Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Elizabeth Warren Agrees With the Ku Klux Klan on the “One Drop Rule”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Elizabeth Warren infamously claimed to be a racial minority, specifically, Native American, in an Association of American Law Schools directory, and in the 1990s her employer, Harvard Law School, touted her minority status in an effort to bolster its “diversity” bona fides.  Warren has taken a lot of heat for claiming to be Native American, because, sadly, her claim is a lie.  Astonishingly, Warren herself has confirmed that her claim was false when she released the results of a DNA test today.  The DNA report,

found that ‘the vast majority’ of Warren’s family tree is European, but added that ‘the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor … in the range of 6-10 generations ago.’

Even more astonishingly, in this video, also released today, Warren says the report actually confirms her claim that she is a racial minority.  What?  In what universe does a  DNA report that says she has no more than 1/64, and perhaps as little as 1/1,024, Native American DNA validate her claim to be a racial minority? Here is where Senator Warren shares common cause with the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow racists.  Apparently, she, like the KKK, adheres to the “one drop rule.”  PBS explains this rule as follows:

To be considered black in the United States not even half of one’s ancestry must be African black. But will one-fourth do, or one-eighth, or less? The nation’s answer to the question ‘Who is black?” has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the “one-drop rule,” meaning that a single drop of “black blood” makes a person a black. It is also known as the “one black ancestor rule,” some courts have called it the “traceable amount rule,” and anthropologists call it the “hypo-descent rule,” meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation’s definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.

Apparently, if the one drop rule it is good enough for the Ku Klux Klan, it is good enough for Elizabeth Warren.

So, is Elizabeth Warren a racial minority?  Of course, the answer to that question depends on what one means by “racial minority.”  If by “racial minority,” one means a person, the vast majority’ of whose family tree is not European, clearly she is not.  On the other hand, if one agrees with the KKK and adopts the “one drop rule,” she is.

UPDATE

As I considered this matter further, it occurred to me that I should explore the issue of “why does it matter if Warren is a racial minority”?  At one level, it does not.  I don’t care if she is a racial minority; nor should anyone else.  I have actually been represented in the Senate by a Native American (Ben Nighthorse Campbell).  While I rarely agreed with him on political issues, by all accounts he served honorably.

On the other hand, I do care if Warren is a liar.  If she is, she needs to be exposed and shamed (if she has any shame, which appears increasingly unlikely).  And yes, she is a liar.  Reasonable people can disagree whether racial minorities should have advantages on account of that status.  What is inarguable is that if we as a society do confer such advantages, they should be reserved for, well, racial minorities.  Whatever advantages that accrue to racial minority status (and Warren clearly believed there was some advantage in describing herself as a racial minority; otherwise should would not have done so) should not be conferred on a blue-eyed blonde woman whose ancestry was overwhelmingly European.  The purpose of racial preferences is to address the lingering disadvantages of past and present racism.  That purpose is clearly undermined when a blue-eyed blonde woman of European descent attempts to arrogate those advantages to herself.  Moreover, the one drop rule that Warren espouses would, if taken to its literal conclusion, undermine all racial preferences.  I believe it is safe to say that practically everyone in the United States is a minority if the cutoff is 1/1,024 as Warren believes.  If everyone is a minority, then no one is and the basis for preference rapidly collapses.

Finally, it is hard to argue with the Scott Brown campaign when they said:

That Warren allowed Harvard to hold her up as an example of their commitment to diversity in the hiring of historically disadvantaged communities is an insult to all Americans who have suffered real discrimination and mistreatment, and Warren should apologize for participating in this hypocritical sham . . .

 

SECOND UPDATE

I have been trying to understand Warren’s political calculations with this move. Apparently, she believed that the MSM would do its level best to cover her by trying to run with the patently preposterous story that the report vindicated her claims. She was correct. That is exactly what they did. She then calculated that she would be able to brazen it out with utterly shameless chutpah and the story would, at the very least, lose steam, and she could move on with her 2020 run. Here she miscalculated badly. The MSM’s power to convince the world that black is white is more limited than she thought. Only the most foaming-at-the-mouth leftist activists (like Bob O’H in the comment section to this post) are buying her load of bull manure (or at least saying they are; no rational person believes her).

 

 

Comments
Ambly@100, not an issue. We are all guilty of this. Big thumbs, small iPhone.R J Sawyer
October 18, 2018
October
10
Oct
18
18
2018
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Ah, yeah, autocorrect took my garbled typing of "precious" and came up with "previously".Amblyrhynchus
October 18, 2018
October
10
Oct
18
18
2018
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Ambly
What a previously little petal.
Did you mean to say “precious”? Or “delicate”, as in “delicate little flower”?R J Sawyer
October 18, 2018
October
10
Oct
18
18
2018
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
What a previously little petal. I'm sure a purge of anyone who knows anything about genetics will certainly be a good way to improve the relevance of UD and the ID movement...Amblyrhynchus
October 18, 2018
October
10
Oct
18
18
2018
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Ambly resorts to: "you may just be the dumbest poster on this site." I consider that trollish behavior. I request an apology or else I will request that you be banned. On second thought, since you insulted practically everybody on UD, forget the apology. "Amon considerable competition, you may just be the dumbest poster on this site." Note: Amon is suppose to be Among Word of advice, Next time you call someone dumb on some other site, please spell check so that you do not fall prey to your own insult of being dumb!bornagain77
October 18, 2018
October
10
Oct
18
18
2018
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Ambly asks: “Where did I do this (grossly misread fraction calculation from generations estimated)?” Post 86. You were corrected in 88. You stated in 86. “That does not mean that 1/64th or 1/128th of whatever of her genome has Native American ancestry” And then were shown in 88 the calculation is as such. “2^10 = 1024 parents = 10 generations – one possible pure Indian ancestor” For your information, 128 is NOT 1024, that is approx a 8 or 9 fold error on your part.
Amon considerable competition, you may just be the dumbest poster on this site. 64 is 2^6, 128 is 2^7. So when I said "1/64th or 1/128th or whatever" I was listing off the implied proportions of ancestors, to make the point that any such number is not comprable to the admixture proportion you quoted in 3.
“Using single base pair variants also let’s you learn about more distant ancestry. As a result these estimates are not comparable.” So what?
So the claim that Warren has less native ancestory than the average white American is wrong. That's all I've ever said.Amblyrhynchus
October 18, 2018
October
10
Oct
18
18
2018
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Ambly asks:
"Where did I do this (grossly misread fraction calculation from generations estimated)?"
Post 86. You were corrected in 88. You stated in 86.
“That does not mean that 1/64th or 1/128th of whatever of her genome has Native American ancestry”
And then were shown in 88 the calculation is as such.
"2^10 = 1024 parents = 10 generations – one possible pure Indian ancestor"
For your information, 128 is NOT 1024, that is approx a 8 or 9 fold error on your part. Moreover, you yourself agreed with the 6 to 10 generation estimate, thus the main point at hand is settled. You seem to be hung up on short snippets deriving a different measure than the test that was used on Warren. You stated,,,
"Using single base pair variants also let’s you learn about more distant ancestry. As a result these estimates are not comparable."
So what? I know for a fact that I have a more recent Indian ancestor than Warren does. And would test higher than her by any measure used. And am also quite sure that many other 'white' Americans besides me have her similarity beat hands down. Yet no one would ever think to ask me if I was an Indian. Thus, especially to me, her claim is a total farce. And she should apologize to the Cherokee nation. Of humorous note to your being hung up on "Using single base pair variants also let’s you learn about more distant ancestry",,, Are you also trying to establish the supposed evolutionary relationship (now refuted) that while Warren may be only 1/1024 Indian she is still, none-the less, 98.5 percent chimpanzee? :) If you are trying to bring a supposed 'evolutionary understanding' of genomic ancestry into this issue, for me that would be just another clear example of Darwinian junk science polluting the actual science at hand. Like I said before, "I have less than zero respect for how Darwinists have often ‘massaged’ genomes in the past so as to arrive at their predesired 98.5% conclusions" A few notes to that effect:
DNA Science Disproves Human Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - 2017 Excerpt: 1970s, very crude and indirect techniques were utilized to unzip mixtures of human and chimpanzee DNA, which were then monitored to see how fast they would zip back up compared to unmixed samples.5 Based on these studies, it was declared that human and chimpanzee DNA was 98.5% similar. But only the most similar protein-coding regions of the genome (called single-copy DNA) were compared, which is an extremely small portion—less than 3%—of the total genome. Also, it was later discovered by an evolutionary colleague that the authors of these studies had manipulated the data to make the chimpanzee DNA appear more similar to human than it really was.6,,, So, how similar is chimpanzee DNA to human? My research indicates that raw chimpanzee DNA sequences from data sets with significantly lower levels of human DNA contamination are on average about 85% identical in their DNA sequence when aligned onto the human genome. Therefore, based on the most recent, unbiased, and comprehensive research, chimpanzee DNA is no more than 85% similar to human. 6. Marks, J. 2011. The Rise and Fall of DNA Hybridization, ca. 1980-1995, or How I Got Interested in Science Studies. In Workshop on “Mechanisms of Fraud in Biomedical Research,” organized by Christine Hauskeller and Helga Satzinger. The Wellcome Trust, London, October 17-18, 2008. 7. Tomkins, J. P. 2011. How Genomes are Sequenced and Why it Matters: Implications for Studies in Comparative Genomics of Humans and Chimpanzees. Answers Research Journal. 4: 81-88. 8. Tomkins, J. 2016. Analysis of 101 Chimpanzee Trace Read Data Sets: Assessment of Their Overall Similarity to Human and Possible Contamination with Human DNA. Answers Research Journal. 9: 294-298. http://www.icr.org/article/10016
In fact a Darwinist himself once commented that early Darwinian studies on human chimp similarity, “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,
The Rise and Fall of DNA Hybridization – Jonathan Marks - 2011 Excerpt: the technique of DNA hybridization had devolved into being doubly “tricky” – but more significantly, the outstanding charge of data falsification was there in black-and-white in the leading science journal in America. It seemed as though nothing more needed to be said for the “wheels of justice” to begin turning. Yet they didn’t. In 1993, I was asked by The Journal of Human Evolution to review Jared Diamond’s book, The Third Chimpanzee. Noting that the book’s “hook” was based on the Sibley-Ahlquist work, which Diamond was still touting uncritically, I said: Perhaps you recall Sibley and Ahlquist. In a nutshell, their results were: (1) chimp-gorilla DNA hybrids were more thermally stable than chimp-human hybrids; (2) the differences were insignificant; and (3) reciprocity was very poor when human DNA was used as a tracer. Unfortunately, the conclusions they reported were: (1) chimp-human was more thermally stable than chimp-gorilla; (2) differences were significant; and (3) reciprocity was near-perfect. And they got from point A to point B by (1) switching experimental controls; (2) making inconsistent adjustments for variation in DNA length, which was apparently not even measured; (3) moving correlated points into a regression line; and (4) not letting anyone know. The rationale for (4) should be obvious; and if (1), (2) and (3) are science, I'm the Princess of Wales. This work needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years.31 31Marks, J. (1993) Review of The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Journal of Human Evolution, 24:69-73. http://webpages.uncc.edu/~jmarks/dnahyb/Sibley%20revisited.pdf
Needless to say, his honesty about Darwinian dishonesty did not win him any friends in the Darwinian world Of recent related note:
New Chimp Genome Confirms Creationist Research BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 Excerpt: The first time they constructed a chimp genome and compared it to humans, they claimed 98.5% DNA similarity based on cherry-picked regions that were highly similar to human. However, an extensive DNA comparison study I published in 2016 revealed two major flaws in their construction of the chimp genome.1 First, many chimp DNA data sets were likely contaminated with human DNA, especially those produced in the first half of the chimpanzee genome project from 2002 to 2005. Second, the chimpanzee genome was deliberately constructed to be more human-like than it really is.2 Scientists assembled the small snippets of chimp DNA onto the human genome, using it as a scaffold or reference. It’s much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the picture on the box as a guide. Since many chimpanzee data sets likely suffered from human DNA contamination, the level of humanness was amplified. I studied the 2005–2010 data sets that showed less human DNA data contamination and found they were only 85% similar to human at best.1 Just this year, scientists published a new version of the chimpanzee genome.3 This new version incorporated an advanced type of DNA sequencing technology that produces much longer snippets of DNA sequence than earlier technologies. It also involved better protocols that greatly reduce human DNA contamination. And most importantly, the authors report that the DNA sequences have been assembled without using the human genome as a scaffold. They also acknowledged the flawed nature of previous versions of the chimp genome: The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies.3 This confirms what many creationists have been pointing out for years. Curiously, the authors of the new chimp genome paper said very little about the overall DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees. However, the University of London’s specialist in evolutionary genomics, Dr. Richard Buggs, evaluated the results of an analysis that compared this new chimp version to the human genome and discovered some shocking anti-evolutionary findings. Dr. Buggs reported on his website that “the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”?4 Assuming the chimpanzee and human genomes are about the same size, this translates to an overall similarity of only about 80%! This outcome is way outside the nearly identical level of 98 to 99% similarity required for human evolution to seem plausible. http://www.icr.org/article/new-chimp-genome-confirms-creationist-research
bornagain77
October 18, 2018
October
10
Oct
18
18
2018
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
I’m not the one who grossly misread the fraction calculation from generations estimated.
Where did I do this?
Moreover, to repeat, they did not look at the total genome content, as the other article I cited again at 88 stated, they looked at differences in segments, and then compared those differences in those segments to derive a percentage of similarity, “The method that Dr. Carlos Bustamante, a geneticist at Stanford University, used to assess Warren’s ancestry were specifically designed to identify chromosomal segments inherited from ancestors derived from different populations.”
that's right, in the Warren study they focus on these large segments. 23andMe uses single base pair variants. Focusing on large segments means you can only talk about recent ancestors. Using single base pair variants also let's you learn about more distant ancestry. As a result these estimates are not comparable. So I'm left to ask what is wrong with you? What makes you yell and rage and make all these comments about a topic you clearly learned about for the first time this week? Why not simple accept you got this wrong?Amblyrhynchus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
"What is wrong with you?" I'm not the one who grossly misread the fraction calculation from generations estimated. Moreover, to repeat, they did not look at the total genome content, as the other article I cited again at 88 stated, they looked at differences in segments, and then compared those differences in those segments to derive a percentage of similarity, "The method that Dr. Carlos Bustamante, a geneticist at Stanford University, used to assess Warren’s ancestry were specifically designed to identify chromosomal segments inherited from ancestors derived from different populations." She goes on in her article to note, with some minor gripe, that 23 and me uses much the same technique of looking only at certain segments of the genome, not the total genome content. But why are you so hung up on 'total genomic content' anyway, you've already conceded the main point that the 6 to 10 generation estimate is very likely to be true. And thus the main thrust of any counterargument you may want to make is moot anyways. As far as I am concerned, you are just wasting my time with this pointless babble since you have already conceded the 6 to 10 generation number.. By the way, as to Darwinists and the way they handle sequence data, I have less than zero respect for how Darwinists have often 'massaged' genomes in the past so as to arrive at their predesired conclusions:
“The computer programs that analyze the sequence similarities, or differences, are programmed in advance to generate a tree-like pattern. In other words, the assumption of a common ancestor is built into the way in which the analysis is performed. So there is no way you would get anything other than the conclusion,,, It’s a question begging assumption.” Stephen Meyer – on the Cambrian Explosion – podcast (15:25 minute mark) http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-05-30T17_33_15-07_00 Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution” – Cornelius Hunter – February 27, 2014 Excerpt: Not surprisingly evolutionists carefully prefilter their data. As one paper explained, “data are routinely filtered in order to satisfy stringent criteria so as to eliminate the possibility of incongruence.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/02/richard-dawkins-how-could-anyone.html Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush – May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/ That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works – Cornelius Hunter – June 2013 Excerpt:,,, The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene. These various strategies each have their own rationale. That rationale may be dubious, but at least there is some underlying reasoning. Yet none of these strategies worked. In fact they sometimes exacerbated the incongruence problem. What the evolutionists finally had to do, simply put, was to select the subset of the genes or of the problem that gave the right evolutionary answer. They described those genes as having “strong phylogenetic signal.” And how do we know that these genes have strong phylogenetic signal. Because they give the right (preferred) answer. This is an example of a classic tendency in science known as confirmation bias.,,, http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/that-yeast-study-is-good-example-of-how.html
bornagain77
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
What is wrong with you?
Nobody in any reference I cited claimed that it represented total genome content
The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average ... .18 Native American.
Your own quote is clearly talking about total genomic content. The study is comes from is estimating admixure proportions, which are by definition a proportion of total genome content.Amblyrhynchus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Nobody in any reference I cited claimed that it represented total genome content. and 23 and Me is not some amateur organization. (although Dr. Jennifer Raff had a minor gripe with them)
On average, the scientists found, people who identified as African-American had genes that were only 73.2 percent African. European genes accounted for 24 percent of their DNA, while .8 percent came from Native Americans. Latinos, on the other hand, had genes that were on average 65.1 percent European, 18 percent Native American, and 6.2 percent African. The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/science/23andme-genetic-ethnicity-study.html
And again the 1/64th to 1/1024th number is a calculation of her possible one pure Indian ancestor compared to the total parents in her lineage hence 10 generations back, which you yourself conceded.bornagain77
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Secondly, for crying out loud Amblyrhynchus, the 1/64th or 1/1024th is not a measure of her total genome content
Yes. that's what I'm telling you. The 0.18% figure in #3, however, is an estimate of total genome content. So these numbers are not comparable.Amblyrhynchus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Graham Coop has some nice graphs of this stuff here. So, you'd expect (in the statistical sense) to ahve 1/8th of your autosomal DNA come from your native ancestor, but the variance is quite large. Because this hypotehetic ancestor was so recent the DNA you inherited from them would eb quite contiguous (big long runs os many basepairs). It's likely you also have other short runs of DNA that have native origins, but have been floating around among white Americans for the hundreds of years following the first contact between Europeana and American peoples. I should also reinforce the fact that tribal and ethnic identity cannot be mapped 1:1 with DNA or even genealogical ancestry.Amblyrhynchus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Ambly, as to: "That does not mean that 1/64th or 1/128th of whatever of her genome has Native American ancestry" First off the number is 1/1024th not 1/128th Secondly, for crying out loud Amblyrhynchus, the 1/64th or 1/1024th is not a measure of her total genome content, it is a calculation of her possible one pure Indian ancestor compared to the total parents in her lineage hence 10 generations back
2^1 = 2 parents = 1 generation 2^2 = 4 parents = 2 generations 2^3 = 8 parents = 3 generations 2^4 = 16 parents = 4 generations 2^5 = 32 parents = 5 generations 2^6 = 64 parents = 6 generations 2^7 = 128 parents = 7 generations 2^8 = 256 parents = 8 generations 2^9 = 512 parents = 9 generations 2^10 = 1024 parents = 10 generations - one possible pure Indian ancestor Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test showing she may be 1/64th Native American at best won’t blunt Trump’s ‘Pocahontas’ attack by Philip Klein | October 15, 2018 Excerpt: The Boston Globe story says it’s possible she was just 1/32nd native American, but as Phil Kerpen pointed out and as this chart attests, being 6-10 generations removed means that she was at best 1/64th native American, but potentially 1/1,024th. Even this is only the “likely” range and far from exact. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferraff/2018/10/15/what-do-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test-results-actually-mean/#203a386712df Generation table http://dgmweb.net/Ancillary/OnE/NumberAncestors.html Of note: Based on the preceding table, if you go back 40 generations, you have over two trillion ancestors! Of course, this number doesn't mean you have that many unique ancestors in 40 generations. What is happening is repetition of ancestors, that is, the same ancestors appearing over and over again in a pedigree. Repetition seldom appears within the first ten generations, but the further back you go, the more repetition you are likely to find.
And to repeat, Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist with a PhD in genetics and anthropology, who is an Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas, who studies the DNA of ancient and contemporary peoples in order to understand their histories, focusing mainly on Native American populations, stands behind the 6 to 10 generation estimate:
What Do Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Results Actually Mean? Jennifer Raff – Oc. 16, 2018 Excerpt: As a geneticist who specializes in Native American population history, I’ve often been a vocal critic of using commercial DNA tests for claiming identity as a Native American. This is not because we can’t identify a person’s ancestry based on his or her genomes (although commercial ancestry testing companies’ claims about what they can tell consumers can be extremely problematic). Because of their unique population history, the earliest inhabitants of the Americas were genetically distinctive from present-day Europeans, Africans, Asians, and other groups. Genetic segments inherited from these ancient ancestors are unambiguous, and very clearly detectable. The method that Dr. Carlos Bustamante, a geneticist at Stanford University, used to assess Warren’s ancestry were specifically designed to identify chromosomal segments inherited from ancestors derived from different populations. It is quite accurate for assessing recent mixtures between very diverse populations. Using these approaches, he was able to determine that Senator Warren had at least 5 genetic segments in her chromosomes inherited from a Native American ancestor. Dr. Bustamante estimated this ancestor to have lived approximately 6-10 generations before her. And that’s the extent of what it is possible to tell from her genome. Certainly, one can’t link her—or anyone—with a specific contemporary tribe using genetics. While broad patterns of genetic variation exist across the Americas, tribes themselves aren’t genetically distinct from one another, due to a history of intermarriage, movement, and the devastating effects of European colonization. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferraff/2018/10/15/what-do-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test-results-actually-mean/#203a386712df
bornagain77
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Ambly, I think I understand that point now. Well, maybe. Let's say I found I had a "full" native great-grandparent, and the rest of my ancestors were European. (It always seems odd to me how we whitefolk like to brag about native ancestors). Is it true in any sense that my genome is 1/8 native?daveS
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
It's very simple, BA. I agree that five large chunks of Warren's DNA derive from a Native American ancestor 6-10 generations hence. That does not mean that 1/64th or 1/128th of whatever of her genome has Native American ancestry. That's not how DNA and ancestry work. To get a number comparable to the 0.18% figure quoted as the average for a white American you'd need to look at all genetic variants, and not just these long chunks with native American ancestry.Amblyrhynchus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Unless the records in New Brunswick are wrong, my grandfather's, grandfather's, grandfather married a woman from the Micmac tribe. Our family has the documentation to back up the stories. I am curious as to what the DNA would/ could say. With my luck I would take the DNA test and fail... D'ohET
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Well Ambly let's look at it again: And let the readers decide for themselves Amblyrhynchus at 57
I didn’t disagree with the 6-10 generation estimate, though.
Amblyrhynchus at 53
You can’t just say Warren’s admixture proportion will be 1/2^{n.generations} as people with political axes to grind have done,
So we can say Warren’s admixture proportion will be 1/2^{n.generations}? But,, but,,, oh nevermind, I forgot I was trying to be reasonable with a progressive Darwinist. Facts, like number of generations, race, gender, (evidence against evolution), simply don’t matter to progressives and/or Darwinists (but I repeat myself) ????
Gender Identity: Can a 5’9, White Guy Be (self identify as) a 6’5, Chinese Woman? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho
bornagain77
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @60 I'm not sure how I can be more clear about this? The comments you quote from explain why you are wrong about this, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by quoting those passages.Amblyrhynchus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
KF, Forbes has a good article on this.Barry Arrington
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
BA, I am concerned on media manipulation. For purposes of this case (as an example of how news is becoming narrative), what is the realistic resolution threshold of this test? KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
DS, what do you mean by a basis for ethics or morality? Is something that implies subjectivity only or imposition of essentially arbitrary rules by might and/or manipulation a basis in the relevant sense? Remember, rights -- binding moral expectations of respect -- are in the mix, as is justice as is the value that human thriving, rationality and freedom are to be prized, etc. KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Ben Shapiro asks an interesting question:
Why couldn’t Warren just say — as, in fact, she claims in the pages of the Globe — that she claimed Native American ancestry because she believed the stories she was told by her female relatives, and that those claims may have turned out to be false but had no impact in any case on her career development? Because claiming minority status did and does have value to Warren. Her Native American ancestry claims may not have been a factor in her hiring at Harvard Law, but the University of Pennsylvania listed Warren’s 1994 teaching award in its Minority Equity Report. Harvard Law listed her as Native American in the university’s annual affirmative-action report; administrators listed her as such from 1995 to 2004. It took real action from Warren herself to be listed as Native American at the institutions at which she worked. Minority status adds luster to a résumé in academia. And in politics. Warren knows that without her claims of Native American ancestry, she’s merely another successful white woman in an era in which the base of her party has dismissed white women as part of the privileged class. Claiming connection with a historically disadvantaged minority is politically useful to Warren — even if that connection is gossamer-thin. By the intersectional logic of the Left, ancestry is destiny, and those of minority ancestry are bound together by a common fate.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/elizabeth-warren-fraud-identity-politics/ In other words, if she wasn’t a tiny, tiny little bit American Indian she would just be another privileged white woman. From a racial, identity politics, social justice perspective that’s not good because all the problems in the world, the SJW’s argue in their playbook, are caused by privileged white people. So white is bad, color-- any color, even if it has been rendered invisible because of genetics-- is good. Is she publicly posturing like this on purpose? If not now, she certainly did in the past. She alone is the cause of the controversy. Personally I find this kind of thinking to be delusional if not off-the-rails bizarre. God help us if the people of Massachusetts re-elect her to the U.S. Senate.john_a_designer
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Warren: I am a Cherokee Indian. Trump: Liar. I bet you $1 million you are not an Indian. Warren: Here is a DNA report that "strongly indicates" that I am between 1/1024 and 1/64 Mexican, Colombian, or Peruvian. I win the bet. Pay up. Trump: Wait, what? Main Stream Media: Yep, she won. Pay up you Welcher Bob O'H: She never claimed to be an Indian. And when she did claim to be an Indian it did not benefit her, so we shouldn't care that she is a liar. Even though she is not a liar, because even though she is a blonde, blue-eyed white person, you can't prove she absolutely did not know was not an Indian. And besides all that we should ignore her small and insignificant lies (which are not really lies) and focus on how great her policy proposals are. And besides all that, Barry is a liar because she did not claim to be an Indian in the video he linked. And besides all that, the report that strongly indicates that she is between 1/1024 and 1/64 Mexican, Colombian, or Peruvian backs up her claim to be a Cherokee Indian. And the twitter thread that is nothing but direct quotes from Warren claiming to be an Indian is a hyper-partisan irrational attack on her. Finally, give her a break. When she lied about being a Cherokee Indian she was only exaggerating.Barry Arrington
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Yup.daveS
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
sometimes such people pay a price
And sometimes they don't. Andrewasauber
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Yes. And if word gets around, sometimes such people pay a price.daveS
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
daveS, Do you think there are people who simply don't want to help? I didn't see that particular scenario in your list. Andrewasauber
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
asauber, If you're asking whether there are people who would not reciprocate, then yes, I believe so. I'm confident all of my neighbors would jump at the chance to help others out, but there are probably exceptions. Some people are mentally ill, some are addicted to drugs, and so on. They might not be willing to share with others.daveS
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
If you help them out, then they tend to help you out in times of need.
daveS, Do you think there are exceptions to this reciprocity? If so, why do you think there are exceptions? Andrewasauber
October 17, 2018
October
10
Oct
17
17
2018
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply