WebsterMark wrote on 10/19/18 at 06:15:48:


Thank you good Sir.

Not often I hit a two-fer.
Scored a direct hit on a loony lady, and in the process of such, forcing others to wad theirs.......  

Soon it shall be as shooting fish in a barrel!

What you actually did was show just how immature and petty you are.

A charge of immature and petty coming from a guy who started the day pretending a sentenance the President said was going to start mass killings..... too funny! Seriously, I don't have to pay for the laughs you hand out do I?

 I think part of the problem is that people multiply all ancestral genes as if they have equal genetic contribution to the living person which is entirely not true.

 Not every ancestor contributes equally, this has been known since sequencing started.  So if one moves up 10 generations and considers every ancestor equally then you get these 1/1024 numbers when in actuality a single ancestor going back just to the last century would provide numbers consistent with the results found in Warren.  

 Part of the problem is people use the remedial for-profit DNA sequencing models presented by companies like 23andMe etc. that provide simplified algorithms because they pull from a pre-analyzed pool and present to the layman.  Real DNA sequencing is considerably more complex to analyze, and with proper examination it shows that Warren doesn't have a lower than average Native American (the DNA compared in her case was not US-based native American due to lack of material) but a higher than average, but its based off of migration pattern DNA and not currently localized.

 The Center for Population Biology presents some considerably accurate models:

https://biology.ucdavis.edu/research
https://cpb.ucdavis.edu/

“The vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European but “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor” six to 10 generations ago, according to Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor who analyzed the results.