Quote Originally Posted by verminaard View Post
Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post

"According to the report, Kessler writes, Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than a reference set from Utah and 12 times more than a set from Britain."

There's that bit in the very same article. It was hidden in the text. Sneaky bastards.
What is the hard numbers as opposed to percentages?

I am guessing it is something like 0.0000005% vs 0.000005%. Which is technically 10X more, but like I said it is such a minuscule amount it is meaningless. That is why the writers of the article used %'s instead of real numbers, so that like-minded ideological fools like yourself can mindlessly agree without having to acknowledge how dishonest you are.
Aren't you supposed to know something about biology or some shit? Yeah there isn't whole lot more than percentages. The clue is in that thingie that looks like this %, that you put after the 2 numbers you're comparing.

Everything you're asking for is already in that article. You just need to read it. Now you might have to extrapolate very little from it, but that's not the fault of the article. It's on you.