ancestry to secure employment, if you had, you or someone else would have so stated (and you of course would have echoed it) and provided incontestable evidence.
If one is to question the Resume of every pol, they might find many who made false or misleading statement.
Donald J. Trump make claim being a self made billionaire, which seems to have been exposed by the NY Times recently; there is much more evidence that his pretense of being a self made business man / ;billionaire is well over stated; and, his claim to be an expert negotiator has been exposed as bullshit, he's nothing more than a bully and a scofflaw.
the left can be so fucked up.and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Holyshit.
Again, pay attention. We’re talking about her mom. If Elizabeth Warren’s range is 1/32 - 1/1024, what do you think her mom’s range is?
And why do you refuse to answer the question, who told you no Indian blood was used in her DNA test?
Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.
I have the answer! Rachel Dolezal!
born with a penis - questionable as to which gender you are.
some random DNA test says you're 0.097% mexican/colombian/peruvian, you're 100% american indian.
If she is an Indian, I am a black man.When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].
BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.
That's the overall point.
She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.
THAT is the overall point.
You have no evidence she misused her ancestry to secure employment, if you had, you or someone else would have so stated (and you of course would have echoed it) and provided incontestable evidence.
If one is to question the Resume of every pol, they might find many who made false or misleading statement.
Donald J. Trump make claim being a self made billionaire, which seems to have been exposed by the NY Times recently; there is much more evidence that his pretense of being a self made business man / ;billionaire is well over stated; and, his claim to be an expert negotiator has been exposed as bullshit, he's nothing more than a bully and a scofflaw.
Yep, Her little test proves she has no American Indian heritageIf she is an Indian, I am a black man.When will you ever be truthful? Post a link which provides evidence that you are being truthful [I look forward to the source(s)].
BTW, Indian blood? DNA is a proven source of data in individual and their ancesters, blood not nearly as much.
That's the overall point.
She is not a minority. She used her lie of being a minority to get a job at Harvard.
THAT is the overall point.
You have no evidence she misused her ancestry to secure employment, if you had, you or someone else would have so stated (and you of course would have echoed it) and provided incontestable evidence.
If one is to question the Resume of every pol, they might find many who made false or misleading statement.
Donald J. Trump make claim being a self made billionaire, which seems to have been exposed by the NY Times recently; there is much more evidence that his pretense of being a self made business man / ;billionaire is well over stated; and, his claim to be an expert negotiator has been exposed as bullshit, he's nothing more than a bully and a scofflaw.
And yet she was gullible enough to have a DNA test done.
Jo
the left can be so fucked up.and it was still .097% - not enough to be anything at all other than a line item on the report. if .097% makes someone native american, what does 99.903% non-"native american" make them?Ah, yes, the ever popular shoot the messenger tactic. Well, in reality, Dr. Bustamante was able to cross identify some ¾ of a million samples of genetic variation in this test, more than enough to back his findings.Couple of things. The "match" to particular racial, ethnic groups is not a DIRECT outcome of testing specific DNA from an ancient ancestor. All of those "group associations" that 23&me or others give you is a STATISTICAL estimate of your ULTIMATE ancestry. Thus the very wide range (variance) given in the estimate.
GENERALLY, if it's not 0.4% or HIGHER -- it's "in the noise" and there is NO TELLING what the actual number really is. It's a mere suggestion of possibility at that point. And there is ZERO point in arguing what the ACTUAL number might be.
In fact, to your question about her mother, it doesn't necessarily matter. Because some of the "group" markers may entirely SKIP generations.
The group basis for any ethnic/regional/racial group is ALSO widely subject to variance. Any 2 DNA analysis programs will vary in the numbers assigned. So THIS apparently was a CUSTOM STUDY done at Stanford where they are NOT in the business of collecting and processing literally MILLIONS of samples from around the world. And apparently, the researcher commissioned for this political "dog and pony" show put together his reference data bases of ethnicity, region, race from Ad Hoc stuff available thru academia.
At this point in the business of matching folks to their probably ancestry -- that simply cannot compete with the larger commercial operations for dependability, accuracy. The white coat probably should not have put his name on the report. Because NOW -- his credibility is becoming a political hand grenade tossed by politicians desperate for attention and power.
again - your math sucks shaved donkey balls.
I have the answer! Rachel Dolezal!
born with a penis - questionable as to which gender you are.
some random DNA test says you're 0.097% mexican/colombian/peruvian, you're 100% american indian.
We are all Cherokees now!
Jo
