DNA and genealogy

[colin rutter]

To Chris Pomery:

I was interested to read your article "Reading Your Genetic Signature" in the publication Ancestors.

On average, in supposedly stable monogamous relationships, the chances are one out of five or 20 percent that a given child is not the biological offspring of the alleged father. The Association of American Blood Banks found that in one year, out of more than 300,000 DNA tests for paternity, the men who were fingered as the fathers were not the biological fathers in about 30 percent of the cases. A researcher who surveyed one British town in the 1970s found that 30% of babies born to married women were conceived adulterously. A study of tissue matches in cases of children requiring organ donations found that about 20% of children from supposedly monogamous parents in ostensibly stable marriages were not the offspring of their alleged biological fathers. One in seven fathers 'not the real parent'. In from one in 10 to one in three of cases of individual children the alleged father is not the biological father of the child.

All the foregoing are direct quotes that may be easily found by Googling the phrase "not the biological father".

I can personally vaguely remember reading an article in a Toronto newspaper years ago that the amount of information regarding blood types was no longer attached to a child's medical birth information, and was suppressed because it was immediately medically apparent that the child was not the child of the putative father. I can supply no reference.

Mr. Pomeroy, you state that "The vast increase in archive records now makes it easier than at any time before to research a family tree back to the 18th or 19th century." Yes, but that's just names on paper.

Take my case, using a 'conservative' 10% figure, i.e. that there is a 90% chance that I am 'really' my father's child, and so on. By the time I get back to the 1817 recorded name forebear of my father, the chances are barely 53 per cent that the lineage is really by blood. If I think I have traced both my mother and father's forebears back to the early 1800's, the odds that both lines are really blood lines is barely 28 per cent. Simply put, over 70 per cent of those who think they have traced their parents' blood lines back to the early 1800's by means of recorded data, are, simply, wrong. And this on the 'conservative' 10 % figure!

If you take my case using a more 'liberal' 30 per cent figure, the chances that I am accurately tracing both my parents' bloodlines back to the early 1800's by looking at available records is not even 1.5 per cent. Think of this. You spend your time and your mod types was no longer attached to a child's medical birth information, and was suppressed because it was immediately medically apparent that the child was not the child of the putative father. I can supply no reference.

Even if we use the middle ground of 20 %, the last 1.5 per cent figure barely rises over 7 per cent.

Geneology, looking through the censuses and parish records and a host of other records, simply gives you what's on paper. You thought you were a descendant of John Doe but his wife had an adulterous relationship, and you're the product of that? How on earth would you know? There's no one to ask, and she's not telling! She's dead!

Blood lines run genealogy. My great grandfathers' wife had another child, and I never took any interest in him. I'm sure that if I knew my father was not "really" my father, that my research would have been cut in half. But that's not what the genealogy business wants to hear! Suffice it to say that if one is looking for blood lines, no matter how much research one does and no matter how many CD's one buys, that from some point in the past, one's research is simply wrong. And you'll never know from what point.

Mr. Pomery, I would be very interested to know how any aspect of the foregoing has been evidenced in the "1500 surname-based DNA projects currently underway around the world" to which you refer. I think this is really worth serious comment and reply and a further article in Ancestors.

Geneology, looking through the censuses and parish records and a host of other records, simply gives you what's on paper. You thought you were a descendant of John Doe but his wife had an adulterous relationship, and you're the product of that? How on earth would you know? There's no one to ask, and she's not telling! She's dead!

I am not a misogynist! I love women dearly. The statistics just show the way the world works, without comment one way or the other.

I am copying this letter to the site B-G County Wide forums for further response.

Best regards and Happy New Year

Colin

[Guy Etchells]

From my reading of various articles many of the statistics were either from attempts to prove parentage of illegitimate children or else the maritail situation of the people tested was not disclosed.

Obviously some women do have affairs with people other than teir husbands which result in pregnancy but I doubt whether the figures are as high as some of these reports try to make out.

Similarly the attempt to show all europeans descended from 7 women failed due to the fact that only a tiny percentage of the population were tested and the results extrapolated. It could be after much more testing the results were confirmed but equally it could be that further testing resulted in millions of alternative lines totally unrelated to the seven original lines.
Cheers
Guy

[colin rutter]

Thanks for the response Guy. Your message came out as garbled as mine! Is there a way around this?
The issue isn't really a pressing concern with me, but I found the matter interesting.
Even if one abandons the 30% 'extreme' and the 10% 'conservative' level, and presumes a 3% 'adultery rate', then using my case, back to both my parents' name forebears from the early 1800's, the chances I am 'right' by following the written records is about 69%, i.e. for about one third of those who think they have their parents' bloodlines back to the early 1800's, what they really have in hand is just rubbish!
Having been in the law business for 25 years I can personally attest to the tragic consequences that DNA tests cause. He thought he had four kids and only three were really 'his', etc., etc., etc. I have no personal doubt in believing the higher percentages.
Thanks again for the reply, Cheers, and Happy New Year. If I get a reply from Mr. Pomeroy, I'll forward it on. Colin

[Geoffers]

[The Association of American Blood Banks found that in one year, out of more than 300,000 DNA tests for paternity, the men who were fingered as the fathers were not the biological fathers in about 30 percent of the cases.]

I have my doubts about the usefulness of DNA testing, as expressed on anothre thread - However - the above statement does not make it clear that these are adulterous relationships - the births could have been illegitimate. These are just births where a mother claims a certain person to be the father and it turns out to be someone else. This is also a modern test in one country and has no historical significance.

[presumes a 3% 'adultery rate', then using my case, back to both my parents' name forebears from the early 1800's, the chances I am 'right' by following the written records is about 69%,]

Whatever the percentage is, it depends on whether or not this is cumulative over generations, or an absolute percentage. Is this 3% of all births over 300 years? - in which case the number of adulterous births remains constant. Or is this 3% per generation, in which case the effect accumulates?

What historical evidence (primary or cirumstantial) exists from 1900, 1800, 1700, etc to support any of the percentages quoted?

You asked Guy.....
[Your message came out as garbled as mine! Is there a way around this?]

It's a case of typing long messages into word processor and then pasting a section into a message, clicking on reply and pasting another section, etc. Laborious, but it works.

Happy New Year
Geoffers
Charlbury, Oxfordshire

[colin rutter]

Dear Geoffers
Thanks so much for the message. Some independant studies of the 19th and 18th centuries can be found by Googling the words "illegitimacy England".
Yes, for the 3% figure, I used a presumption that it is 97% likely that I am my father's child, 97% likely that my father is my 'grandfather's child' (97% x 97 %) and so on for another 6 generations until I derived the result.
Assuming, and I can see no reason to think the contrary, that the 'lineage' of my father's forebears and my mother's forebears are independent of each other, then the chances, based on the 3% intergenerational 'adultery' rate, leads to a conclusion that I am 29% right in following my parents' written records back six generations.
Personally I am more inclined to believe the statistics that show that 20% of children awaiting organ transplants were in fact not the children of the "putative" fathers. Would I believe that things were different in the 15th, 16th, 17th or 18th centuries? No TV, no movies, no telephones, no drive-ins, the search for the stable and the Adonys (see any evolution site).
There is indeed very little evidence from the 15th and 16th centuries. But that is not an excuse for us to say that we cannot guess what was more likely than what was not, based upon whatever evidence is available.
Colin

[Geoffers]

Yes, for the 3% figure, I used a presumption that it is 97% likely that I am my father's child, 97% likely that my father is my 'grandfather's child' (97% x 97 %) and so on for another 6 generations until I derived the result.

But then looking at it the other way - if you are one of 4, 6, 8 or even 10 children there is a 97% chance that those who claim to be your parents, actually are. Making the 3% irrelevent.

If you had a rural market town in which 100 baptisms were recorded in a year, then the 3% becomes significant. But it still remains a very high chance that your recorded parents are actually your biological parents.

Because there is nothing to say that adulterous behaviour is confined to a single family but could occur through the entire market town, then in the previous year when there may also have been 100 baptisms recorded, the 3% of adulterous births could again be spread amongst any of the families and perhaps not the same family that had an adulterous births the following year.

It's a bit like rolling a die - the first time you roll it, there is a one-in-six chance that a given number will turn up. The next time you roll it the chances remain the same and are not affected by the previous roll.

A single figure for all adulterous births also does not take into account the difference in communities - e.g. rural against urban, the strength of relgious belief, possibly even pressure from rich males towards female servants?

I think we may have to agree to differ on this one.
Geoffers

[Cornish Maid]

(Sighs heavily) Ah, well, chaps, you'll just have to content yourselves with following female lines only!


Seriously though, genealogy is nearly always an act of faith. There is in every family and in every generation, always the chance that someone was not telling the truth, for whatever reason. If this matters to you, then don't bother doing your Family Tree, because you can never, at any point, be completely certain of any fact at all.
However, the Law of this land has ALWAYS assumed that a husband is the father of his wife's child. I agree with the previous poster who said that the surveys showing high levels of non-paternity are usually taken out of context - one such survey was undertaken at a Free MaternityClinic for young black mothers in a poverty-stricken area, another at a centre for young drug addict mothers. Yet another survey dates back to WW2, to the wives and children of returning servicemen, who may well have been aware that the child was not theirs, but chose to accept the child.
There is yet another possibility - DNA knowledge is really still in its infancy and there may yet show up a flaw in the testing method. That's a bit thin I admit, but who knows?
As for "The Seven Daughters of Eve", the author of the book freely admitted that his was a slewed sampling; many racial groups across the world will not co-operate with DNA testing, for obvious historical reasons. He also said that he had IDENTIFIED seven different types of mitochondrial DNA so far, but that there were undoubtedly many more waiting to be discovered.
On a final note: historically, women in this country havent had unlimited freedom to commit adultery. I have just finished reading a jolly book wherein an adulterous wife and her lover were hung by the husband, to the rousing cheers of the townsfolk and the Priest (1244). Undoubtedly it went on, but possibly not all that much in small villages, where everyone knew you and watched you like a hawk, and where the Churches punishment for Adultery (for women, of course) was excommunication - which would have been a really terrible threat in those days.

[hpjrt]

Now I need to add another perspective on this whole thing.

DNA only comes into play for traditional inheritance issues ... and for those who steadfastly believe in "genetics" over "nurturing".

I was adopted as a baby. The genealogy I research is the only family I have ever known ... that of my adopted parents. Why? Because I firmly believe that one is a product of the people who raised one ... and they, in turn, are products of the people who raised them ... and so on.

I'm quite sure that I have genetic traits that could be linked to my biological "parents" ... but for the most part, I am very much a product of the parents who raised me. Their values became my values ... their ethics became my ethics.

I know of natural, biological relationships wherein the natural child grows to have a very different "moral/ethical" set than his/her natural, biological parents ... so that child obviously was a product of rejecting the values of his/her natural parents. I know of adopted offspring who also reject the values of their parents.

Conversely, I know of just as many natural offspring who have accepted their natural biological parents' values ... and the same holds true for adopted offspring.

So ... the issue for me is that I am interested in the people who raised the people who are, legally, my parents ... and so on backwards.

Does it matter to me that there is no blood tie? Not in the least. If I found that I was related by blood to a famous historical figure ... would this make me any different a person than I am presently? No ... because that famous historical figure played no part in my upbringing ... and indeed, "proudly" claiming to be a descendant of said famous historical figure is merely a play for "borrowed" celebrity. It really has nothing to do with who one is ... unless one's parents were raised by the known offspring of said famous, historical personage. Even then ... it's the actual person who enjoyed the fame ... and that "fame" is NOT hereditary!

Now ... if I discovered that said historical personage had left a massive estate in which I could share ... well that might be another matter altogether! : )

Still ... while some "purists" might contend that genealogy without provable bloodlines is useless, I would beg to disagree. I find great relevance in discovering the sort of lives lived by "my" ancestors. I have found nothing that contradicts the impressions I have of my parents, their parents, or their grandparents. Of course, my parents [and thus myself] descend from good, solid, hardworking stock ... you know ... the "working poor" from which the vast majority of us descend.

And yes ... I do consider these individuals to be MY ancestors ... they are the people whose values, ethics, sense of humour and adventure were passed along through their children and finally to me. Surely this is equally as important ... if not more so ... than "blood"?

Frankly, if there were some "law" that forbade me to research my own family tree based solely on genetics ... I wouldn't be interested at all.

Mary