GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-01 > 1075231502


From: "Richard Cottrell" <>
Subject: [DNA] 99% Postive that DNA Testing is 99% Inaccurate
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:25:02 -0600


This is the breakdown of my DNA results with other DNA results.

I am 11010.

11010 analyze with Group 1:

12 marker test there was a 9/12 match with all three participants in group 1.
25 marker test there is a 14/25 match with all three participants in group 1.

Conclusion:

12 marker test there was a 99% chance of a slight relation, possibly a common ancestor about ???? years ago.
25 marker test there is now a 99% chance that group 1 and 11010 are totally not related.

11010 analyze with Group 2:

12 marker test there was a 11/12 match with all four participants in group 2.
25 marker test there is a 16/25 match with two of the participants in group 2.

Conclusion:

12 marker test there was a 99% chance of definite relation, i.e, you got, it's there, go for it, spend more money get more conclusive results, and so on...
OOPS....
25 marker test there is now a 99% chance that group 2 and 11010 are totally not related.

Note about Group 2: Birth Certificates, Death Certificates, Military Pension Records, Census Records, Deeds, Tax Records, Wills in the possesion of participants that shows that Group 2 and 11010 are definitely of the same ancestoral line. And unfortunately, the authorities, that being the courts, judges, etc. will not allow the records to be changed nor undone simply because of the 99% this way or 99% that way of the results for DNA testing.

11010 analyze with Group 3:

12 marker test there was a 8/12 match with all four participants in group 3.
25 marker test there is a 13/25 and 14/25 match with two participants in group 3.

Conclusion:

12 marker test there was a 99% chance of a very slight relation, possibly a common ancestor about 2000 years ago.
25 marker test there is now a 99% chance that group 3 and 11010 are totally not related.

So now I am 99% positive that DNA testing is 99% inaccurate.

Richard Cottrell






This thread: