- Joined
- Nov 18, 2016
- Messages
- 62,132
- Reaction score
- 39,178
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Then I can only conclude that you either didn't read what the DNA expert wrote, or you don't understand it. Either way, it doesn't matter because you've dug in your heels and I doubt any rational statement will sway you.
This is what the expert said: “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individual's pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago."
So what's the problem? How is this different than what she claimed?
I don't want to dig my heels in. Honest. I just don't see, as hard as I am trying, how you go from that to saying she has "Mexican ancestry" (whatever that means) and not NA, or that she was lying about her NA heritage.