Always believed i was adopted or similar. Please help me understand dna

Flugelhorn

doesn't this show that you are your mother's child but that you and the other sibling don't share a father?  

much simpler if you had all done ancestry dna 

TBagpuss

Flugelhorn said:

doesn't this show that you are your mother's child but that you and the other sibling don't share a father?  

much simpler if you had all done ancestry dna 

Yes - it is saying that there is basically no real possibility that the two of you have the same father. 

If the man who you knewas your father has any siblings then testing them or their children would help clarify whether you were related to them (which would suggest ed that you were your 'father's child but your sibling wasn't.

IF you fo tests using one of the big family history / dna companies such as Ancestry.com then you can consent to be linked to people who are gentically matched to you, which might help you to find your biologicia father's family (althoug of course it is very dependent on whther any of them have provided dna) 

Hwever, the starting point is probably to sit down with your mum, explain that hr test results shw you and your sibling don't have the sam father and to ask her about it.

Bear in mind that in 1964 there was stil a huge stigma involved in divorce / pregnancy outside marriage and  it may be very hard for her to talk about it. While the most likely explanation is that sh haf a relationship with somone other than her husband, othre explanations, in cldufing the possibility that she was raped, do exist.

I hope you are able to find some answers.

Sandtree

raineydays said:

Re birth cert yes I do have. I always hoped and assumed it was genuine re no way even back then to forge. As you can imagine you start doubting everything 

Easy enough to buy a duplicate if you wanted one but as said it only is safe on the maternal side... if your parents weren't married at the time then the father has to be present/consent to be added to the certificate but plenty of people will do even if they potentially aren't the biological father.



Either I am reading it wrong or.... it states:

The likelihood that they do NOT share the same biological father is 8,036 to 1

Unless I am being slow today that would mean the chances are 0.012% and so to remove the negatives means there is a 99.99% chance it is the same father

RAS

Sandtree said:

Either I am reading it wrong or.... it states:

The likelihood that they do NOT share the same biological father is 8,036 to 1

Unless I am being slow today that would mean the chances are 0.012% and so to remove the negatives means there is a 99.99% chance it is the same father

And if you read the previous section:

The probability of full-siblingship is 0.01%,

meaning though it's possible it's highly unlikely.

Sandtree

RAS said:

Sandtree said:

Either I am reading it wrong or.... it states:

The likelihood that they do NOT share the same biological father is 8,036 to 1

Unless I am being slow today that would mean the chances are 0.012% and so to remove the negatives means there is a 99.99% chance it is the same father

And if you read the previous section:

The probability of full-siblingship is 0.01%,

meaning though it's possible it's highly unlikely.

Yes, which by my reading would have meant a shared father but different mothers

DE_612183

Sandtree said:

RAS said:

Sandtree said:

Either I am reading it wrong or.... it states:

The likelihood that they do NOT share the same biological father is 8,036 to 1

Unless I am being slow today that would mean the chances are 0.012% and so to remove the negatives means there is a 99.99% chance it is the same father

And if you read the previous section:

The probability of full-siblingship is 0.01%,

meaning though it's possible it's highly unlikely.

Yes, which by my reading would have meant a shared father but different mothers

That's the way I read it - the tests seem to show that the "alleged sibling" and "mother" are of the same DNA whereas the OP is not - perhaps th e best thing is to speak to the mother and also ring the DNA Test Centre for advice.

tightauldgit

Sandtree said:

raineydays said:

Re birth cert yes I do have. I always hoped and assumed it was genuine re no way even back then to forge. As you can imagine you start doubting everything 

Easy enough to buy a duplicate if you wanted one but as said it only is safe on the maternal side... if your parents weren't married at the time then the father has to be present/consent to be added to the certificate but plenty of people will do even if they potentially aren't the biological father.



Either I am reading it wrong or.... it states:

The likelihood that they do NOT share the same biological father is 8,036 to 1

Unless I am being slow today that would mean the chances are 0.012% and so to remove the negatives means there is a 99.99% chance it is the same father

I have to admit that is also how I read the words on the page but it didn't really make much sense to me and it is a really clunky sentence. As it's written it appears to mean what you say - that they do share the same dad - but I suspect the meaning is the exact opposite of that.   

Mojisola

The mother and both siblings share so many loci, they have to be related.

RAS

DE_612183 said:

Sandtree said:

RAS said:

Sandtree said:

Either I am reading it wrong or.... it states:

The likelihood that they do NOT share the same biological father is 8,036 to 1

Unless I am being slow today that would mean the chances are 0.012% and so to remove the negatives means there is a 99.99% chance it is the same father

And if you read the previous section:

The probability of full-siblingship is 0.01%,

meaning though it's possible it's highly unlikely.

Yes, which by my reading would have meant a shared father but different mothers

That's the way I read it - the tests seem to show that the "alleged sibling" and "mother" are of the same DNA whereas the OP is not - perhaps th e best thing is to speak to the mother and also ring the DNA Test Centre for advice.

How do you read the report in order to come to that conclusion? Both siblings share multiple loci with the mother, as per theoretica's explanation.

As I read it there are 8,063 chances that they are half siblings for every possibility that they are full siblings. 

raineydays

Thankyou for all your comments. We have had the talk and I now have some additional names. Appears there was a period of time the husband was back and forth with other women. Which I was aware of. Now what to do with the names? Would you recommend the ancestry dna test?