What are you talking about? Please explain. References please?
Here you go, I would not you to have to take time to google something.
Elizabeth Warren’s newly released DNA results show that the Democrat’s Native American ancestry is roughly the same as that of the average white American, and may be less.
A 2014 study by Harvard University and 23andMe found that European Americans tested overall for 0.18 percent Native American ancestry, while Ms. Warren’s results show she has anywhere from 0.09 percent to 1.5 percent.
Much less American Indian DNA than the average European.
First off, the reference is comparing against "European Americans". Not "Europeans", which is what you stated.
Second of all, the only way she gets under that average for 'European Americans' of 0.18 percent is if her unadmixed ancestor came into the family 9 or 10 generations back. That's the tail end of allowed range of 6-10 generations. Possible? Sure. But it becomes far less likely. Not sure when Warren's earliest Euro ancestor came to North America, but going 9 generations back puts you into the early 1600s or even possibly late 1500s. For the mixing to occur 9 or 10 generations back, her Euro ancestor would have had to have been among the very earliest migrations and almost immediately or within a generation, joined with a native. Given the shear volume of migrants who came well _after_ that, it is far more likely admixing occurred much later.
But this is the Washington Times, so I'm not surprised. All they did was treat the range as a flat probability and note the overlap with the 'average' number, as if that was a meaningful analysis.
This statement is also just odd beyond odd. The analysis was to determine what portion of her DNA came from the Native American gene pool. This does not distinguish between North and South American peoples. Because they all came from the same original eastern Asian group that migrated first to North America (by way of Alaska) and then on to South America, in three great migrations.
Do people really stop and think about these sorts of statements? Yours would suggest, what? That she had some ancestor a 150 years or so ago, that migrated all the way up from South America to the Oklahoma Territories? Are you somehow finding that _more_ likely than that she simply had some great-great-grandparent who was significantly of more local indigenous background?
And she never, ever claimed any tribal affiliation. Why are you even bringing that up?
It is only odd because you don't know the following.
Warren's DNA was reviewed at her request by Carlos Bustamante, a Stanford University genetics researcher, who compared it to reference samples and reported that he had found a Native American ancestor "approximately 8 generations" ago.
Bustamante, however, didn't compare Warren's DNA against Native Americans who live in the continental U.S., citing cultural reluctance to submit to DNA tests. Instead, he used recent samples from other countries whose populations presumably share a lineage during human settlement of the Americas about 15,000-25,000 years ago.
You are misinterpreting what that means. The analyst used those southern populations because they are purer samples to look for a set of common non-Euro markers in. But they are from the same original group source as north american natives came from. People with native blood in North America will have some or all of the same markers. That doesn't make them descended from people to the south. It means they share ancestry with people from the south. And the common ancestry are the people that migrated over from Asia through Alaska and then southward, in three major waves.
The test says nothing about whether her Native American blood came from a member of a North American tribe or a South American tribe. But you then have to apply rational logic: The unadmixed NA tribal member that joined into her family chain had to come from somewhere reasonably geographically close to her Euro ancestors. And that would have been somewhere in the current United States. So no, she is not descended from an indigenous Peruvian.
Also, your very misinformed because she has claimed she is Cherokee multiple times.
Nowhere has she claimed Tribal Affiliation in the Cherokee Tribe. That is a distinctly different thing from claiming to have Cherokee or Delaware blood in her ancestry.
Tribal Affiliation is a distinct legal status and has varying requirements, depending on the tribe, beyond blood quota.
All she has done is no different than someone claiming to be part French, yet not being a French citizen. Absent any DNA test, if your parents told you you were part French, then why would you have any reason to doubt that you were part French?
Trivia: Donald Trumps' family was originally named Drumpf. Not Trump. And originally from Germany. Not Sweden. Back in the last century his father at one point started claiming they were Swedish instead purely so as to make him acceptable to do business with to Jewish community members.