Author Topic: 1 in 10!  (Read 1263 times)

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,134
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #18 on: Saturday 01 June 19 17:09 BST (UK) »
It may be an item on "More or Less", Friday, Radio 4.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline ThrelfallYorky

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,444
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #19 on: Saturday 01 June 19 17:11 BST (UK) »
Ah, I'll try to remember to listen to that. Thanks.
Threlfall (Southport), Isherwood (lancs & Canada), Newbould + Topliss(Derby), Keating & Cummins (Ireland + lancs), Fisher, Strong& Casson (all Cumberland) & Downie & Bowie, Linlithgow area Scotland . Also interested in Leigh& Burrows,(Lancashire) Griffiths (Shropshire & lancs), Leaver (Lancs/Yorks) & Anderson(Cumberland and very elusive)

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Mike in Cumbria

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,118
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #20 on: Saturday 01 June 19 17:16 BST (UK) »
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.
Como le dijo el mosquito a la rana, "Mas vale morir en el vino que vivir en el agua"

Offline Craclyn

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,310
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #21 on: Saturday 01 June 19 17:42 BST (UK) »
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.
Crackett, Cracket, Webb, Turner, Henderson, Murray, Carr, Stavers, Thornton, Oliver, Davis, Hall, Anderson, Bainbridge, Charlton, Chator, Corbett, Coxon, Davis, Dow, Farside, Garden, Gowans, Harmsworth, Hedley, Hunter, Ironside, Johnson, Laidler, Mason, Miller, Milne, Moreis, Nesbitt, Newton, Parkinson, Piery, Reay, Reed, Read, Reid, Robinson, Ruddiman, Smith, Tait, Thompson, Watson, Wilson, Young

Online melba_schmelba

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #22 on: Saturday 01 June 19 18:10 BST (UK) »
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 ????

Offline Mike in Cumbria

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,118
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #23 on: Saturday 01 June 19 18:17 BST (UK) »
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.
Como le dijo el mosquito a la rana, "Mas vale morir en el vino que vivir en el agua"

Offline andrewalston

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,154
  • My granddad
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #24 on: Saturday 01 June 19 20:08 BST (UK) »
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.
Looking at ALSTON in south Ribble area, ALSTEAD and DONBAVAND/DUNBABIN etc. everywhere, HOWCROFT and MARSH in Bolton and Westhoughton, PICKERING in the Whitehaven area.

Census information is Crown Copyright. See www.nationalarchives.gov.uk for details.

Offline Andrew Tarr

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Wanted: Charles Percy Liversidge
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #25 on: Saturday 01 June 19 20:58 BST (UK) »
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 ?
Tarr, Tydeman, Liversidge, Bartlett, Young

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 920
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1 in 10!
« Reply #26 on: Sunday 02 June 19 09:20 BST (UK) »
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.

Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others