Out of interest question

DUTR

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

(snip)
Or if the NRP dies and the child (who is now an adult) produces the DNA test papers in order to claim from the estate - "oooh now, you'll have to redo that as it's over 3 months old..." No, the test is done and that is the end of the matter. Simples:D

Don't start the estate/will scenario debate again :eek:
A amte passed away and the estate went to his mum, the payment the pwc got was what he would have paid if he were alive, when his mum passed away it went to the siblings not the child.
I'm sure the pwc in my case is putting the current money to good use

shell_542

DUTR wrote: »

heh heh , I never said all men think that way everybody is individual, I'm sure he wouldn't pay and go either

I don't understand your comment about me not being a man then ... there's probably some woman who would agree with you. Everyone iis an individual. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it.

plimsoll

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

If a second DNA test came back as negative when a first one was positive then the explanation would be simple - 2 different men or a mix up in the lab.

A DNA has 2 results - either negative or 99.99999999% positive. You are also given a figure of how much chance unlikely the father is i.e 30 million to 1 chance.

Now, I am sure there are people on here that would like to tar some women and say it's possible that they slept with 30 million men but highly unlikely you would agree.

Having watched a programme on DNA, it is v interesting. To get to result you have to have matching DNA from both parent. So if a child has DNA from it's mother then the DNA left from the potential father will be a perfect match.

It's not just a case of matching blood and hoping for the best hence why the tests take so long.

although the opposite may happen, first negative then second positive. I saw a programme either last year or the year before on people who have 2 different DNAs - in different cells. thought to be where would have been non-id twins (2 fertilised eggs) but for some reason joined together and one "egg" created some cell lines, other "egg" created other organ cell lines, think there was one where he was male but his blood was female or something lol. and there was a woman in America for some reason they'd DNA-d her children and results had come back she wasn't the mother, so they'd disbelieved that she'd actually given birth to them, and taken them off her, she was preg at time & they insisted on a SW being present at birth and observing birth then dna being taken from baby and was only when that baby came back the same her children were returned!

Loopy_Girl

How interesting I love all that kind of stuff (must be my geeky side ) although you would agree that these would be very very rare occurances.

I think for the sake of the 'hypothetical' thread and the question that BB asked then we can assume that an error wouldn't be made. It's not a case of "ooh, that DNA kinda matches, we'll just say he's the father"!! If it's not a perfect match then it's a negative.

Though I like the sound of that programme...hopefully be on again at some point

Blonde_Bint

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

How interesting I love all that kind of stuff (must be my geeky side ) although you would agree that these would be very very rare occurances.

I think for the sake of the 'hypothetical' thread and the question that BB asked then we can assume that an error wouldn't be made. It's not a case of "ooh, that DNA kinda matches, we'll just say he's the father"!! If it's not a perfect match then it's a negative.

Though I like the sound of that programme...hopefully be on again at some point

just want to assure you wasnt being funny guys n gals, as I was reading and thinking about it I just suddenly wondered how accurate DNA testing was, I thought it was 99.999999 per cent accurate but this is me and I could have been wrong:o