Intelligent Design

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

Spread the love

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).

 

 

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

  1. 1
    ET says:

    For over a century my father’s family tried to hide their Native American ancestry. My great-great-great-great-great grandfather married a Mic-Mac (early 19th century)- it appears he was a French explorer/ fur trapper in Canada.

    But I doubt that I have any traces of that left but I might.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    What is really sad is that she herself is completely impervious to realizing exactly how foolish this entire episode makes her look.

    Which, by the way, is also an essential trait for being a modern day Darwinist. 🙂

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    LOL:

    A 2014 study by Harvard University and 23andMe found that European Americans tested overall for 0.18 percent Native American ancestry, while Ms. Warren’s results show she has anywhere from 0.09 percent to 3 percent.

    “This means that the DNA test shows that Warren is actually LESS NATIVE AMERICAN than the average American of European ancestry,” said Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson…
    ,,,Elizabeth Warren is *possibly* 1/1024 (0.09%) Native American.

    Scientists say the average European-American is 0.18% Native American. (https://t.co/XU0l1JQO1L)

    That’d make Warren even less Native American than the average European-American.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/warren-may-be-less-native-american-average/

    LOL, for crying out loud, I’m more Indian than she is.

    Yet, nobody would ever think I was Indian,,, but then again I have been told that I am pretty fly for a white guy:

    🙂

    The Offspring – Pretty Fly (For a White Guy)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AltMeuPkWRs&index=1&list=RDAltMeuPkWRs

  4. 4
    john_a_designer says:

    Just think if this was about “gender” and Warren wanted to claim that she was a man she wouldn’t have to worry about genetics (or anatomy) she could just decide that she was a man.

    The only question I have about her claim that she is 1/32 American Indian is: will that keep her from being charged with cultural appropriation? But, maybe not. People on the political left get a pass when it comes to those kinds of things. So Warren can dress up as Pocahontas this Halloween without any worry or guilt.

  5. 5
    Jammer says:

    This has turned into one of the great self-ownings in recent memory. Warren’s being mocked so viciously that I almost feel sorry for her, and I’m someone who thinks she’s a vile human being.

    Just brutal. But funny.

    But brutal.

    But yeah, very funny.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    I thought tat all she claimed was tat she had a Native American ancestry and clearly this test proves that she does. I was unaware that she said she was a racial minority because of it.

    Snopes Fact Check on Claims against Warren

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Compared to the routine and shameless lying of the current occupant of the Oval Office, Warren displays a refreshing candor.

  8. 8
    mike1962 says:

    My Name Is Fauxahontas.

    DNA, not so much

  9. 9
    john_a_designer says:

    Do you remember Rachel Anne Doležal? She was in the U.S, news a couple of years ago. According to Wikipedia Doležal “is an American former civil rights activist known for claiming to be a black woman while being of white-European ancestry and having no known black or African ancestry. Doležal was president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter in Spokane, Washington from February 7, 2014 until June 15, 2015, when she resigned after her stated biography and ethnicity had been publicly revealed to be false. She received further public scrutiny when her white parents publicly stated that Doležal was a white woman passing as black… The statement by Doležal’s parents in June 2015 followed Doležal’s reports to police and local news media that she had been the victim of hate crimes… however, a subsequent police investigation cast doubt on Doležal’s allegations…

    Doležal, who maintains that she identifies as black, fueled a national debate in the United States about racial identity. Doležal’s critics state that she has committed cultural appropriation and fraud; Doležal and her defenders state that her self-identification is genuine, even if not based on race or ancestry… In a November 2015 television interview, Doležal publicly stated for the first time since the controversy began that she was born white but still identified as black.

    But hold on, it gets even more bizarre.

    Psychologist Priscilla Dass-Brailsford stated: “Because of a familiarity with black culture, she [may] regard herself as ‘transracial'”… Psychologist Halford Fairchild said “Rachel Doležal is black because she identifies as black. Her identity was authentic, as far as I could tell.” Sociologist Ann Morning also defended Doležal, saying: “We’re getting more and more used to the idea that people’s racial affiliation and identity and sense of belonging can change, or can vary, with different circumstances.” Washington Post journalist Krissah Thompson described her behavior as “white guilt played to its end”. Thompson discussed the issue with psychologist Derald Wing Sue, an expert on racial identity, who suggested that Doležal had become so fascinated by racism and racial justice issues that she “over-identified” with black people.

    Gender studies scholar Samantha Allen said, “Rachel Doležal seems determined to appropriate not just blackness but the rhetoric of transgender identity as well” and called the analogy “spurious”… Washington Post journalist Jonathan Capehart suggested, “blackface remains highly racist, no matter how down with the cause a white person is.” Her adopted brother Ezra Doležal also compared his sister’s behavior to blackface and said “she’s basically creating more racism”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

    Maybe social justice activists should drop the link with genetics, ancestry and national origin when it comes to race and start promoting the concept “transracism.” The same people are doing the same thing when it comes to gender. Of course, if they did that they might lose racism as a political wedge issue. No it probably would be better if they kept their agenda on two irrational tracks. (The beauty of irrationality is that you can never really be too irrational.)

    None of this really does anything to solve the racial issues in our country. Wedge issues are not meant to solve anything. They are just a means of empowerment.

  10. 10
    mike1962 says:

    @7 Seversky,

    I get it. I really do. But ask yourself, why do the Trump supporters support him?

    Compare with the result. Bad? Good? Great? Fantastic?

    Well, it doesn’t matter as for you’re concerned. The resulsts for his supporters are not bad. This is why he’ll be re-elected, and that’s all that matters in reality.

    Tip: accept reality

  11. 11
    R J Sawyer says:

    Seversky@7. He did promise to pay one million of his money to a charity of her choice if she took a test and it showed that she had native blood. Are you suggesting that an honourable man like Desperate Cheeto… I mean, Trump… would back out of this bet?

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    Even more astonishingly, in this video, also released today, Warren says the report actually confirms her claim that she is a racial minority. What?

    What? Indeed. What she actually says is that her mother’s side of the family was “part native American”. I didn’t hear her say she is part of a racial minority, and she explicitly says she’s “not enrolled in a tribe, and only tribes determine tribal citizenship”, so what racial minority is she claiming to be?

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Funny, Warren wants to and has claimed Cherokee heritage, but the Cherokee nation says the DNA tests is a ‘mockery’ and wants nothing to do with her: Specifically, Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. stated, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Sen. Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

    Cherokee Nation to Elizabeth Warren: Drop dead
    by Becket Adams – October 15, 2018
    Excerpt: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., couldn’t possibly have thought this week would end with her apologizing to the Cherokee Nation. But at the rate things are going, that’s exactly what she’ll have to do to get out of the mess that she has created for herself.

    The Massachusetts senator kicked off Monday by sharing the results of a DNA test that she and her fans in the news media say vindicates her from criticisms that she tried to benefit undeservedly from claiming minority status when she taught at Harvard Law School. Warren has claimed for years that she is of Cherokee Indian descent. She even used to tell a story alleging her parents eloped because of the discrimination suffered by her supposedly part-Cherokee mother.

    However, the DNA report shows that Warren is maybe six or 10 generations removed from having any ties to the Native American ancestry, if she has any at all. Depending on whether her great-great-great-great-grandmother was indeed a Native American, which neither the report nor Warren can say, the senator would be 1/64th Native American. But she could just as easily be 1/1,024th Native American. Then there’s the problem that the study wasn’t based not Native American DNA from within the United States, but on Mexican, Peruvian, and Colombian DNA.
    In other words, Warren’s claim to Cherokee heritage is, uh, thin, to put it politely. It’s so thin, in fact, that the actual Cherokee Nation released a statement Monday, nuking Warren’s supposedly vindicating report from orbit.

    “A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation,” said Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr.
    His statement added, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Sen. Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

    And to think that this day began with Warren attempting to dunk on President Trump with the results of her DNA test.

    The senator’s report is a massive self-own. By putting numbers to her ancestral claims, and by revealing just how thin her ties to the Cherokee Nation really are, the senator has shined a blinding spotlight on the absurdity of a mess that is 100 percent of her own making. There is no scenario where the fact that she was referred to as Harvard Law School’s ” first woman of color” or the fact that she described herself as a ” minority” for several years on a law professors’ listing do not feel like cruel jokes, especially considering that the best she can say is that she is maybe — maybe! — 1/64th Native American.

    But now Warren has a much bigger dilemma on her hands. The Cherokee Nation itself is crying foul in response to her DNA test, leaving her with no good options.

    Does Warren drop the matter altogether and admit error, seeking forgiveness from a marginalized people? If she does, she will hand Trump a major victory that he will absolutely lord over her for years to come. Or does Warren go to war with the Cherokee Nation, demanding they apologize to her? That’ll be a great look; a white U.S. senator putting Native Americans “in their place.”

    Warren could’ve avoided all of this had she responded to the DNA test by simply saying, “I’m sorry. My family lore led me to believe I was closer to the Cherokee Nation than I really am. I regret the judgment, etc.” But Warren wanted so badly to put a point up on the board against the president.

    She began this week probably thinking she would win the love and approval of the Democratic base. She will most likely end this week asking forgiveness from the Cherokee Nation. Whoever advised her to tout the DNA test should be out of a job. Immediately.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cherokee-nation-to-elizabeth-warren-drop-dead

    I don’t think the Cherokee nation should expect an apology from Warren any time soon. Warren will just double down on her self deception, and the fake news media will, in all likelihood, side with her. Moreover, a large portion of the Democratic base, as Sev, RJS and Bob (and weave), have already done here, will mindlessly repeat the lie as if it is somehow unquestionably true.

    Apparently, race will soon become like gender now is for die-hard democrats. You can choose whatever you want to be regardless of reality. Apparently unrestrained imagination is the new reality for Democrats.

  14. 14
    OldAndrew says:

    I’m not political, not a Democrat or a Republican. It’s disturbing how auickly this site attacks a Democrat over something that has nothing to do with ID. That casts ID as politically motivated, on top of all the religious stuff that casts it as religious. Are you trying to educate or alienate?

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    As to ID vs. Darwin and so called ‘political motivations’.

    A little ‘political’ history:

    Horrors of Mao’s Darwinist Utopia Described October 9, 2018 – David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: Marx and Darwin were friends. Darwinism was the “scientific justification” for Marx’s views, he said. Marxism spawned Leninism (Lenin kept a figurine of a monkey examining a human skull, sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s Origin). Leninism gave rise to Stalinism (Stalin became an atheist reading a copy of Darwin’s Origin). Stalin instituted the Great Terror, in which people were rounded up in the middle of the night and shot or sent to brutal work camps and gulags, where many died. Stalinism inspired Mao Zedong, also a Marxist-Leninist and Darwinian. (And let’s not forget Hitler’s love for all things Darwinian),,, Let’s recap Mao’s idea of progress. In 1958 to 1962, Chairman Mao launched a program to catch up to the West. He called it “The Great Leap Forward.”
    According to The Independent UK, “Mao’s Great Leap Forward ‘killed 45 million in four years’.”
    https://crev.info/2018/10/horrors-maos-darwinist-utopia-described/

    To be brutally honest, I think anyone who is gullible enough to believe in Darwinian evolution, much less gullible enough to believe that they are a Indian when they are not, should automatically be disqualified from holding political office, simply based on the unimaginable horror Darwinian thinking inspired last century.,,, Much like NAZIs are now barred from holding office in Germany.

  16. 16
    News says:

    Surely the main lesson from this is that, over time, official affirmative action programs tend to benefit people who don’t really need the help because those are the people best suited to making use of them.

    After a while, it all becomes hopelessly corrupt.

    Warren’s situation is ridiculous to the point of being public entertainment.

    But spare a thought for the Cherokee-origin woman who didn’t get the position because Elizabeth Warren was parked in her seat. If you really believed in affirmative action, you would, of course, be incensed by the injustice.

    In reality, many people who say they believe in affirmative action don’t pass the test of being incensed by Warren’s actions. That’s because they actually believe in something quite different: Restricting the advancement of people whose potential politics they don’t like.

    Warren probably does not pose that threat so they give her a pass.

    (Of course, you could be incensed by Warren’s actions if dishonesty offends you, even if you don’t believe in affirmative action, for policy reasons or in principle. You might just be an honest person. )

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    she had a Native American ancestry

    The issue here is that she thinks this entitles her to something.

    What? How much? Why?

    Andrew

  18. 18
    asauber says:

    something that has nothing to do with ID

    OldAndrew,

    Websites have to have some kind of variety.

    It has something to with ID in the sense that there’s a political war on science going on. If science is being corrupted by political figures like Elizabeth Warren, all of since gets set back.

    Andrew

  19. 19
    asauber says:

    since

    Science, I mean. 🙂

    Andrew

  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    The issue here is that she thinks this entitles her to something.

    What? How much? Why?

    She’s saying it entitles her to nothing, and has lots of people saying that it didn’t have any effect. As Denyse wrote, the situation is ridiculous to the point of being public entertainment. If someone can find something to show that she would have benefited (and particularly if it was at the expense of someone else), then fine there’s a genuine story here. Otherwise, I don’t see why we should care. Barry’s point about her being a liar would be valid if that is what she is, but that would require quoting what she herself has said, but I haven’t seen a lot about that (in the video Barry links to, she is careful in what she says. I don’t know if she has said anything markedly different in the past). The other issue with calling her a liar is that it requires her to knowingly say something false. If she believed herself to have some native American ancestry then she wouldn’t have been lying even if the DNA results had shown she had no native American DNA.

  21. 21
    Seversky says:

    mike1962 @ 10

    @7 Seversky,

    I get it. I really do. But ask yourself, why do the Trump supporters support him?

    Because he speaks their language – “MAGA!”, “Lock her up!”, “Build the wall!” and other examples of penetrating political insight. Policies? We don’ need no steenkin’ policies!

  22. 22
    asauber says:

    She’s saying it entitles her to nothing

    Then why did it ever become an issue?

    Andrew

    P.S. I’m 1/1024th Vulgarian, btw. 😉

    Andrew

  23. 23
    Seversky says:

    R J Sawyer @ 11

    Seversky@7. He did promise to pay one million of his money to a charity of her choice if she took a test and it showed that she had native blood. Are you suggesting that an honourable man like Desperate Cheeto… I mean, Trump… would back out of this bet?

    He’s made marriage vows on three separate occasions and had no problem breaking all of them whenever it suited him, so I doubt that welching on a bet would bother the mango Mussolini in the slightest.

  24. 24
    Bob O'H says:

    asauber @ 22 – Indeed. It became an issue because of the dirty nature of politics. It’s small and insignificant, but it can still be a stick to (metaphorically!) beat Sen. Warren with. And it’s a lot easier to use against her than a discussion of her policy proposals.

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    It became an issue because of the dirty nature of politics.

    Well then, I guess if this is just the way politics go, you can be on your way to more important issues like saving the world from Global Warming with your squiggly lines.

    Bye now. 🙂

    Andrew

  26. 26
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob O’H

    I didn’t hear her say she is part of a racial minority

    Because your ears are stopped up by your prejudices. She claimed to be Native American. She stood by in silence as her employer picked up on that claim and touted her as a “woman of color.” None of this is in dispute.

  27. 27
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev,

    Compared to the routine and shameless lying of the current occupant of the Oval Office, Warren displays a refreshing candor.

    Ah yes, the inevitable “whataboutism.” Since when is shameless lying about being a racial minority candid to any degree?

  28. 28
    john_a_designer says:

    This has everything to do with intelligent design! If we are all the result of a mindless, purposeless process then there is no basis for interpersonal moral obligation, universal human rights or a stable and just democratic society. (Mob rule or “herd morality” historically has always undermined democratic societies– always!) Without real moral categories people cannot communicate with each other in a truthful and meaningful way. All we are left with are baseless and self-serving subjective moral opinions. Warren’s politics is not the issue here, it is her morally and spiritually bankrupt worldview which is undermining American society.

    Why did she feel compelled to say anything about her 1/32 (or 1/64th?) sliver of “native American” ancestry? Why would that be important to her (or anyone else) at all?

  29. 29
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry q 26 – where, in that video, does she claim to be Native American? I listened to it and couldn’t her her making that claim.

  30. 30
    Mung says:

    I heard that her native american ancestry is south american.

  31. 31
    daveS says:

    I heard that her native american ancestry is south american.

    I think I read somewhere yesterday that a DNA test will not distinguish between indigenous people from North America and those from South America. I didn’t know that until now.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    per Bob (and weave) at 29

    “I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that — a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a thousand times [and] remarked that he — her father, my papaw — had high cheekbones like all of the Indians do. … Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born.”
    — Elizabeth Warren –
    New England Genealogical Society acknowledged last week that there’s no firm evidence of her great-great-grandmother being Cherokee.,,,
    – Cherokee Genealogist Twila Barnes disputes Elizabeth Warren’s Claim | Heritage Forensics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HTIHkWEYGE

    And again:

    Cherokee Nation to Elizabeth Warren: Drop dead
    by Becket Adams – October 15, 2018
    Excerpt: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., couldn’t possibly have thought this week would end with her apologizing to the Cherokee Nation. But at the rate things are going, that’s exactly what she’ll have to do to get out of the mess that she has created for herself.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cherokee-nation-to-elizabeth-warren-drop-dead

  33. 33
    Bob O'H says:

    Thank you, ba77. Now could you actually answer the question I asked?

    BTW, the first link is amusing – the new test backs up what they claim Warren says: she has an ancestor who is Native American (whether the ancestor is Cherokee they don’t say).

  34. 34
    News says:

    The oblique defenses of Warren here are interesting, along the lines of “Did she ever really say that?” Whatever she said, she allowed people to think she was a Native American and benefited from the fact that they thought so. But she had to know, if she is a rational human being capable of serious responsibilities, that she is not a Native American in any sense that could possibly matter.

    And the place she took should have gone to someone else. This is all true whether one believes in affirmative action or not – for the same reasons as, whether you believe in monarchy or not, Prince Charles is more entitled to his mother’s throne than Justin Bieber is.

    But here is the truly damning part, so far as I can see: No one who defends her really seems to care what Native Americans think:

    Kim TallBear, a professor of Indigenous Studies at the University of Alberta, called Warren’s move a “strike against tribal sovereignty” in a statement.

    “She continues to defend her ancestry claims as important despite her historical record of refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation community members who challenge her claims,” TallBear said. “This shows that she focuses on and actually privileges DNA company definitions in this debate, which are ultimately settler-colonial definitions of who is Indigenous.” More.

    Tallbear’s point is worth reflection here. Most people whose families have lived in the Americas for five or six generations could certainly have some indigenous “Americas” ancestry. But no one thinks that means a whole lot. To be a Native American or an indigenous Canadian, for example, involves history (a very troubled history), culture, and language, not just genetics.

    Maybe some people who reflexively vote progressive need to know this: Neither you nor your identity or ethnicity are worth anything to a progressive except as a weapon in a bid for power. You can be that weapon if you want, sure. But in the end, to them you are still really just a thing. This sort of story establishes that.

  35. 35
    john_a_designer says:

    It appears that Warren has never been reticent about playing up her alleged Cherokee roots and the claims go back a long ways. Here is an article from 2012.

    Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is yet again in hot water after new allegations have surfaced that she plagiarized her ‘Cherokee’ recipes in the book Pow Wow Chow from the New York Times and other publications.

    Radio talk show host Howie Carr released damning evidence that appears to confirm that Mrs Warren’s weren’t handed down from generation to generation, they were picked up in the newspaper.

    Mrs Warren has been under scrutiny since she first claimed Native American heritage, arguing that because her great-great-great-grandmother was Cherokee, she is a member of the community…

    The 1984 cookbook Pow Wow Chow was edited by Mrs Warren’s cousin Candy Rowsey and is billed as a collection of recipes from the Five Civilized Tribes.

    Mrs Warren’s recipes are featured alongside her mother’s directions for sugar cake and her two children’s recipe for peach cobbler. (emphasis added)

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146628/Elizabeth-Warrens-Pow-Wow-Chow-Cherokee-recipes-word-word-COPIES-famous-FRENCH-chefs-techniques.html

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    News at 34,, hear hear!

  37. 37
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob

    Barry q 26 – where, in that video, does she claim to be Native American? I listened to it and couldn’t her her making that claim.

    God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim. I linked to that earlier in the post. Read the post again. Follow the links provided.

    The video is not her claim. It is her effort at damage control after having been caught in the lie. Instead of apologizing, she tries to defend it but only makes it worse.

    Bob, try reading for comprehension before you reflexively spew leftist talking points. It probably won’t keep you from spewing leftist talking points, but at least you won’t sound utterly clueless.

    Bob, no rational person can defend Warren. That you attempt to do so speaks volumes.

  38. 38
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob:

    BTW, the first link is amusing – the new test backs up what they claim Warren says: she has an ancestor who is Native American (whether the ancestor is Cherokee they don’t say).

    I call BS on you Bob. She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob. Get over it.

    The report does not back up what she said for the reasons explained in the post. With each passing comment you descend further into hyper-partisan irrational defense mode Bob. Stop it. It is painful to watch.

  39. 39
    john_a_designer says:

    I don’t understand why Seversky or Bob O’H are even involved in this discussion. As moral subjectivists they have no basis to say anything about human rights or racism. Subjective moral opinions carry no interpersonal moral obligations. They should keep their opinions to themselves rather than bother anyone else. But maybe they do so out of fear, anger or hate– or maybe they have a need to feel smug and self-important. But why should anyone else care what they believe or think?

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    News at 34 states:

    Maybe some people who reflexively vote progressive need to know this: Neither you nor your identity or ethnicity are worth anything to a progressive except as a weapon in a bid for power. You can be that weapon if you want, sure. But in the end, to them you are still really just a thing.

    And here is where progressivism/socialism and Atheistic Darwinism meet. In the Darwinian worldview you are not really a real person with moral agency but are merely a meat robot, a ‘neural illusion’, of the brain.

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    And as history has repeatedly bore out over the last hundred years, anyone who actually believes that materialistic tripe, and gains power over a nation, turns into a merciless tyrant, a psychopath, who subjugates his people by brute force and fear instead of winning their hearts through overall goodness for the nation and by personal persuasion.

    Why atheism was central to the great evil of the 20th century
    – GARY SAUL MORSON / SEPT. 17, 2018
    Excerpt: In its 300-year history in Spain, Portugal, and the New World, the Spanish Inquisition killed a few thousand, perhaps even a few tens of thousands, while in the atheist Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, that was the average toll every week or two. To this objection, the atheist has a ready reply: Atheism had nothing to do with Bolshevik carnage. As Richard Dawkins explains in The God Delusion: “What matters is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does.” This comment displays an ignorance so astonishing that, as the Russian expression goes, one can only stare and spit.,,,
    Bolshevik ideology demanded that religion be wiped out. Perhaps even more than constructing dams and factories, creating a population of atheists became the regime’s most important criterion of success. “Atheism [was] the new civilization’s calling card,” as S.A. Kuchinsky, director of the Leningrad State Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, explained.
    Communist society could be built only by a new kind of human being, one who would at every moment be guided by partiinost (party-mindedness), a singular devotion to the Party’s purposes. Partiinost demanded militant atheism (mere unbelief was not enough), and atheism became, as Smolkin observes, “the battleground on which Soviet Communism engaged with the existential concerns at the heart of human existence: the meaning of life and death.”
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/among-the-disbelievers/

    Of related interest to the American Indians DNA heritage: American Indians turn out to be the most ‘genetically refined’ race on Earth:

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa – October 22, 2012
    Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans’ anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the “Out of Africa” expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago.
    This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-10-a.....nsion.html

  41. 41
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    I don’t understand why Seversky or Bob O’H are even involved in this discussion. As moral subjectivists they have no basis to say anything about human rights or racism. Subjective moral opinions carry no interpersonal moral obligations. They should keep their opinions to themselves rather than bother anyone else. But maybe they do so out of fear, anger or hate– or maybe they have a need to feel smug and self-important.

    Ouch.

    Should moral subjectivists in the US not discuss their opinions on this matter? Should they refrain from voting?

  42. 42
    john_a_designer says:

    Maybe they should be re-thinking their moral beliefs. That’s my point.

  43. 43
    asauber says:

    Should moral subjectivists in the US not discuss their opinions on this matter?

    They can discuss whatever they want, but should include a disclaimer at the end of each comment that goes something like this:

    “I self-identify as a bag of meat making noises and motions, therefore please give what I present to you the consideration appropriate to noisy moving meat.”

    Andrew

  44. 44
    daveS says:

    asauber,

    󾭖

    Maybe we could get some t-shirts printed?

  45. 45
    asauber says:

    t-shirts

    daveS,

    You might have something there. 😉

    Andrew

  46. 46
    R J Sawyer says:

    DaveS

    Maybe we could get some t-shirts printed?

    I tried to read the t-shirt but as a meatbot the chemical reactions could not be perceived as having any meaning.

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    Too Funny,

    Graham Announces He’ll Take DNA Test to See if He’s More Cherokee Than Warren: ‘I Think I Can Beat Her’
    Excerpt: Graham told “Fox & Friends” that he heard his grandmother was part Cherokee, so he would take the test and then reveal the results live on the show in a few weeks.

    “You’re going to find out in a couple weeks,” Graham said. “I’m going to take this test … I’m taking it, and the results are going to be revealed here. (on Fox and Friends)
    https://freebeacon.com/politics/graham-announces-dna-test-cherokee-warren-beat/?fbclid=IwAR3gcGJq5BdK62E_mfKiz9BvkxP3VeNw238EcBfMKzI8qySW59FD_Ygxy1Q

    This is going to haunt her forever.

    as to,,,

    T-shirts for atheists 🙂

    LOL

    If only Atheists were that honest,,,,
    https://imgur.com/a/spuopLQ

  48. 48
    Jammer says:

    Brilliant minds on Twitter have suggested our president donate $976.56 to charity. That’s 1/1024th of a million dollars — the same fraction as nutcase Warren’s Native American ancestry.

    As for nutcase Warren lying about being Native American, Benny Johnson has a thorough (but I’m sure incomplete) list on Twitter:

    Every Time Elizabeth Warren Has Lied About Her Native American Heritage

    I can’t say I’m surprised people who believe the universe and life both arose via happenstance would also believe this nonsense. Thinking clearly isn’t their strong point.

  49. 49
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob O’H

    Follow the link at 48. Are you going to continue to dispute that Warren claimed to be Native American?

  50. 50
    Barry Arrington says:

    JAD writes:

    As moral subjectivists they have no basis to say anything about human rights or racism. Subjective moral opinions carry no interpersonal moral obligations.

    DaveS responds:

    Should moral subjectivists in the US not discuss their opinions on this matter?

    No one is saying that Dave. The point of JAD’s statement is obvious. I am surprised you are unable to grasp it. Allow me to unpack it for you.

    By definition, moral subectivists assert that “good” means nothing other than “that which I prefer.” Surely a moral subjetivist would not attempt to convince someone that his preference for, say, chocolate ice cream is superior to their preference for vanilla. JAD is saying that a moral subjectivist’s opinion on a race issue is — according to their own first principles — fundamentally no different from their taste in ice cream. So, to the extent their first principles are true, their opinions on the race issue are irrelevant to everyone but themselves.

    Of course, no sane person actually acts as if subjective morality is true. Thus, your comment.

  51. 51
    daveS says:

    Barry,

    No one is saying that Dave. The point of JAD’s statement is obvious. I am surprised you are unable to grasp it. Allow me to unpack it for you.

    From JAD’s post:

    Subjective moral opinions carry no interpersonal moral obligations. They should keep their opinions to themselves rather than bother anyone else.

    He said pretty much exactly that.

    I guessed that perhaps he was probably not speaking literally, but asked just to be sure. I believe his response to my question indicates that was so.

  52. 52
    Barry Arrington says:

    DaveS,

    Learn to recognize rhetorical hyperbole — exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

    As JAD later stated explicitly, his purpose in making the statement was not to silence subjectivists, but to get them to recognize the incoherence of their first principles.

  53. 53
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    DaveS

    I think I read somewhere yesterday that a DNA test will not distinguish between indigenous people from North America and those from South America. I didn’t know that until now.

    A DNA test could do that, but native North Americans are underrepresented in public genetic databases ( partly because of past abuses by researchers). So South Americans sequences are the only available references.

    It hardly matters because genetics and ancestry don’t map in a one-to-one way, but it’s not true that Warren inherited less of her genome from native Americans than the average white American. People making this claim are conflating two different statistics and failing to recognize the difference between a mean and a median.

    The 0.18% is the mean admixture proportion (the total amount of DNA with this background) and will include lots of short DNA sequences. Warren’s study focused on long stretches of DNA with a native American background and estimated such long chunks are likely to have arisen from a fairly recent ancestor. You can’t just say Warren’s admixture proportion will be 1/2^{n.generations} as people with political axes to grind have done, because it ignores other smaller stretches of DNA that are counted in the 0.18% number.

    Of course, membership of an ethnic group or a tribe is not about totaling up blood quanta, but it’s annoying to see these mistakes taken as granted.

  54. 54
    daveS says:

    Thanks, Ambly, for the additional information.

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    Amblyrhynchus states,,,

    You can’t just say Warren’s admixture proportion will be 1/2^{n.generations} as people with political axes to grind have done, because it ignores other smaller stretches of DNA that are counted in the 0.18% number.

    Yet, 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, disagrees with Amblyrhynchus and 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

    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
    Chart:
    http://dgmweb.net/Ancillary/On.....stors.html

  56. 56
    mike1962 says:

    She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob.

    ^^^^ That

    Moreover, the Cherokee Nation utterly rejects her claim to legitimacy, before and after the DNA test. Their criteria has nothing to do with DNA tests.

  57. 57
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    Yet, 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, disagrees with Amblyrhynchus and stands behind the 6 to 10 generation estimate

    I didn’t disagree with the 6-10 generation estimate, though.

  58. 58
    john_a_designer says:

    DaveS @ #51,

    A moral subjectivist believes there are NO OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES. Again that means there are no real interpersonal moral obligations therefore there is no basis for universal human rights. That is their perspective not mine. I would argue that they have rights even if they don’t believe that. They’re the one who are arguing that nobody really has any rights. Moral subjectivism is a very irrational self-refuting moral perspective. I have every right to criticize their thinking, even if it doesn’t come across as being nice. I am not very patient with people who show up online peddling nothing but nonsense.

  59. 59
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    I have no issue with your criticizing moral subjectivists, or even not being nice while doing so. I just thought there was some small chance you actually believed that they should “keep their opinions to themselves”, and that that would make for an interesting tangential discussion.

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    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

  61. 61
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry in the OP –

    Even more astonishingly, in this video, also released today, Warren says the report actually confirms her claim that she is a racial minority. What?

    Barry @ 37 –

    Barry q 26 – where, in that video, does she claim to be Native American? I listened to it and couldn’t her her making that claim.

    God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim.

    Please make up your mind, and if necessary update the OP.

    FWIW, it would be nice to see what exactly Warren has said about her heritage, and when (in her own words, not from secondary sources). And Denyse has claimed that Warren has obtained some advantage from making these claims, so it would be nice to know what exact advantages she might have gained (other than possibly meeting other people who claim Native American heritage). I agree with Barry that her video is damage control, so may not reflect what she’s said in the past.

  62. 62
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry @ 49 – That twitter thread is a real example of hyper-partisan irrational attack mode.

    FWIW, I have never claimed that Warren hasn’t claimed to be Native American, I’ve been asking for the evidence for it. What’s clear, and consistent, is that her family’s lore is that her immediate ancestors were part Native American, and she has used this information to claim some Native American heritage. I wouldn’t dispute that she has exaggerated the importance of this ancestry, but she wouldn’t be the first politician to exaggerate in order to help their career.

  63. 63
    Jul3s says:

    @ OldAndrew

    I’m not political, not a Democrat or a Republican. It’s disturbing how auickly this site attacks a Democrat over something that has nothing to do with ID. That casts ID as politically motivated, on top of all the religious stuff that casts it as religious. Are you trying to educate or alienate?

    Agreed, I’ve said this before but they don’t listen.

    @ Bornagain 77

    As to ID vs. Darwin and so called ‘political motivations’.

    A little ‘political’ history:

    Your non-sequitur of a reply completely missed the point.

    @asauber

    Websites have to have some kind of variety.

    It has something to with ID in the sense that there’s a political war on science going on. If science is being corrupted by political figures like Elizabeth Warren, all of since gets set back.

    Andrew

    That is a very weak excuse. The OP wasn’t even about that issue anyway.

    Honestly, I find it amazing how ID supporters here stubbornly miss something so obvious and important. ID is supposed to be about science and understanding nature. If people get exposed to ID through a political position that they disagree with, it will discourage them from looking deeper into the issue. Posts like this one give people an excuse for dismissing ID as not science but just a political tool. It gives ammunition to those who say ID is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    Jul3s, since whether you hold a Darwinian worldview or a ID and/or Theistic worldview effects the way you view the entire world, (politics especially included), I would strenuously object to the notion that such matters can be neatly compartmentalized from each other.

    As to your and Old Andrew’s fairly Utopian wish for complete compartmentlization of issues, it reminds of this comedy bit:

    Mark Gungor – Men’s Brain Women’s Brain
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BxckAMaTDc

  65. 65
    Jul3s says:

    @ bornagain 77

    What you say is technically true but irrelevant.

    Elizabeth Warren’s lie about her heritage has nothing to do with worldviews or ID or anything that this website is supposed to be about.

    Secondly, people need to be convinced of ID by being encouraged to look at it impartially and judging it by its own merits. True, being convinced of ID will alter their perception of other issues. But that should happen afterwards/elsewhere. First they should realise how sound ID is and then reevaluate their other views, not the other way around.

  66. 66
    asauber says:

    Elizabeth Warren’s lie about her heritage has nothing to do with worldviews

    Jul3s,

    If this is what you really think, I submit you are extreeeeemely naive.

    Andrew

  67. 67
    Jul3s says:

    Ah, I see. So, this website claims to be about the evidence for design in nature but its true purpose is to criticise politicians for lying about their heritage. How naive of me not to realise that these two unrelated issues are actually the same. Thanks for clearing that up.

  68. 68
    asauber says:

    Jul3s,

    If you are just here to complain about this thread, there are plenty of others you can contribute to in a positive way.

    Andrew

  69. 69
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob at 62 and 63,

    You are quite hopeless. It makes me sad.

  70. 70
    john_a_designer says:

    It is sometime said that politics is downstream from culture. I think there’s a lot of truth to that. However, that opens up the question: what is culture downstream from? Culture is downstream from world view– what people think, and think they know and believe about the world including both society and nature. A number of evolutionists committed to a Darwinian world view have proclaimed that there is no basis or foundation for morality or ethics. If there is no foundation for morality then there is no foundation for fundamental human rights. The result is that people start inventing new rights without any rhyme or reason. The problem is they still naively cling to the belief that “rights” are universal and absolute. However, if there is no foundation for morality or human rights, as there can’t be from a naturalistic/materialistic world view, so-called rights can’t be universal and absolute. Therefore, you have people, primarily on the political left, trying to impose their subjective moral opinions on everyone else as if they were universal and absolute.

    Democracy can’t survive if it’s based on coercion and not persuasion. U.S. society has been slowly sliding down the path of coercive politics, which jettisons what we have learned from our history and traditions.

  71. 71
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    There might indeed be Darwinists who proclaim there is no basis for morality or ethics. However, I would wager that many or most accept there actually is such a basis (or are such bases), but it’s not clear that it/they have some objective existence in the universe. It’s perhaps even less clear that these bases have anything to do with a deity or some higher power.

    There are purely pragmatic bases for sharing food with one’s neighbors, for example. If you help them out, then they tend to help you out in times of need.

  72. 72
    asauber says:

    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?

    Andrew

  73. 73
    daveS says:

    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.

  74. 74
    asauber says:

    daveS,

    Do you think there are people who simply don’t want to help? I didn’t see that particular scenario in your list.

    Andrew

  75. 75
    daveS says:

    Yes. And if word gets around, sometimes such people pay a price.

  76. 76
    asauber says:

    sometimes such people pay a price

    And sometimes they don’t.

    Andrew

  77. 77
    daveS says:

    Yup.

  78. 78
    Barry Arrington says:

    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.

  79. 79
    john_a_designer says:

    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.

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    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. KF

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    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? KF

  82. 82
    Barry Arrington says:

    KF, Forbes has a good article on this.

  83. 83
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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.

  84. 84
    bornagain77 says:

    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

  85. 85
    ET says:

    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’oh

  86. 86
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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.

  87. 87
    daveS says:

    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?

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    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/On.....stors.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

  89. 89
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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.

  90. 90
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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.

  91. 91
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

  92. 92
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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.

  93. 93
    bornagain77 says:

    “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.podom.....3_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.co.....nyone.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/darwi.....mble-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.co.....f-how.html

  94. 94
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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?

  95. 95
    bornagain77 says:

    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/~jmar.....isited.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.....t-research

  96. 96
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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.

  97. 97
    bornagain77 says:

    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!

  98. 98
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    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…

  99. 99
    R J Sawyer says:

    Ambly

    What a previously little petal.

    Did you mean to say “precious”? Or “delicate”, as in “delicate little flower”?

  100. 100
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    Ah, yeah, autocorrect took my garbled typing of “precious” and came up with “previously”.

  101. 101
    R J Sawyer says:

    Ambly@100, not an issue. We are all guilty of this. Big thumbs, small iPhone.

Leave a Reply