this will rock the boat no doubt............

[smith1]

Am I the only one that ever doubts the whole thing? I hate to say it and I know this will likely cause an absolute hailstorm of arguement and insults but the truth is the truth. What proof do we have that any of this dna testing is actually real? The first thing I see when I google it is ............. "scam". Now I'm not saying I know one way or the other but I'm just saying.......................

[darroll]

They sure send allot of people to prison over DNA results.

It worked for us (In our family) as we have an almost perfect match.
66/67
Try testing your cat and see if your kitty is a I1.
I trust FTDNA only.

Scams, probably, any way to make a buck.

[smith1]

They sure send allot of people to prison over DNA results.

It worked for us (In our family) as we have an almost perfect match.
66/67
Try testing your cat and see if your kitty is a I1.
I trust FTDNA only.

Scams, probably, any way to make a buck.

yes i Know that. What I mean is all this testing we do to try to discover our family tree. How accurate are these results? Even if we understood these results how much faith can we put in them? How can they tell me I have all these supposed "matches" when I have no idea at all who all these people are and they have no idea who I am ?

[darroll]

Up to a 37 point result,
I would only look into it with a perfect match.
Genealogy records are a mess and this is your only option.

[smith1]

Up to a 37 point result,
I would only look into it with a perfect match.
Genealogy records are a mess and this is your only option.

according to this website I have two "exact matches". Maybe I'm not reading it right but when i log in and click "matches" it gives a long list of people's names and different matches. According to that there are 2 "37 marker" matches. Neither last name matches mine and those two last names don't match either ! They don't know me and I don't know them and apparently they don't know each other either. If this website and these results were more easy to understand it would make things SO much simpler. It's almost as if they only want our dna for some reason but don't want us to understand any of the results.

[rucksack]

Depending on your haplogroup, 37 marker matches just don't mean much.

I have 37 marker matches that completely fall off of the charts at 67 markers.

Also, surnames are a bit misleading, depending on your actual ancestry.

If you are truly interested, I suggest a minimum of 67 markers.

[smith1]

Depending on your haplogroup, 37 marker matches just don't mean much.

I have 37 marker matches that completely fall off of the charts at 67 markers.

Also, surnames are a bit misleading, depending on your actual ancestry.

If you are truly interested, I suggest a minimum of 67 markers.

ROFL !!!! see that's my point right there. More markers is more money. Then, when and if I "upgrade" then what shall I hear ? "if your really interested I suggest the 123 marker test". lol

[rucksack]

You are welcome to ROFL as much as you want.

Apparently you have no clue about what DNA testing can help you to reveal.

I will be certain to not reply to your posts in the future.

[smith1]

You are welcome to ROFL as much as you want.

Apparently you have no clue about what DNA testing can help you to reveal.

I will be certain to not reply to your posts in the future.

I am well aware that dna testing can reveal to me a graph with numbers and letters. I see it on the front page when I log in. That is worthless. Now your telling me that if instead of 37 rows of numbers and letters I pay for 67 rows of numbers and letters this will reveal to me so much more? I really don't see how that is going to be anything but worthless as well. That will only make this graph bigger.

[smith1]

To me, this isn't results. It's a nightmare of an algebra problem. I think before we ordered these test kits it should have been explained that this is the type "results" we would get. I can't be the only person out there that feels like this.



PANEL 1 (1-12)
Locus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DYS# 393 390 19* 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389-1 392 389-2
Alleles 15 23 15 10 14 17 11 13 11 14 12 31

PANEL 2 (13-25)
Locus 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DYS# 458 459a 459b 455 454 447 437 448 449 464a** 464b** 464c** 464d**
Alleles 14 8 10 11 11 26 14 20 27 11 13 14 16

PANEL 3 (26-37)
Locus 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
DYS# 460 GATA H4 YCA II a YCA II b 456 607 576 570 CDY a CDY b 442 438
Alleles 11 10 19 21 14 14 16 19 35 38 12 10

[rucksack]

Nobody that is new to this type of testing is going to understand everything immediately.

You need to read up on the subject, check out other DNA fora and do a little leg work for yourself, or pay the price for the analysis reports that FTDNA offers, which is the last thing I would ever recommend.

I have had numerous success stories with DNA and paper trail genealogy, and I've read countless others.

The understanding does take time, but it should eventually click.

You can find various topics at Ancestry.com Rootsweb and dna-forums to name just a few.

For clarity here, my 35/37 match is my 4th cousin once removed.

At 67 markers, we are 64/67.

I didn't know him until DNA testing came along.

He helped to confirm years and years of paper trail genealogy with just a few bucks spent.

[rivergirl]

Are you in a surname project.
Have you compared your results, (set of numbers), to the other men in your surname project.
Has the project admin given any indication on how you relate to others in the group??

The closer the match the more related.
If you have no close matches within your surname project, it may be that none of your close relatives have tested yet.
If you are R1b it is common to have matches with other surnames, as so many european men are R1b. R1b really does need 67 to sort out the real matches.

I have two cousins tested and they match 66/67.
They do not match anyone else in that surname project, as we are not closely related to them, coming from different regions of England. No one in that project comes from the same area our famly came from, so im not expecting them to match.
We are waiting on someone one day to match us.

My brother has no matches with in his surname group, as again noone comes from the same area as our family.
He also has no matches with anyone else, which is a bit annoying. He is I1 haplogoup. Id be happy if he matched someone....

A third cousin is in an Irish surname project and matches well with a group of other men in the project, but he doesnt have an exact or really tight match with any of them, indicating that the common ancestor was well back in time. This fits in with the history of the surname.

[Jim Barrett]

Of course it doesn't. You are to lazy to try to learn. You refuse ALL attempts to help you.

[GayeSherman]

mtDNA Matches

I'm in the unusual position of having 20 EXACT mtDNA FGS matches. As the maternal lines are primarily Ashkenazi, there's not much of a paper trail. Most are extremely lucky to know their great grandmothers' names. That said - the overwhelming majority of us (18 out of 20) know we are descended from Ashkenazi Jews from the area around Lithuania. I was adopted and didn't know anything about my mother other than she was Russian-Jewish. Last year I found her - she's Litvak! Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

[MMaddi]

Depending on your haplogroup, 37 marker matches just don't mean much.

I have 37 marker matches that completely fall off of the charts at 67 markers.

Also, surnames are a bit misleading, depending on your actual ancestry.

If you are truly interested, I suggest a minimum of 67 markers.

I disagree. He's told us that he has two 37/37 matches found in the database; I'm assuming he knows how to read what his "Matches" page is telling him and he's giving us accurate information about that. That gives an assurance that these are men with whom he shares a common paternal line ancestor within a relatively short period of time, perhaps 200 year or less. Extending to 67 markers will only fine-tune the number of generations back to the common ancestor; I suppose he could have differences on 3 or more markers in panel 38-67, although not likely, which would indicate a common ancestor more than 200 years ago. Given his hostility to spending more money at FTDNA, I doubt he will do it and it's probably not necessary. At this point, he should be collaborating with those two matches to look for some time period and place where a pair of them or all of them had an ancestor living. I've already given him that advice in another thread.

However, I have to agree with you and Jim Barrett that it's apparently hopeless to try to educate smith1 about anything regarding genetic genealogy or what his results may indicate. Several people have given him good advice and tried to explain how genetic genealogy actually works, as opposed to his pre-conceived simplistic notions. He continues to complain that it's too difficult for mere mortals to understand and now calls it a "scam."

At this point, his only purpose appears to be to complain and not listen to anyone who offers advice. You know what they say, "you can lead a horse to water,....". At best, smith1 is a very stubborn person who's not willing to learn and, at worst, he's a troll, trying to create maximum confusion and animosity. In either case, I've given up trying to educate him.