Author Topic: DNA Why I urge caution  (Read 12492 times)

Offline Carole Green

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #9 on: Monday 05 February 18 15:44 GMT (UK) »
For me, my DNA test via Ancestry solved a long standing stumbling block in my maternal line.  I am so thankful for an unknown 2nd Cousin on that side having already tested - and uploaded their tree.
 
However, I know of someone whose Mother had recently died, and her father greatly interested in family history took his DNA test and eagerly spoke to his daughter about all the cousins it had revealed.  She said she'd like to do her own DNA test, and as her birthday was just around the corner, her father bought her the AncestryDNA kit for her birthday gift.

Roll on two months and the results were back!  But shockingly for both of them, they revealed her father was not in fact her father!  It has ruined their relationship and was the worst Birthday present she could ever have received.   

So please proceed with caution and be prepared for a little too much being revealed.

LAVENDER, MACKINESS, ROBINSON, INGLE, INGLETT, INGLESBY - all of Huntingdonshire 1700's - 1800's
LAVENDER  -  Huntingdonshire 1900 - present
HARBOUR, BARLEY, COOK  -  Peterborough
EVELEIGH, WOOLLOFF -  London 1800 - 1970
NEWBORN, BLAND, CUTLER-  Deeping, Lincs
LITTLEDIKE - Stamford, Lincs
HUDSON, DILLON, REED - Manchester
MORTON - St Neots, Hunts
JAKES - Biggleswade, Beds
RICHARDS, WALPOLE - Barrow, Leics

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline plimmerian

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,147
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #10 on: Friday 16 February 18 13:01 GMT (UK) »
The other day I got a message from a lady on Ancestry saying I showed up as a DNA match and continued to go into detail about a certain surname I wasn't so familiar with.

My first concern was that I had not done a DNA test with that profile she contacted me on.

Secondly when I looked through the reams of trees I'm researching with that profile, I found the name of an "non-blood relative" who had married into the tree and it just so happened I'd gone as far back as her grandmother (she was living with on census). This grandmother was the sister of the man she was looking for, that I didn't have on my tree.

I'm finding the whole thing very confusing, especially when on my DNA profile my "matches" cannot find any common ancestor in their trees, the only possible link is a coincidental surname (in a total different area to mine sometimes) with no solid foundation to prove the link.

I have only had one successful match, with the daughter of my Nan's cousin and we know each other exist, even though the suggested "relationship" on their wasn't so accurate.

It also asks me to create a free family tree to join in with the family circles. BUT I already have my DNA results connected to a tree I created "for free".

I'm feeling as if it was all a bit of a scam to make money to be honest.

Very disappointed and have lost confidence in the process.

NB:
My friend sent away his sample to ancestry DNA late last year and got another kit returned to him  in the post. The letter accompanying the kit said they had problems producing a result and he would have to do the sample yet again. It took months for the results to return. His British percentage came back low and as a weak percentage. Yet his father's heritage featured in the same area of central England for over 250 years, using the paper trail system. It was if his mother's DNA had over thrown his father's contribution!

Now we have these results about ourselves, what are we suppose to do with them, apart from, it seems, to encourage other family members to take the test, in order to get better results?

hmm!

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline familydar

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #11 on: Friday 16 February 18 13:39 GMT (UK) »
your tree needs to be public for DNA circles.  I keep mine private and it doesn't stop me getting DNA matches, although as plimmerian has found the estimated distance is sometimes a bit "out" (Ancestry generally more cautious than paper trail suggests).

Jane :-)
ALLEN
BARR, BARRATT, BERRY, BRADLEY,BRAMLEY,BRISTOW,BROWN,BUGBIRD,BUTLER
CAIN,CARR,CHAPMAN,CHARLES,CH*LTON,CHESTER,COCKETT
COLLASON,COLLYER,CORKERY
DARLING, DENYER,DICKERSON,DOLLING,DURBAN
FARMER,FURNELL
GIBSON,GILES,GROOMBRIDGE
HALL,HAMBIDGE,HARMES,HART,HICKS,HILL,HOLLOWAY
JACKSON
K*AT*S
LANCASTER,LINTON
MCDONALD,MCFADEN,MEARS,MILLARD
NICOLAS,NOAK,NORTH
PARFIT,PORTER
RIPPINGALE,ROBINS
SEARLE,SPENCER,STEDHAM
TYLER,TILLY,TUCKWELL
WADE,WAGER,WALKER,WATSON,WEBB,WITHRINGTON,WOOD

Offline Eric Hatfield

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Sydney, Australia
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #12 on: Monday 19 February 18 02:59 GMT (UK) »
Quote
But shockingly for both of them, they revealed her father was not in fact her father!  It has ruined their relationship and was the worst Birthday present she could ever have received.
That is a really sad story, Carol. I hope they are able to recover from that setback, after all, he still raised her as his daughter.

I read recently of another case where someone thought to be a brother turned out not to be, but they didn't allow that to stop the relationship they had built up.

It shows we all react differently, and we each need to be sure we are ready for surprises, as that blog points out.

Offline Flattybasher9

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,018
  • Manners cost nothing, and are worth the effort.
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #13 on: Monday 19 February 18 08:11 GMT (UK) »
There's that old saying "One in ten don't know their real father"

Malky

Offline Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 45,153
  • MEM 1878 - 1949
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #14 on: Monday 19 February 18 08:53 GMT (UK) »
There's that old saying "One in ten don't know their real father"

Malky

When I was carrying out research on  birth data in Scotland in the 1970s, I was told it was more  like 30%


Gadget
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

Offline Flattybasher9

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,018
  • Manners cost nothing, and are worth the effort.
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #15 on: Monday 19 February 18 09:15 GMT (UK) »
I would think it depends on when, where, age and family circumstances. DNA testing is on the increase, and it seems that this will change the previously percieved ideas as to parentage as and when futher data is obtained.

Malky

Offline BushInn1746

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,138
  • Selby 1815. Have You Seen Signature Anywhere Else?
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #16 on: Monday 26 February 18 16:18 GMT (UK) »
Many people seem to think I am against the concept of using DNA for family history research, I am not.
I am however concerned the DNA is promoted as the panacea that will solve all the researchersí stumbling blocks and provide the answers, it won't.
As it stands now DNA testing is improving but it is still flawed.

That is why I am pleased to see this latest blog by My Heritage announcing major updates and improvements to their DNA Matching.

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lfq/

It shows they have recognised the failings in the systems in use and how they are attempting to produce more accurate results.

As the years go by and the various companiesí knowledge and DNA banks grow the science will grow and mature.
We may even reach a stage where some or even many of the claims of some companies will be valid, until that time comes please understand DNA testing does not provide the answers. As with any record set it may provide clues to the answers but as the above blog shows more work has still to be done.

Cheers
Guy

DNA Testing Flawed?

1) Oh No, it isn't.

2) Oh Yes, it can be.

The answer:- 1) or 2) largely depends on how accurate YOUR Tree research is and how thorough the OTHER PERSON's Tree research is?



My Niece (my blood Sister's Daughter) had a DNA Test, the result came back and after comparing, she was in contact with a surname match, who had a list of surnames, from her own research.



I explained to my Niece that surname was in my Mother's lineage (side) AND also a marriage prior to an UNCONFIRMED 1784 - 1787 Birth on my Father's side, might also eventually be that same surname.


I emailed my Niece and when the lady replied (some don't) she fitted in, on my Mother's side and we could see that her research in the Census and GRO Certificates was top-hole (excellent)!

 ------------

Accuracy of Other Trees and Burden of PROOF
There is a Thread on Rootschat which is questioning the accuracy of Trees.

Rootschatters and myself have been in contact with researchers of online trees WITH THE PROOF confirming they have an error.

But they cannot prove how they made their link AND are NOT prepared to change it.

 -----------

Dissenters and Nonconformist

Research indicates two Nonconformist Chapels were already built in one particular town and the Presbyterian BIRTH records for over 100 years are missing before 1797 and about the first 35 years of Wesleyan Births are missing from the 1785 opening.

Early local nonconformist burials there, were generally buried in the Parish Churchyard to start with, but with no clue as to the deceased's religion.

 ------------

Some Scots had marriage by habit or repute, without formal Marriage, so a marriage might not exist.

 -----------

Yes, DNA can be flawed, if one, or both DNA parties research is not thorough enough.

DNA is NOT a golden panacea!

Mark
"George HOOD of Selby" Before 1812?

Born about 1785 (Yorkshire per 1841 Census)

Married Sarah RUSSELL at Selby 1815 newspaper - "both of that place".

Buried in the Quaker Burial Ground at Selby as "Not in Membership" in 1845, aged 60 years.

George HOOD of Selby was refused Membership of the Quakers in 1836.

Elected Overseer of the Poor of Selby in 1838.

Had both known (Selby) and unknown (some not stated 1846) property interests.

Possible (but unknown) links to COOK and/or PEARSON names.

Offline Guy Etchells

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,535
    • View Profile
Re: DNA Why I urge caution
« Reply #17 on: Monday 26 February 18 18:34 GMT (UK) »

DNA Testing Flawed?

1) Oh No, it isn't.

2) Oh Yes, it can be.

The answer:- 1) or 2) largely depends on how accurate YOUR Tree research is and how thorough the OTHER PERSON's Tree research is?

Yes, DNA can be flawed, if one, or both DNA parties research is not thorough enough.

DNA is NOT a golden panacea!

Mark

I was talking about the assumption made by DNA testing companies nothing to do with researched trees.

There are many assumptions made regarding DNA which have been shown to be inaccurate.
The first being that a personís DNA is the same in every cell of their body; yes in some that may be true but in others that has been proven to be wrong.
There is no DNA test that can prove the father of a child 100%.
The more generations one goes back the less chance of that ancestors DNA appearing in their descendants.

Thatís before we even get into the discussion of what is English/Welsh/Irish or Scottish DNA another error is the assumption there is something called Viking DNA claiming there is Viking DNA is as accurate as claiming they wore horned helmets, but hey why be accurate where money is involved.

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.