(10-17-2018, 08:40 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-17-2018, 08:02 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: I'm not sure your point. 

The genetic diversity for native Americans is low compared to other groups, but there are twelve different groups across North and South America. They bring in natives from other regions to increase the odds of showing native DNA. Warren is claiming Cherokee bloodlines and that her mother was Indian. The Cherokee DNA wouldn't be the same as the DNA from central and south American Indians. 

Having said that, her native American DNA is half of what the average native American DNA is for white people. HALF! It was so low that Dr. Bustamante said, while he was confident it was correct, that there is a potential that the DNA reading is inaccurate. It doesn't matter that she has .09% native American DNA. These results imply that someone between 1700-1800 reproduced with a native American. Common sense should prevail here, and no one should be defending this weak attempt to prove her heritage. 

Do you think she's justified in calling herself native American?

EDIT: I just read that she's more closely related to the Tennessee Militia (great-great-great grandfather) which rounded up native Americans during the Trail of Tears. You can't make this stuff up.

Bustamante said the ancestor could have been as recent as six generations ago.  He didn't give an actual fraction of genetic material.  The 0.09% number you see is simple people doing simple math, saying, there are 10 generations, 2^10 = 1024, 1/1024 = 0.09%.  But that's not actually how genes work. Most genetic material is not unique to any particular ethnicity, only certain specific markers are.

And the half-and-half assumption is only true for parent and child.  You are half of each of your parents, but you don't know which half.  Genetically, you could be 23% your maternal grandmother and 27% you maternal grandfather and it wouldn't be abnormal, you're still 50% your mom and she's still 50% of each of her parents.  It's explained in the FAQ of ancestry.com, or look up "chromosone crossover".  Bustamante is just counting up the number of markers detected in Warren's genes, comparing that to the number of markers that unmixed people have, and getting a range of possibilities for how many generations it took for that configuration to form.

There are probably markers that could be identified that are different between Cherokees and Aztecs, but she didn't inherit those specific ones.  She inherited a few that people all over both continents shared but that no Europeans have.  I don't see why the lack of specificity to America north of the Rio Grande matters.  She had a native American ancestor.  Her family story says it was someone from what we now call the United States.  She doesn't have family stories about ancestors from Latin America, so we should accept the simpler explanation for why these markers are in her DNA.

Six generations to ten generations to be more precise. That's, what, 150 years before she was born? That simple math isn't inaccurate. You make a lot of justifications for the potential that she may have higher native American DNA. You assume she could potentially have a higher percentage of DNA from natives, but she could potentially have less, too. Either way, these assumptions you make prove nothing. We can only go off of what we know, and we know that she has a lower-than-average percentage for native American DNA.

In 2012, she specifically said her mother was Cherokee. She changed it to be more broad as she received more criticism. I think you're missing the point, however. People ultimately don't care that she technically has native American DNA. I think everyone assumed she'd have a little bit. People think it's stupid that she's claiming native American heritage over .09%. People speak further about the Cherokee lineage because it supports that she's ultimately wrong about being native American. What would the "simpler explanation" be anyway? That it actually isn't the central or south American markers but instead markers from north American tribes that aren't reflected in the results?

Again, do you consider her native American?

---