Sandra... Your mitochondrial DNA should be the same or almost the same as all of your mother's *direct line* of female ancestors going back hundreds and possibly thousands of years. If you have a brother, his Y-DNA should be the same or almost the same as that of all of his *direct line* of male ancestors going back hundreds or possibly thousands of years, though Y-DNA is somewhat more subject to mutation than mitochondrial DNA. There is also a general pool of DNA that any child gets in random proportion from both parents. That pool would be fairly similar for siblings but changes rapidly going down the generations. I think what your nephew was trying to say to you was that since your direct line is such a small proportion of all of the lines you are related to, that there is very little common DNA shared with most of your cousins... especially way out at a 3rd cousin. However, a small portion of your cousins... mostly female, but also a few males (ones with the same direct line of female ancestry as you) will have exactly or almost exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as you, as will a small portion of your brother's male cousins (those with the same line of male ancestry as him) have exactly or almost exactly the same Y-DNA as him. Your mother's mitochondrial DNA is also shared by your brother but he cannot pass it on... and you, having no Y-DNA from your father, do not share any with your brother. Even within your direct lines the total package of DNA within each individual person will be quite a bit different. Of course we are related to all of our ancestors, but the share of DNA that most of them passed on to us is very small... and I guess that at some uncertain point in time and reproduction, the DNA from our more distant ancestors in effect gets randomly crowded out. But a very small percentage of our ancestors passed on a major chunk of DNA to each of us, that is the same size and type as it was in them, and it is either exactly the same configuration in the tiniest detail as it was in them, or perhaps it mutated just ever so slightly over many generations through a slight "error" in the replication process. Does that help... or have I just confused things more? By the way... I'm no expert on this and I did not sleep at the Holiday Inn last night. <G> RW Scalawag1867@aol.com wrote: >I help please. > >I talked at length this morning with my nephew who is with the FBI. > >He tells me that after three generations we are no longer related to our >ancestors. > >we are linked by names but not by blood. > >He says no one is related to one another after third cousins. > >My line/ancestors: > >James Waldrop, Sr. >Benjamin Waldrop >Green Berry Waldrop 1794-1854 >Joseph Ryan Waldrop 1827-1870 >James Harry Waldrop 190601962 >Me. > >So what he is saying I am only related to Green Berry Waldrop,Benjamin >Waldrop his papa is not related to me, I am just in his name only line. >We are only researching our names and not who wer are related to. > >So if James Waldrop, Sr. and Ann hadn't married in the 1700s, would I be >here?? Does it not take one generation to make another. > >He said this was taught in the FBI and DNA. > >Help me please.....I am not educated in this and he is. > >Please tell me he is wrong. > >Sandra >maiden Waldrop >Georgia > >