- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Can somebody help me with Elizabeth Warren's math re: her DNA?
Posted on 10/20/18 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 10/20/18 at 1:59 pm
1/1024th Cherokee Indian, translates approximately to the 10th generation preceding her. A generation is roughly 30 years. EW was born in 1949. So this ancestor would have to have been born sometime around 1649.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that there were enough white folks in this new world, that would have felt free to take a native spouse. I simply cannot imagine that one of the first settlers to the new world would have taken a "savage" as a mate, and then those children were accepted into English marriages, generation after generation after generation
Some historical data for you to wrestle with:
1492 - Columbus (or some Vikings) discovered a new world full of natives
1570 - Ajacan, Jesuit mission founded on Chesapeake Bay, all were slaughtered by the Powhatan Indians
1587 - Roanoke colony established, then disappeared off the face of the Earth
1607 - Jamestown, first permanent English settlement with 300 whites (the origins of the majority of EWs DNA)
1619 - first slaves arrive in the colonies
1620 - Pilgrims established the Plymouth settlement
1621 - New Netherland established in parts of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Connecticut by the Dutch West India Company
1634 - English Catholics settled the Province of Maryland
1649? - EWs Cherokee ancestor born (European population of the colonies would have been less than 50,000)
1700 - immigration explosion begins
I just cannot accept that this women had a single Indian ancestor during time of slavery, and interbreeding being a social no-no from either race. How am I wrong?
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that there were enough white folks in this new world, that would have felt free to take a native spouse. I simply cannot imagine that one of the first settlers to the new world would have taken a "savage" as a mate, and then those children were accepted into English marriages, generation after generation after generation
Some historical data for you to wrestle with:
1492 - Columbus (or some Vikings) discovered a new world full of natives
1570 - Ajacan, Jesuit mission founded on Chesapeake Bay, all were slaughtered by the Powhatan Indians
1587 - Roanoke colony established, then disappeared off the face of the Earth
1607 - Jamestown, first permanent English settlement with 300 whites (the origins of the majority of EWs DNA)
1619 - first slaves arrive in the colonies
1620 - Pilgrims established the Plymouth settlement
1621 - New Netherland established in parts of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Connecticut by the Dutch West India Company
1634 - English Catholics settled the Province of Maryland
1649? - EWs Cherokee ancestor born (European population of the colonies would have been less than 50,000)
1700 - immigration explosion begins
I just cannot accept that this women had a single Indian ancestor during time of slavery, and interbreeding being a social no-no from either race. How am I wrong?
16
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:02 pm to RobbBobb
My kids $3 pillow has more authentic feathers than Elizabeth Warren
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:04 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
interbreeding being a social no-no from either race. How am I wrong?
premise fail
Fyi, every time a couple generates the next generation child its 50 50 whether DNA from a given parent is included.
50 50 on that 50 = 25
25. 12.5
12.5
6ish
3ish
2
1
0
In a few generations every trace of a given great great grandparent can be gone.
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:05 pm to Mr.Perfect
I think that is the min of the range from there test. She could have more i think it was, but that is the lowest. Either way, it does prove that her couple early generations didnt have any in them which makes her a big fat LIAR.
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:06 pm to Bamafan24
Muh High Cheekbones
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:07 pm to Bamafan24
quote:
I think that is the min of the range from there test
6th generation is the minimum. Which is the grandparents of my grandparents. Which is pretty easy to trace, just through family memory.
She should be able to identify that person by name. Yet she cant
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:09 pm to RobbBobb
Generations, as in time between generational offspring, in Native American tribes is more like 15 years to start.
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:10 pm to RobbBobb
1/1064...she’s not part Indian.
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:11 pm to CelticDog
quote:
In a few generations every trace of a given great great grandparent can be gone.
uh, smart guy, my premise isn't based on who EW could marry, but the very next generation, in the 1600s.
Ask Sally Hemmings about it. Even though a president (allegedly) was the father of her kids (100 years after EWs ancestor) they still inter-married. Meaning their DNA today, is way more than 1/1024th mixed
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:13 pm to RobbBobb
Math? Pocahontas couldn't count her boobs and come up with the same answer twice, 
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:13 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
1/1024th Cherokee Indian
except it wasn't even that... it was peruvian
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:15 pm to Kankles
quote:
except it wasn't even that... it was peruvian
and 17th century Peruvians naturally laid some pipe all over the place, horny bastards
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:17 pm to Kankles
quote:
except it wasn't even that... it was peruvian
Which for the life of me, I cannot imagine that this was proof enough for someone to attempt a gotcha on Trump?
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:19 pm to RobbBobb
She's a liar.
A liar who lied about her race to get preferential treatment to get ahead.
She's filth
A liar who lied about her race to get preferential treatment to get ahead.
She's filth
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:32 pm to RobbBobb
The tester said “six to ten generations.” The 1/1024 is the far extreme end of that range.
I am a seventh-generation Texan, including the immigrant generation. The first of my ancestors born in Texas (6th-gen) was born in the 1830s. For comparison, this was about the same time as the Trail of Tears.
I am a seventh-generation Texan, including the immigrant generation. The first of my ancestors born in Texas (6th-gen) was born in the 1830s. For comparison, this was about the same time as the Trail of Tears.
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:37 pm to RobbBobb
Watch any DNA reveal video on YouTube. Virtually everyone has more Native American DNA than her.
She is a typical lying leftist
She is a typical lying leftist
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:46 pm to Chappy
DNA test like these are all bullshite.
They do not look at the entire DNA, only small portion. So if you are 50% A and 50% B, you might not get reported via the DNA test as 50% A and %50% B.
Conversely, if you are 10% A you might show up as 90% A simply because the sections of DNA they test for might be were that 10% resides.
On top of all of that, Native American is the least documented DNA group in the world. Checking for Native American DNA might actually mean you show false positives because you have something like spanish in you!
It is all BS!
They do not look at the entire DNA, only small portion. So if you are 50% A and 50% B, you might not get reported via the DNA test as 50% A and %50% B.
Conversely, if you are 10% A you might show up as 90% A simply because the sections of DNA they test for might be were that 10% resides.
On top of all of that, Native American is the least documented DNA group in the world. Checking for Native American DNA might actually mean you show false positives because you have something like spanish in you!
It is all BS!
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:51 pm to RobbBobb
The test was flawed as it measured DNA matches against South and Central American hispanics as a benchmark. Your historiC observations are correct, it's likely that what DNA was found was found as a result of Spanish ancestors in the old world.
What's clear is that Warren's "fable" - the family story she has used about her parents running off because of racism, etc is a lie.
What's clear is that Warren's "fable" - the family story she has used about her parents running off because of racism, etc is a lie.
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:56 pm to RobbBobb
The only way this could get batter is if they discover she indeed had a great^6 grandmother that was Cherokee and she was “#metoo’d” by some lily white settler
Posted on 10/20/18 at 2:58 pm to steadytiger
quote:
Generations, as in time between generational offspring, in Native American tribes is more like 15 years to start
Maybe you missed the entire point in the OP of her claim of just ONE, SINGLE Indian in her bloodline?With all the other 9 generations being European
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News