Need Help With Possible Urban Legend on Baby Paternity
M C Hamster
study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
study?
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Jim Prescott
M C Hamster <davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
>study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
>percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
>husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
>seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
>it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
>study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
>study?
A google of "false paternity" turns up several links. This one
references two articles, one suggesting 5-15% and the other 4%.
http://gaybanker.blogspot.com/2005/09/false-paternity-rate.html
--
Jim Prescott Edmund A. Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
j...@seas.rochester.edu University of Rochester, NY
Mark Brader
> My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
> study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
> percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
> husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
> seems way too high.
The phrase to google on is "non-paternity events". For example,
this article
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/paternity
says:
When geneticists do large-scale studies of populations, they
sometimes can't help but learn about the paternity of the research
subjects. They rarely publish their findings, but the numbers are
common knowledge within the genetics community. In graduate school,
genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of
the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of
their children.
On the other hand, this one:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/18/local/me-dnasurprise18
says:
How many of us are not our fathers' children?
The question has fascinated researchers as a window into the
gap between a society's stated values and its behavior. A 2005
analysis of 17 studies -- based on blood and DNA tests of various
groups -- concluded that the answer varies depending on country
and culture. But the average rate is 4%.
Wikipedia cites several other numbers from different studies.
--
Mark Brader "...if it was so, it might be; and if it were so,
Toronto it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
m...@vex.net That's logic." --Tweedledee (Lewis Carroll)
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Boron Elgar
The more interesting numbers would be the percentage of husbands and
wives who knew this about themselves.
Boron
David Friedman
> My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
> study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
> percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
> husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
> seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
> it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
> study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
> study?
From a footnote in the webbed version of my _Future Imperfect_.
Baker and Bellis, 1992, cited in Ridley, 1995: "In a block of flats in
Liverpool, they found by genetic tests that fewer than four in every
five people were the sons of their ostensible fathers. .... They did the
same tests in southern England and got the same results." Numerous
studies making estimates of cuckoldry rates among humans are summarized
in Baker and Bellis, 2007. See also the meangenes site
(http://www.meangenes.org/),http://www.meangenes.org/notes/notes.html#c8
in particular. One Swiss study, in contrast to the English, finds rates
of "misidentified paternity" slightly below 1%. A similar figure comes
out of the very large-scale Icelandic genetic study. Judging by an
extensive survey of the literature, the actual rate of misattributed
paternity probably varies, across a large range of human societies, from
about 1% to about 30%.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
The evidence suggests that it varies across populations, with the rate
at about 1% for Switzerland and Iceland.
Some of the British figures that get cited are from paternity labs--one
in seven from Cellmark, for instance. The obvious problem is that the
samples that get sent to them for testing aren't a random sample--they
are cases where someone has some reason to want to check.
My guess is that high figures are more likely to draw attention than low
ones, so I would be skeptical of claims of misidentified paternity rates
higher than a few percent.
Mike Williams
>My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
>study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
>percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
>husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
>seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
>it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
>study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
>study?
There's a 15% figure which gets reported in the media occasionally. It
comes from the number of paternity tests in some particular lab where
the husband was shown not to be the father. This number is biassed by
the fact that married couples are more likely to get paternity tests if
they already have some reason to suspect the paternity.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Dana Carpender
> In article <vbnbg5hltgoi65k02...@4ax.com>,
> M C Hamster <davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
>> study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
>> percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
>> husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
>> seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
>> it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
>> study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
>> study?
>
> A google of "false paternity" turns up several links. This one
> references two articles, one suggesting 5-15% and the other 4%.
> http://gaybanker.blogspot.com/2005/09/false-paternity-rate.html
I'm damned sure I'm my father's daughter. I look very like my paternal
grandmother. I have my father's build, short, stocky, and barrel
chested, with the addition of substantial breastage. And I got his
prematurely gray hair and his tendency to obesity. Thanks, Dad.
Dana
Lars Eighner
and talented Mark Brader broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/paternity
> says:
> http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/18/local/me-dnasurprise18
> says:
Anyone who watches Maury regularly knows that figure is way low.
> Wikipedia cites several other numbers from different studies.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5924, 1993
303 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Is this the lab that they use on the Jerry Springer Show?
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Greg Goss
>My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
>study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
>percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
>husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
>seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
>it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
>study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
>study?
It's mentioned in one of the Diamond books (probably Third
Chimpanzee). I forget the actual numbers.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Greg Goss
> When geneticists do large-scale studies of populations, they
> sometimes can't help but learn about the paternity of the research
> subjects. They rarely publish their findings, but the numbers are
> common knowledge within the genetics community. In graduate school,
> genetics students typically are taught that 5 to 15 percent of
> the men on birth certificates are not the biological fathers of
> their children.
Back in 2004, I attempted to talk a young woman out of an abortion.
We would have adopted the resulting baby if I'd been successful at
convincing her. If the persuasion had been successful, I would have
suggested putting my name on the birth certificate to simplify the
adoption.
I'm not sure what the penalties are for a false birth certificate.
(She had flown to Toronto to visit me in early August. To make such a
birth certificate plausible, the baby would have to be considered to
be extremely late.)
> How many of us are not our fathers' children?
>
> The question has fascinated researchers as a window into the
> gap between a society's stated values and its behavior. A 2005
> analysis of 17 studies -- based on blood and DNA tests of various
> groups -- concluded that the answer varies depending on country
> and culture. But the average rate is 4%.
>
>Wikipedia cites several other numbers from different studies.
Sometimes I wonder about our family. We have two quite different
configurations among the four kids in my generation. The first and
last are clearly related to my "father". The middle two are quite
different from my father.
My mother's ex-employer sent Christmas gifts and such to us for four
years or so after we moved to the other end of the country. I have no
idea what he looked like, or if he had the personality traits that I
have in common with my younger brother, the other middle brother.
plausible prose man
> My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
> study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
> percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
> husband's.
The famous story, one you see on the Discovery channel and in the
sort of book they have piled on tables near the entrance at Barnes and
Noble is something like "researchers conducting blood tests on a group
representative of the general population in some country accidentaly
discovered a surprising number of children had a different father than
everyone else thought."
Here's is a reference to Jared Diamond's version, from "The Third
Chimpanzee."
"People have many reasons to lie when asked whether they have
committed adultery. That's why it's notoriously difficult
to get accurate scientific information about this important
subject. One of the few existing sets of hard facts emerged
as a totally unexpected by-product of a medical study, per-
formed nearly half a century ago for a different reason. That
study's findings have never been revealed until now.
I recently learned these facts from the distinguished medical
scientist who ran the study. (Since he does not wish to be
identified in this connection, I shall refer to him as Dr. X.)
In the 1940s Dr. X. was studying the genetics of human blood
groups, which are molecules that we acquire only by inertness.
Each of us has dozens of blood-group substances on our red blood
cells, and we inherit each substance either from our mother or
from our father. The study's research plan was straightforward:
go to the obstetrics ward of a highly respectable U.S. hospital;
collect blood samples from one thousand newborn babies and their
mothers and fathers; identify the blood groups in all the samples;
and then use standard genetic reasoning to deduce the inheritance
patterns.
To Dr. X's shock, the blood groups revealed nearly 10 percent of
these babies to be the fruits of adultery! Proof of the babies'
illegitimate origin was that they had one or more blood groups
lacking in both alleged parents. There could be no question of
mistaken maternity: the blood samples were drawn from an infant
and its mother soon after the infant emerged from the mother.
A blood group present in a baby but absent in its undoubted mother
could only have come from its father. Absence of the blood group
from the mother's husband as well showed conclusively that the
baby had been sired by some other man, extramaritally. The true
incidence of extramarital sex must have been considerably higher
than 10 percent, since many other blood-group substances now
being used in paternity tests were not yet known in the 1940s,
and since most bouts of intercourse do not result in conception.
At the time that Dr.X made his discovery, research on American
sexual habits was virtually taboo. He decided to maintain a
prudent silence, never published his findings, and it was only
with difficulty that I got his permission to mention his results
without betraying his name. However, his results were later
confirmed by several similar genetic studies whose results did get
published. Those studies variously showed between about 5 and 30
percent of American and British babies to have been adulterously
conceived. Again, the proportion of the tested couples of whom
at least the wife had practiced adultery must have been higher,
for the same two reasons as in Dr. X's study. "
http://www.isegoria.net/2004_01_01_isegoria.htm
David Friedman
<952bce70-7130-4c7b...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <George...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's is a reference to Jared Diamond's version, from "The Third
> Chimpanzee."
...
> I recently learned these facts from the distinguished medical
> scientist who ran the study. (Since he does not wish to be
> identified in this connection, I shall refer to him as Dr. X.)
It's a good story--but it depends on two links, both with no external
support (what Dr. X told Diamond and what Diamond wrote).
On the other hand, we now have massive data, although not, so far as I
know, for the U.S.--the Icelandic study, and smaller studies elsewhere.
Judging by those, the 10% figure isn't impossible but it isn't very
likely.
David Friedman
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder about our family. We have two quite different
> configurations among the four kids in my generation.
At the other extreme, I remember my wife commenting long ago that to
watch me, my father and my son (by my first wife) together was to see
the same personality at three different ages. I think my second son now
fits the pattern as well.
Pierre Jelenc
> My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
> study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
> percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
> husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
> seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
> it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
> study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
> study?
I don't remember the exact number, but in the study I know of (the
research team was in the same building as our lab, and we shared
seminars), which was an unpublished side-product of a study of birth
defects, the researchers tested every mother, child, and putative father
that they could convince to participate (regardless of the health of the
child).
The result was that about 25% of the children had not been fathered by the
man that the mother thought was the father. Some of them were the product
of admitted adultery (the mother said to the research team that the father
was not her husband/partner, but he was nevertheless shown as the father
on the birth certificate). Some were thought by the mother to be her
husband's child but were not; some were thought by the mother to be the
lover's child but were in fact the husband's; some were fathered by yet a
third man. Etc etc.
I think that overall, the husbands or companions of the mothers had
fathered 85% of the children, although the mothers thought that some of
those were other men's.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
Mike Williams
>study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
>percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
>husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
>seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
>it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
>study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
>study?
There's a 30% figure that gets bandied about by Fathers' rights groups.
That figure comes from the 2004 annual report of the AABB.
http://www.aabb.org/Documents/Accreditation/Parentage_Testing_Accreditati
on_Program/ptannrpt03.pdf
The relevant section of that report is:
EXCLUSION RATE
For the laboratories tracking exclusions, there were 353,387 cases
completed and 99,174 (28.06%) were reported as exclusions. One of the
44 responding laboratories did not track the number of exclusions. The
average exclusion rate for the laboratories reporting exclusions is
27.40% with a standard deviation of 6.01. The median exclusion rate is
27.98% with a range of 11.94% to 41.18% (two laboratories reported
completing three cases, with two exclusion cases (66.67%) but because
of the small sample size, they were not included in these statistics).
[They seem to use the term "exclusion" because a positive paternity test
result doesn't actually prove that the guy is the father, but a negative
test result does prove that the guy isn't the father, because the child
has genes not present in either alleged parent.]
This figure has nothing to do with whether the alleged father was the
husband. It includes cases where a sexually active mother might allege
several men as possible fathers.
Nick Spalding
on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:34:16 -0500:
I am sure I am my father's son as I have a visible genetic oddity
inherited from him called Nail Patella Syndrome. I have practically no
thumbnails and a split nail on each hand and very small kneecaps. Three
of my children have it too and at least one of the children of each of
them. Unfortunately some of them have other more annoying
manifestations of it such as elbows that don't straighten properly. It
has never caused me any problems, nor did it to my father. He got it
from his mother but I have no idea how much further it went; it may
have been a spontaneous thing in her. She died in 1900.
--
Nick Spalding
Boron Elgar
Some of what you quote is unpublished, some unverified and some flat
out incorrect in your presentation or interpretation of it.
The only way to derive a valid and reliable statistic about this is
among a random stratified sample. The sample will, by necessity, have
to vary from culture to culture, country to country, decade to decade,
etc,. so unless all of this has been accomplished, most of the
published data I have seen can only been used as a tool to measure one
specific group at one specific time.
Since the need for paternity suits generally comes up at a time when
suspicions are raised, that population would likely present skewed
data when extrapolated to a broader segment.
Those studies bases on aborted foetal material would also be skewed.
What someone may claim on a medical form for purposes of filling in a
blank line could vary quite a bit from reality for any number of
reasons and if the assertion of paternity is to be used as a factor in
determining differences vs claimed and actual, then more inquiry needs
to be made and verified in the claim portion. Casual, post hoc studies
of foetal material have not shown this sort of input.
Indeed, even a broad, random and well controlled sample could likely
not account well for its numbers. Either of a couple may not want to
disclose actual paternity for any number of reasons, including of
course, deceit, but also likely to be privacy and ignorance.
There is a whole lot of material discussed at the link below. I am
not guaranteeing any of its accuracy or claiming percentages from it,
but it gives some indication of how some errors arise and false
conclusions made and perpetuated in many cases.
Net-net, I do not think anyone has a very accurate handle on this
data, especially in the US.
Boron
plausible prose man
wrote:
> In article
> <952bce70-7130-4c7b-afa2-9428e6d54...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's is a reference to Jared Diamond's version, from "The Third
> > Chimpanzee."
>
> ...
>
> > I recently learned these facts from the distinguished medical
> > scientist who ran the study. (Since he does not wish to be
> > identified in this connection, I shall refer to him as Dr. X.)
>
> It's a good story--
I was responding to what I understood as more for "has anyone else
seen this good story" and all that AFU stuff, vectors, kewl nudie
tails, and less "is this good story true," (ie, "verocity)")
> but it depends on two links, both with no external
> support (what Dr. X told Diamond and what Diamond wrote).
I think Jared is just kind of...well, "lying" isn't the most
charitable word, but he's passing off a FOAF story in the way of FOAF
story-tellers the world over, I've seen in a lot of places as
something that really happened to him.
> On the other hand, we now have massive data, although not, so far as I
> know, for the U.S.--the Icelandic study, and smaller studies elsewhere.
> Judging by those, the 10% figure isn't impossible but it isn't very
> likely.
Perhaps not...but it is a good story.
John Hatpin
> I am sure I am my father's son as I have a visible genetic oddity
> inherited from him called Nail Patella Syndrome. I have practically no
> thumbnails and a split nail on each hand and very small kneecaps. Three
> of my children have it too and at least one of the children of each of
> them. Unfortunately some of them have other more annoying
> manifestations of it such as elbows that don't straighten properly. It
> has never caused me any problems, nor did it to my father. He got it
> from his mother but I have no idea how much further it went; it may
> have been a spontaneous thing in her. She died in 1900.
My genetic oddity is that the last joint of my little fingers (US:
pinkies) is bent slightly, so that the final section of that finger
partly overlaps the fourth finger when my fingers are together.
(Finger, finger, finger... no, I'm not going to try to rephrase.)
It's no real handicap, although I could span every tenth interval[1]
on a piano keyboard if those fingers were straight; as it is, I can
only play the tenth from Db to F by slightly rolling the interval or
by stretching my hand to an uncomfortable degree.
The odd thing is, both my parents share this trait in a milder form.
There's no other evidence that they're related in any way other than
my appearance and my personality.
Oh, and apparently I look a lot like my father, although I don't see
it myself. Once, a colleague of my fathers recognised me as Dad's son
in the street even though he'd never met me before or seen pictures of
me, simply from some resemblance. It was from some distance too; he
was driving past.
[1] Tenths are extremely useful in jazz, especially in the left hand,
and most pianists can't reach them at all, so I'm not complaining. In
a merge with the "Grandiose claims" thread, the noted British jazz
pianist and composer Michael Garrick, on seeing me play, expressed
loud and frustrated envy of the tenths in my chord voicings. And you
know what they say about big hands, don't you?
--
John Hatpin
http://uninformedcomment.wordpress.com/
art...@yahoo.com
>
> Anyone who watches Maury regularly knows that figure is way low.
"My husband cheats so much, I'm not sure my last baby is his"
Richard R. Hershberger
> M C Hamster <davol...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
> >study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
> >percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
> >husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
> >seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
> >it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
> >study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
> >study?
>
> It's mentioned in one of the Diamond books (probably Third
> Chimpanzee). I forget the actual numbers.
It is indeed discussed there, but my recollection (from reading the
book about ten years ago) is that it was not genetic tests, but an
early study of blood types. The study was looking at something else,
but the researcher realized that there was a clear implication of a
high false paternity rate. This was from perhaps fifty years ago and
using subjects from a middle class background. The researcher did the
only sensible thing, and suppressed the evidence for decades.
At least that is how I remember it. I think I have the book still, so
I might track this down.
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
And, reading downthread, I see that George has already done this.
Never mind.
Nick Spalding
<ec46dd5c-509e-49b2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:29:42 -0800 (PST):
> On Nov 19, 9:42�pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyone who watches Maury regularly knows that figure is way low.
>
> "My husband cheats so much, I'm not sure my last baby is his"
In one of the old pre-war Saint books his then associate, a
semi-reformed gangster called Hoppy Uniatz, says "My father never knew
who my mother was."
--
Nick Spalding
Jack Campin - bogus address
> study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
> percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
> husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
> seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
> it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
> study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
> study?
This is supposedly why they don't do class experiments about human
genetics in British schools any more. The classic one was testing
if you can taste phenylthiocarbamide. Too many kids were finding
they could taste it and going home to tell Daddy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
S. Checker
> Dana Carpender wrote, in <he4v7a$1so$3...@news.eternal-september.org>
> on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:34:16 -0500:
>
>> grandmother. I have my father's build, short, stocky, and barrel
>> chested, with the addition of substantial breastage. And I got his
>> prematurely gray hair and his tendency to obesity. Thanks, Dad.
>
> I am sure I am my father's son as I have a visible genetic oddity
> inherited from him called Nail Patella Syndrome. I have practically no
> thumbnails and a split nail on each hand and very small kneecaps. Three
> of my children have it too and at least one of the children of each of
> them. Unfortunately some of them have other more annoying
> manifestations of it such as elbows that don't straighten properly. It
> has never caused me any problems, nor did it to my father. He got it
> from his mother but I have no idea how much further it went; it may
> have been a spontaneous thing in her. She died in 1900.
Extra tooth, I guess it has something to do with the Y chromosome as my
father and grandfather both had it. I have no male children so I don't
know if it would show up for them.
I did not like dentists one little bit as a youth.
--
People don't listen to enough Motorhead.
-Katy Q.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>
>Extra tooth, I guess it has something to do with the Y chromosome as my
>father and grandfather both had it. I have no male children so I don't
>know if it would show up for them.
The extra tooth is known as the "atomic tooth" in our family.
Boron
David Friedman
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The four out of five figure is, I think, unpublished, although Ridley's
book is of course published, as is Baker and Bellis 2007. Which parts
are flat out incorrect in my presentation or interpretation?
>
> The only way to derive a valid and reliable statistic about this is
> among a random stratified sample. The sample will, by necessity, have
> to vary from culture to culture, country to country, decade to decade,
> etc,. so unless all of this has been accomplished, most of the
> published data I have seen can only been used as a tool to measure one
> specific group at one specific time.
As it happens, the Icelandic study did not have to be random and
stratified, since it covered the entire population.
> Since the need for paternity suits generally comes up at a time when
> suspicions are raised, that population would likely present skewed
> data when extrapolated to a broader segment.
A point I have already made.
...
Charlie Pearce
wrote:
>In article <vbnbg5hltgoi65k02...@4ax.com>,
>M C Hamster <davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
>>study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
>>percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
>>husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
>>seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
>>it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
>>study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
>>study?
>
>A google of "false paternity" turns up several links. This one
>references two articles, one suggesting 5-15% and the other 4%.
What's the figure for maternity?
Charlie
--
Email killed by spammers - please ask for the real one.
Dover Beach
news:v2sdg5lgfoh2qrntb...@4ax.com:
You jest, but there's an entire series on TLC called "I Didn't Know I
Was Pregnant!" They actually rounded up enough women for an entire
series -- women who didn't know they were going to have a baby til it
was halfway out.
So if a woman were drunk enough, she could actually *have* the baby and
not notice, and if someone scooped it up quickly, she could have a
reunion years later with her surprise child.
--
Dover
David J. Martin
There are instances of switched-at-birth kids.
David
S. Checker
Male-only, or is the EEOC cool with your genes?
David Friedman
Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
In analogy to false paternity, a case where the baby was switched at the
hospital would count. I expect it's much rarer than false paternity, but
one does hear stories ... .
Jack Campin - bogus address
> hospital would count. I expect it's much rarer than false paternity, but
> one does hear stories ... .
There was one utterly bizarre case where a woman had a DNA test done
on her child to decide whether the putative father really was. The
results came back showing that the father was the one in question -
but she wasn't the mother.
It turned out that she was a genetic mosaic, and her ovarian tissue was
partly derived from her older sister's - cells had been left inside her
mother's uterus from the earlier pregnancy and had combined with her own
to form a chimera. She was her sister's surrogate.
(I can't trace this story now. I found it on the web a few years ago
when looking up the genetics of cat colouring; the connection was that
it's fairly common for women to have chimeric skin, with the patterns
resembling those of tabby cats, except that usually the genotypes
aren't visibly distinguished. One way it can manifest perceptibly is
if one of the chimeric phenotypes of skin doesn't sweat).
N Jill Marsh
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <Xns9CC981B28FD42mo...@130.133.1.4>,
> Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:v2sdg5lgfoh2qrntb...@4ax.com:
>> > What's the figure for maternity?
>>
>> So if a woman were drunk enough, she could actually *have* the baby and
>> not notice, and if someone scooped it up quickly, she could have a
>> reunion years later with her surprise child.
>
>In analogy to false paternity, a case where the baby was switched at the
>hospital would count. I expect it's much rarer than false paternity, but
>one does hear stories ... .
I would think that the older/married female relative presenting and
raising the younger/unmarried female relative's child as their own to
be a much more common case of false maternity than switched at
birth/stolen babies. At one time, stealth unrelated adoptions were
not particularly uncommon in some parts either.
nj"& etc"m
--
Welcome, stranger, to the humble neighbourhoods.
Bill Turlock
>
> > In analogy to false paternity, a case where the baby was switched at the
> > hospital would count. I expect it's much rarer than false paternity, but
> > one does hear stories ... .
>
> There was one utterly bizarre case where a woman had a DNA test done
> on her child to decide whether the putative father really was. The
> results came back showing that the father was the one in question -
> but she wasn't the mother.
>
> It turned out that she was a genetic mosaic, and her ovarian tissue was
> partly derived from her older sister's - cells had been left inside her
> mother's uterus from the earlier pregnancy and had combined with her own
> to form a chimera. She was her sister's surrogate.
>
> (I can't trace this story now. I found it on the web a few years ago
> when looking up the genetics of cat colouring; the connection was that
> it's fairly common for women to have chimeric skin, with the patterns
> resembling those of tabby cats, except that usually the genotypes
> aren't visibly distinguished. One way it can manifest perceptibly is
> if one of the chimeric phenotypes of skin doesn't sweat).
>
It was a plot line on "House" a while back.
Bill Turlock
"Big hands, big feet"?
Rick B.
@news.tamu.edu:
Recent article in the lo cal paper about an adoptee who was reunited with
his supposed birth parents. He didn't much look like either of them, they
all had the DNA work done and he was related to neither...and all the other
paperwork that might reveal who he was switched with is legally sealed.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Boron Elgar <boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:29:57 -0500, spa...@gmail.com (S. Checker)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Extra tooth, I guess it has something to do with the Y chromosome as my
>>>father and grandfather both had it. I have no male children so I don't
>>>know if it would show up for them.
>>
>> The extra tooth is known as the "atomic tooth" in our family.
>
>Male-only, or is the EEOC cool with your genes?
Hit one sister and my brother. I escaped. They got it from my dad.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In analogy to false paternity, a case where the baby was switched at the
>> hospital would count. I expect it's much rarer than false paternity, but
>> one does hear stories ... .
>
>There was one utterly bizarre case where a woman had a DNA test done
>on her child to decide whether the putative father really was. The
>results came back showing that the father was the one in question -
>but she wasn't the mother.
>
>It turned out that she was a genetic mosaic, and her ovarian tissue was
>partly derived from her older sister's - cells had been left inside her
>mother's uterus from the earlier pregnancy and had combined with her own
>to form a chimera. She was her sister's surrogate.
I remember this case.
Boron
Mike Williams
>> In analogy to false paternity, a case where the baby was switched at the
>> hospital would count. I expect it's much rarer than false paternity, but
>> one does hear stories ... .
>
>There was one utterly bizarre case where a woman had a DNA test done
>on her child to decide whether the putative father really was. The
>results came back showing that the father was the one in question -
>but she wasn't the mother.
>
>It turned out that she was a genetic mosaic, and her ovarian tissue was
>partly derived from her older sister's - cells had been left inside her
>mother's uterus from the earlier pregnancy and had combined with her own
>to form a chimera. She was her sister's surrogate.
>
>(I can't trace this story now. I found it on the web a few years ago
>when looking up the genetics of cat colouring; the connection was that
>it's fairly common for women to have chimeric skin, with the patterns
>resembling those of tabby cats, except that usually the genotypes
>aren't visibly distinguished. One way it can manifest perceptibly is
>if one of the chimeric phenotypes of skin doesn't sweat).
That sounds a bit like the Lydia Fairchild case. Additionally, she was
taken to court for falsely claiming child benefit. She couldn't find a
lawyer to defend her because they all believed that the DNA evidence was
irrefutable. The judge ordered that a witness be present at the birth of
her next child to ensure that blood samples were taken immediately. DNA
tests indicated that she wasn't the mother of that child either.
http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/chimera.html
Mary
> Charlie Pearce <charlie.pea...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote innews:v2sdg5lgfoh2qrntb...@4ax.com:
There was a woman at a company that I worked for years ago that
actually managed to be pregnant and unaware of it until she went into
labor. Not the brightest bulb on the porch.
In fact she had some trouble figuring out which of the guys was the
father once the kid was born.
Mary
John Hatpin
> John Hatpin wrote:
> >
> > [1] Tenths are extremely useful in jazz, especially in the left hand,
> > and most pianists can't reach them at all, so I'm not complaining. In
> > a merge with the "Grandiose claims" thread, the noted British jazz
> > pianist and composer Michael Garrick, on seeing me play, expressed
> > loud and frustrated envy of the tenths in my chord voicings. And you
> > know what they say about big hands, don't you?
>
> "Big hands, big feet"?
Big gloves.
Opus the Penguin
(tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
>
>
> Mike Williams wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't it M C Hamster who wrote:
>> >My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was
>> >some study of DNA test results, which showed that a
>> >surprisingly large percentage of children born to married
>> >couples are not actually the husband's. She remembered the
>> >percentage as something like 20%, which seems way too high. I
>> >said I'd try to research this, but I can't find it on the Snopes
>> >site. Does anyone here know anything about this study, and what
>> >the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of study?
>>
>> There's a 15% figure which gets reported in the media
>> occasionally. It comes from the number of paternity tests in some
>> particular lab where the husband was shown not to be the father.
>> This number is biassed by the fact that married couples are more
>> likely to get paternity tests if they already have some reason to
>> suspect the paternity.
>>
> Is this the lab that they use on the Jerry Springer Show?
>
>
>
No. That lab returned a 113% figure.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
jeff_wisnia
Pretty close to zero....
That's the reason why Judaism is matrilineal: because we always know who
the mother is. :)
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.
David Harmon
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote,
>On the other hand, we now have massive data, although not, so far as I
>know, for the U.S.--the Icelandic study, and smaller studies elsewhere.
>Judging by those, the 10% figure isn't impossible but it isn't very
>likely.
How about the figure for Los Angeles?
David Friedman
David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
I don't know of any data on that.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Your putative son "Chad" (not his real name) has two dads. No
really, he's actually got the genetic material from three people.
That's why he's got an extra arm growing out of his back.
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Mac
> In article <kq8dg5drcptqtf39m74jga99p8sh0cs...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <RemoveThisjfhop...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
> > Nick Spalding wrote:
>
> > My genetic oddity is that the last joint of my little fingers (US:
> > pinkies) is bent slightly, so that the final section of that finger
> > partly overlaps the fourth finger when my fingers are together.
>
> "Little finger" is just fine with this Leftpondian; "pinkie" is either
> (1) more slangy, or (2) the term used for baby mice IIRC. Mine don't
> get perfectly straight, though I don't know how abnormal that is.
It isn't slang, but it isn't USAnian either. It's from Scots,
probably reinforced by New York Dutch (and ultimately Dutch
originally, as near as I can tell.) The word traveled faster from
Edinburgh to London when it went by way of New York, is all.
John Hatpin
I've not heard it used in England, so it seems it's not got here yet.
art...@yahoo.com
> Dana Carpender wrote, in <he4v7a$1s...@news.eternal-september.org>
> on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:34:16 -0500:
>
>
>
> > Jim Prescott wrote:
> > > In article <vbnbg5hltgoi65k02tct1lv2ree69mi...@4ax.com>,
> > > M C Hamster <davol...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > >> My wife said that she had read that a few years ago there was some
> > >> study of DNA test results, which showed that a surprisingly large
> > >> percentage of children born to married couples are not actually the
> > >> husband's. She remembered the percentage as something like 20%, which
> > >> seems way too high. I said I'd try to research this, but I can't find
> > >> it on the Snopes site. Does anyone here know anything about this
> > >> study, and what the percentage was, and if it was a reliable sort of
> > >> study?
>
> > > references two articles, one suggesting 5-15% and the other 4%.
>
> > I'm damned sure I'm my father's daughter. I look very like my paternal
> > grandmother. I have my father's build, short, stocky, and barrel
> > chested, with the addition of substantial breastage. And I got his
> > prematurely gray hair and his tendency to obesity. Thanks, Dad.
>
> I am sure I am my father's son as I have a visible genetic oddity
> inherited from him called Nail Patella Syndrome. I have practically no
> thumbnails and a split nail on each hand and very small kneecaps. Three
> of my children have it too and at least one of the children of each of
> them. Unfortunately some of them have other more annoying
> manifestations of it such as elbows that don't straighten properly. It
> has never caused me any problems, nor did it to my father. He got it
> from his mother but I have no idea how much further it went; it may
> have been a spontaneous thing in her. She died in 1900.
This gene is of historical significance because it is on the same
chromosome as the gene that determines the ABO blood type and these
were the first 2 genes in humans to be shown to be on the same
chromosome. What this means is that there is a high (90%) chance that
your children who have the syndrome will also have the same blood type
allele that your father had, while your children who do not have the
syndrome will have the same blood type allele as your mother. Of
course, depending on their mother, this may not be easy to track.
However, suppose your father was type A and your mother was type B and
you are type AB and your wife is type 0. Your type A children would
likely have the syndrome, your type B would not.
Nick Spalding
<de9e024b-b973-4001...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:08:54 -0800 (PST):
I have never bothered to follow this up. I haven't the least idea what
my blood type is, though I am sure I must have been told some time or
another. I must ask around the children to see if they know theirs, or
indeed their children's.
Did you know about this or did my post provoke you to look NPS up?
Outside my own relations, two of my father's sisters had it too, I have
only ever met one person with NPS and I met them due to my NPS son
joining a mailing list where he found a woman in Belfast with it who
came down on a visit once.
--
Nick Spalding
art...@yahoo.com
> art...@yahoo.com wrote, in
> <de9e024b-b973-4001-adfd-a86f55947...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
I knew a little about this, but I did not know many of the details of
NPS that you provided such as the elbow problem.
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
>Outside my own relations, two of my father's sisters had it too, I have
>only ever met one person with NPS and I met them due to my NPS son
>joining a mailing list where he found a woman in Belfast with it who
>came down on a visit once.
An afu old hat has it, that's how I found out about its existence.
nj"and it's not you"m
Lee Ayrton
> Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
> news:v2sdg5lgfoh2qrntb...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 19 Nov 2009 19:25:18 -0500, Jim Prescott <j...@seas.rochester.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>A google of "false paternity" turns up several links. This one
>>>references two articles, one suggesting 5-15% and the other 4%.
>>
>> What's the figure for maternity?
>>
>
> You jest, but there's an entire series on TLC called "I Didn't Know I
> Was Pregnant!" They actually rounded up enough women for an entire
> series -- women who didn't know they were going to have a baby til it
> was halfway out.
>
> So if a woman were drunk enough, she could actually *have* the baby and
> not notice, and if someone scooped it up quickly, she could have a
> reunion years later with her surprise child.
Why am I picturing a handbag, a coat-check room in a British railway
station and a manuscript of more than usually revolting sentimentality?
Lee "he asked Earnestly" Ayrton
Jen
You should know this; it may be important one day. My son was premature,
and airlifted shortly after birth to a bigger hospital. As his
Humidicrib was being wheeled out I happened to notice that his tag read
APos. Since my husband and I are both OPos there's no way the baby could
be A, and he did indeed end up needing a transfusion. I know they would
have double checked before they did the transfusion, but I prefer to
minimise the chances of life-threatening mistakes.
>
> Did you know about this or did my post provoke you to look NPS up?
>
> Outside my own relations, two of my father's sisters had it too, I have
> only ever met one person with NPS and I met them due to my NPS son
> joining a mailing list where he found a woman in Belfast with it who
> came down on a visit once.
--
Jen
Lee
once it does, don’t let em know where you got it
David J. Martin
Somewhere I have a donor card from the Red Cross that says my blood type
is O. Since my Dad is AB, it made me wonder. I look like my mother's
side of the family so there wasn't a quick counter to the blood type.
Eventually I found out that someone had screwed up on the quick
blood-typing they did at the donation site. Turns out I'm A-positive.
David