RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: zetlander on Saturday 01 June 19 14:42 BST (UK)
-
Article in today's paper reckons one person in ten don't have the father they think....maybe our family histories are not as accurate as we would like to think.
-
As the old saying goes: Mummy's baby. Daddy's ..... maybe.
-
One in ten :o that's hard to believe. Maybe some 0's were missed off the 10. Hope so.
-
Even if it's only one in a hundred, there's a good chance that your tree has gone off track at some point. But that's only really a problem if you think of family history as a question of genetics.
-
What scientific study has shown this? It’s a “statistic” often bandied around but I have never seen the supposed evidence in support.
-
What scientific study has shown this? It’s a “statistic” often bandied around but I have never seen the supposed evidence in support.
Exactly. It seems to be an off the cuff remark made by Ian Cumming, head of Health Education England. It says 220,000 tests are made in the NHS each year. But exactly how many of those are also tested with a father? And did those people give permission for their DNA to be compared to other relatives? So many questions! The mind boggles!
-
So 90% have the father they they think they have.
PS - Like others I would like to see the research that this is based on.
-
surprising how many families have a member who seems unlike the rest of the family.....
-
surprising how many families have a member who seems unlike the rest of the family.....
I haven’t ever thought that about any family I know. And even if I (or you) had, anecdata is not science. So where is the science?
-
There doesn't seem to be any scientific basis for the 1 in 10 guesstimate.
If the news article referred to by Zetlander is from the Telegraph, the online version gives two estimates in the same article: 10% according to Ian Cumming and 4% attributed to "current estimates". In the same article, Professor Mark Bellis says "There are still very few reliable figures on paternal discrepancy and consequently inadequate thought given to how to deal with it.”
I simply don't believe it's anything like 1 in 10 and it's among the 73.6% of statistics that are made up on the spot.
1 in 10 makes a better headline than "We don't know".
https://twnews.co.uk/uk-news/one-person-in-10-is-mistaken-about-the-identity-of-their-father-reveals-nhs-chief (https://twnews.co.uk/uk-news/one-person-in-10-is-mistaken-about-the-identity-of-their-father-reveals-nhs-chief)
-
This study puts it at about 1 - 2% in Belgium over the past few hundred years.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/you-are-not-father-380843
-
This study puts it at about 1 - 2% in Belgium over the past few hundred years.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/you-are-not-father-380843
That's a good study, with a scientific basis. However, I find this statement rather silly:
"Although some married women may see the advantage of cheating to have children in better physical health, the researchers believe most women don’t think it’s worth the potential costs, including spousal aggression, divorce, or a decline in parental involvement with their children. "
I don't think that, where cheating does occur, it's often a case of seeking out better genes for potential children.
-
Yeah, I thought that was a weird statement, too.
-
Yeah, I thought that was a weird statement, too.
We could start a poll here, but we might not get many respondents.
-
"Although some married women may see the advantage of cheating to have children in better physical health, the researchers believe most women don’t think it’s worth the potential costs, including spousal aggression, divorce, or a decline in parental involvement with their children. "
So are they saying that some women think. "I'd like a child brighter than my husband." or "My husband isn't very tall, so I'll have a baby with someone taller " Surely no one really thinks like that? More likely that the woman has an affair, regrets it, so keeps quiet and hopes that everyone thinks the baby is her husbands.
-
One [unavoidable] defect of the study is that, since it is based on Y chromosomes, it traces only male offspring. One has to assume that the rate is the same for female children but that is only true if husbands are equally likely to tolerate either sex if and when they suspect a child is not their own. That might not be true - they might be less tolerant of a suspected male cuckoo in the nest because he would stand to inherit a name and property that were not 'rightly' his.
-
... But it's not going to stop any of us rejoicing when we come upon another (male) ancestor, is it? Remember, there are lies, damned lies - and statistics!
-
My father was named after the milkman ....whose baby had lovely red hair apparently ...my grandfather was a sailor and i must admit i did expect to find that my dna would not match.my aunts and half cousins would pop up all over the world but so far DNA matches have proved so far that my grand father his father and his great grandfather ARE the fathers of the children on the trees ..
And if you do have mismatches its not always from cheating but sometimes from adoptions which were not declared as such .
-
It may be an item on "More or Less", Friday, Radio 4.
-
Ah, I'll try to remember to listen to that. Thanks.
-
One [unavoidable] defect of the study is that, since it is based on Y chromosomes, it traces only male offspring. One has to assume that the rate is the same for female children but that is only true if husbands are equally likely to tolerate either sex if and when they suspect a child is not their own. That might not be true - they might be less tolerant of a suspected male cuckoo in the nest because he would stand to inherit a name and property that were not 'rightly' his.
I also remember a theory that it's evolutionarily more advantageous for a baby to resemble its father than its mother to avoid being treated as a potential cuckoo in the nest. Whether there was any evidence for this or not, I don't remember.
-
This is why it is a good idea to take a DNA test so that you can get evidence to support or disprove your paper trail tree.
-
It may be an item on "More or Less", Friday, Radio 4.
The problem is, if questioned on it, Mr. Cummings can say, oh the data is all confidential ::). And exactly how and why have they been comparing child and parent DNA to see if they are related anyway ????
-
And exactly how and why have they been comparing child and parent DNA to see if they are related anyway ????
This is in the context of inherited diseases.
-
My guess is that any actual statistics behind the headline figure come from DNA tests carried out in cases where paternity was already in doubt.
Hardly a chance of matching the proportion of events in the wider population.
-
As the old saying goes: Mummy's baby. Daddy's ..... maybe.
Or the other one - it's a wise child that knows its own father ?
-
If the one in ten figure is derived from people who have applied for paternity tests then the figure will be biased as those who have doubts regarding paternity are the ones who are likely to take paternity tests. TBH other than paternity tests I don't see how they could determine paternity wasn't what they thought.
-
I’m the one in the family who looks different - shorter, darker skinned, totally different temparament and intellectual level - and my sibs look like each other and like our father.
However, I’ve got plentiful good recent DNA matches on my father’s side and far fewer on my mother’s side!
What does that tell me? Nothing! Just anecdote! Like so many of these stories!
-
The context was genetic testing for inheritable diseases and ethical dilemmas facing medical staff. There have been suggestions that such testing be extended to include some common diseases and the speaker at the Hay Festival, was pointing out potential unintended consequences. I heard an interview with the speaker on "Today" on Radio 4.
The article (link in another post) contains 2 statistics: 4% and 1 in 10. Possibly careless editing.
-
Annie maybe your siblings have more dna from 1 of fathers parents
And you from another .
Im sure my fathers red beard came from long distant viking ancestors
I only have 3% scandinavian ...my scottish aunt has 5%.
None of his uncles or aunts had red hair ..but my aunt & i match both his paternal and maternal relatives Dna
-
I'm sure my father's red beard came from long distant viking ancestors.
I never knew my grandfather (below) who spent his early working life at sea, but my father said that for a while he had black hair, red moustache and grey beard - due, he said, to differential shaving. His mother was Irish so I suppose there might have been a trace of Viking somewhere ...
-
Strange how people assume red hair comes from Viking ancestry.
-
Strange how people assume red hair comes from Viking ancestry.
For 30 years we lived in Runcorn, just over the Mersey from Widnes, where my wife reported a noticeable proportion of red-haired children in her school. It seemed to be a striking local feature - though her observation was made 40 years ago, so it may have become diluted. I believe it was attributed to a Scottish source. But I suppose that may have been Viking originally?
-
For 30 years we lived in Runcorn, just over the Mersey from Widnes, where my wife reported a noticeable proportion of red-haired children in her school. It seemed to be a striking local feature - though her observation was made 40 years ago, so it may have become diluted. I believe it was attributed to a Scottish source. But I suppose that may have been Viking originally?
There was once a theory that there was a significant Viking settlement in the Wirral, but I don't know whether current research still supports the idea.
-
Are you sure that 10! is not 10 factorial?
i.e. 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 which is a pretty large number.
Gordon
-
When making a will solicitors will always advise you to name any children who will be beneficiaries rather than just say 'I leave £x to my son'
This is because someone may claim to be someone's child when they're not or someone may say that a certain child is not of that family etc.
-
Are you sure that 10! is not 10 factorial?
i.e. 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 which is a pretty large number.
Gordon
Yes, 1 in 10! would be 0.000028%.
Perhaps on the low side.