for the 8th time you are saying this (and you keep saying you're not pushing it). But you are wrong. You haven't backed this up with anything other than your own words saying it's a fact. The one time you did link a piece, it didn't say what you are saying.
Bustamente, the professor behind the test, only concluded the test results mean it's "likely" that it "supports" a very distant Native American ancestry going back a few hundred years ago.
Washington Post claimed that this technically means Warren has more ancestry than the average European American, not American. But they rolled back this claim due to the minuscule amount of DNA not proving anything as a "fact", plus the backlash from the Native American community.
So there is no "simple genetic fact", because you don't understand genetics. There isn't enough there to say anything is a fact. Bustamente says so himself.
You even admitted that your 'simple fact' is nothing but your interpretation of information:
In your mind...these are simple facts which you keep repeating to yourself...like a mantra. Until you believe nothing else.
This is what they call alternative facts. Or what I call self-brainwashing. Or indeed bonkers.
Scientists use words like "likely" and "support" to express probability in a hypothesis. This is standard scientific talk. Can science prove anything with 100% certainty?...of course not. That's not how science works. The data only speak to the most likely hypothesis, which in this case is that Warren has more native American DNA than the average American. If you are trying to move the goal posts (again) in terms of what constitutes proof in some sort of philosophical sense (or some silly semantic debate over "pretty conclusive"), that's fine, we can do that in another post. Science only makes the strongest inference to the best explanation and such inferences are measured in probabilities, which is why any scientist worth their salt would never say anything like "we've shown conclusively" or "we have definitely proved that" etc. Instead, they use phrases like "with 99% probability, the data and analysis support this explanation..." Such words are a simple acknowledgment that it could be otherwise, given a new set of data, a new analysis, etc. The technical report says "The analysis also identified 5 genetic segments as Native American in origin at high confidence, defined at the 99% posterior probability value." So at present, the data support the simple fact that her DNA contains Native American segments. It is a fact because if she released her raw data, I could literally point to the long stretches of A's, C's, T's and G's in her genome that reflect this ancestry. And I could further point to a different sequence of A's, C's, T's and G's in an average American genome showing that they lack this native American segment. So again, you are simply wrong on this. And it becomes more and more puzzling that you cannot admit it.
Let me put it this way: if another analysis turns up that says she is 83% Finnish or any other analysis that robustly proves Bustamante's analysis incorrect, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong. But there are no alternative analyses, and the only analysis we have is quite robust and shows, as a simple fact, that she has long stretches of Native American DNA and the average American does not.
As to the quote "because you don't understand genetics" that is simply false.
