Any gynocologists out here?

[Hando]

Hi I recently spoke to a history professor and he has me confused. This professor told me that gynocologists told him that there is a 5% possibility that every child who is born has a father who is not his mother's husband. Ie his real father is someone other than his purported father.
Is this true? Are there any gynocologsits who can corroborate or dismiss this?

2)Also, so does this mean that over the length of 20 generations, a child will be born to a different father than the supposed "real" father or am I missing a factor in the formula? I just assumed 5% X 20 = 100% chance of wrong father....

If I am correct in my assumptions then for example, the Danish royal family who have been around for over 100 years will have had "fake" sons, since they have over 30 generations?
Please let me know. Am I missing something in my calculations? I was never good at statistics or maths.

[rainbow]

I can't help you with that. I did read a sentence on yahoo.com or aol.com that 34% of married women are not attracted to their mates (cheat?). It was just a sentence/intro for a longer article and I didn't click on it so I didn't read the article. That was about a week or two ago think. That was the highest number I ever saw.

[Hando]

sorry i meant the danish royal fam have been around for over 1000 years, not 100.

[GhostX]

This is a rather complicated (and interesting) question to answer, and isn't really a question for a gynecologist, but rather for a genetic genealogist, geneticist, anthropologist, or a statistician. I can try to answer your question in a general way...

The 5% figure you were told is probably not far off for today's populations, at least in most Western countries--though I've seen figures ranging anywhere from 5-30% per generation. Nobody really knows the true number. However, for genealogical purposes, you really need to look at long-term averages, say over the past 700 years. The last number I have seen for that time frame is about 1.3% probability of a "non-paternal event" (e.g., adoption, infidelity, etc) per generation. That percentage is going to vary substantially from one culture to another, or for one class of people versus another (e.g royalty vs. non-nobility), and I have no idea what it might be for Danish royalty.

Secondly, it's not quite so simple as adding up probabilities until you reach 100%, because each generation's probability is (theoretically) independent of the last. In other words, although it might be very likely that you will encounter a non-paternal event over, say, 80 generations, the probability is not 100%. It's just possible (however unlikely) that there could be zero non-paternal events in a 80-year span, or there could be a dozen or more events.

That's probably not terribly helpful to answer your question, but it's an interesting topic for discussion!

[vinnie]

Hi I recently spoke to a history professor and he has me confused. This professor told me that gynocologists told him that there is a 5% possibility that every child who is born has a father who is not his mother's husband. Ie his real father is someone other than his purported father.
Is this true? Are there any gynocologsits who can corroborate or dismiss this?

2)Also, so does this mean that over the length of 20 generations, a child will be born to a different father than the supposed "real" father or am I missing a factor in the formula? I just assumed 5% X 20 = 100% chance of wrong father....

If I am correct in my assumptions then for example, the Danish royal family who have been around for over 100 years will have had "fake" sons, since they have over 30 generations?
Please let me know. Am I missing something in my calculations? I was never good at statistics or maths.

Hando, you don't need a gynecologist to answer this. First, to better understand, you should ask your professor what population this percentage pertains to; for example, the world in general or the U.S., and what time period - present day or the last 20 years, etc. Second, this is only a statistical estimate which can't be used to generalize for genealogical purposes, except possibly for the specific population and time period to which it refers, but even then, definitly not for a specific family.

[rainbow]

I was wondering...say if this happened in a remote isolated community where nearly all the men are of the same ydna or same y chromosome...could a paternity test prove whether or not a child belongs to a specific man? Could it tell the difference between male cousins or brothers? How are paternity tests done?
If a male child is tested for a ydna and it is the same as the father, but also the same as most of the other men in the community, how can they know which man is the real father?

I suppose the actual paternity test is a different method, because I'm female and I had a paternity test years ago to prove my father was my father, and I know it didn't look at my ydna because I don't have any.
I guess I can google 'how are paternity tests done'.

[rainbow]

Hello,
Rainbow have you receive your DNATribes results back , yet?

Hi
No, not yet. Maybe I should check my email again?
I think I'll get the email around the 28th or 29th. Or maybe I'll have to reswab again. I didn't swab very hard this time. I liked the new 'lollypop' swab.

edit: I checked again. Nothing yet.
Oops...this is the wrong thread for this.

[Eki]

If I am correct in my assumptions then for example, the Danish royal family who have been around for over 100 years will have had "fake" sons, since they have over 30 generations?
Please let me know. Am I missing something in my calculations? I was never good at statistics or maths.

Denmark is ruled by a Queen, so male lineage is irrelevant. Denmark was also ruled by a woman, Queen Margaret I in late 14th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_monarchs_family_tree

[DKF]

Hi I recently spoke to a history professor and he has me confused. This professor told me that gynocologists told him that there is a 5% possibility that every child who is born has a father who is not his mother's husband. Ie his real father is someone other than his purported father.
Is this true? Are there any gynocologsits who can corroborate or dismiss this?

2)Also, so does this mean that over the length of 20 generations, a child will be born to a different father than the supposed "real" father or am I missing a factor in the formula? I just assumed 5% X 20 = 100% chance of wrong father....

If I am correct in my assumptions then for example, the Danish royal family who have been around for over 100 years will have had "fake" sons, since they have over 30 generations?
Please let me know. Am I missing something in my calculations? I was never good at statistics or maths.

With all due respect, this is not a subject that most gynecologists would profess any expertise in. It is demographers or population geneticists and others. I have said before, but apparently it hasn't had a dramatic effect - the rate of non-paternal events varies dramatically across time and space. Yes, today there is evidence that in the inner city areas of the USA up to 20% of children are sending Father's Day cards to the wrong man - but these are the same areas where father absence is endemic.

In David Goldstein's new book, "Jacob's Legacy" he presents a genetic view of Jewish history. He is a population and medical geneticist and confirms that there is a very high percentage (e.g., 60%) of those who are surnamed Cohen and amongh those who claim to be Cohen (highest priestly class and supposed descendants of Aaron) that for the past approximately 3000 years there has been little evidence of infidelity among the Jewish women in this subgroup - and I expect that this is similar for Jewish women in general.

I can demonstrate by Y-chromosome studies in my own family including that of all my great grandparents that as far back as I can trace there has never been a single non-paternal event (supported by extensive Y-chromosome testing of many cousins largely supported by myself). Hence, unless my family is unique that 5% figure you seem to take as being gospel is a number picked from a hat or an average from a very restricted population.

I expect that my Korean son-in-law is in fact a direct descendant of Kim Mich'u of the 3rd Century Shilla Dynasty in Korea. Some day I will take it upon myself to verify this supposition with extensive testing of those with the Kim surname that are inscribed in the same book of descendants where his name is found.

[PDHOTLEN]

do I have a descendent in Korea?

I've often wondered about an alleged son of mine, who was supposedly born many months after I left in 1964. His mother was from North Korea, so she wouldn't have been related to the Silla Dynasty of SE Korea.
R1a1 & U5b2

[Hando]

I expect that my Korean son-in-law is in fact a direct descendant of Kim Mich'u of the 3rd Century Shilla Dynasty in Korea. Some day I will take it upon myself to verify this supposition with extensive testing of those with the Kim surname that are inscribed in the same book of descendants where his name is found.

DKF, I have sent you a message....