geminii2@sbcglobal.net (geminii2) writes:

Kelly (must you top post?)

This is the only part of this post that I agree with whole-heartedly.
It is unfortunate that you are so quick to ridicule a persons presentation of facts simply because you find the truth to be "unbelievable". Grow up. As Ralph pointed out, the data and cold hard evidence is everywhere to be found...but you have to be willing to actually pull off the blinders and SEE the proof. As a way of showing you how widespread and worldwide the issue of false paternity is, I will start with an example of how a child might unwittingly discover the truth... A schoolteacher in southern England during the 1970's assigned a class science project in which his students were to determine the blood types of their parents. The students were then told to use this data to predict their own blood type (in most instances only a limited number of combinations is possible because a gene from each parent determines the offspring's blood type). One can imagine the confusion and misery that ensued when 30% of the students discovered that it was impossible for their dads to be their biological fathers. And don't forget, since some parental combinations would allow for the possibility of multiple blood types then the actual percent of mistaken paternities would probably be higher.

Do you have any documentation for this story (which sounds like urban
myth to me)?
In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1995 entitled "Blood Grouping Tests in Undisputed Paternity Proceedings" using the A-B-O blood typing system, it was found that 18% of men who *voluntarily* admitted paternity were not the actual fathers of the children.

What is the sample of men in this study. Random? Fathers of children
where there was already a question of paternity? Something else?
True ethical dilemnas have arisen for physicians who deal in the treatment of heredity diseases and genetic counseling since the onset of DNA testing. The Lancet published an article, "Non-paternity rate and screening in genetic disease analysis" in 1993. "Geneticists have stumbled upon this phenomenon in the course of conducting large population studies and hunting for the genes that cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis. They find full-siblings to be half siblings, fathers who are genetic strangers to more than one of their children and uncles who are closer to nieces and nephews than anyone might guess. Lumped under the heading of 'pedigree errors', these so-called mis-paternities, false paternities and non-paternities are all science jargon for the unwitting number of us who are chips off someone else's block".

No doubt true, but says _nothing_ about percentages of anything.
A research paper "Parental paternity testing with deoxyribonucleic acid techniques" published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1996 found that in postnatal testing 37% of alleged fathers were excluded from being the father of that child. Prenatal testing excluded about 53% of alleged fathers.

Again, what is the sample? Random? Or fathers of children where
there are already paternity questions?

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
And don't forget, since some parental combinations would allow for the possibility of multiple blood types then the actual percent of mistaken paternities would probably be higher. Do you have any documentation for this story (which sounds like urban myth to me)?

I actually heard of a case like this on NPR. A mom needed bone marrow
or somesuch, so her two sons were tested to see if they were good
matches. The lab came back with the information that one of her sons
could not be hers. She was quite sure that they both *were* hers, and
further testing revealed that she had two different blood types - if you
tested her blood you got one type, but if you tested (I think) cheek
tissue, you got another. It is a very rare condition, so I doubt it
affects the statistics much, but it does really happen.

mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:And don't forget, since some parental combinations would allow for the possibility of multiple blood types then the actual percent of mistaken paternities would probably be higher. Do you have any documentation for this story (which sounds like urban myth to me)? I actually heard of a case like this on NPR. A mom needed bone marrow or somesuch, so her two sons were tested to see if they were good matches.

I meant documentation of her claim of roughly 30% mistaken paternity.

Sure there are plenty of individual cases.

Emma Anne <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote: I actually heard of a case like this on NPR. A mom needed bone marrow or somesuch, so her two sons were tested to see if they were good matches. The lab came back with the information that one of her sons could not be hers. She was quite sure that they both *were* hers, and further testing revealed that she had two different blood types - if you tested her blood you got one type, but if you tested (I think) cheek tissue, you got another. It is a very rare condition, so I doubt it affects the statistics much, but it does really happen.

Blood type weirdness isn't even _that_ rare. For those truly interested,
there are a number of good books on the genetics of blood type and they are
definitely more complicated than the high school version of ABO RH+/- that
most of us know.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<r83ccq6ccc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: >And don't forget, since some parental > combinations would allow for the possibility of multiple blood types > then the actual percent of mistaken paternities would probably be > higher. Do you have any documentation for this story (which sounds like urban myth to me)? I actually heard of a case like this on NPR. A mom needed bone marrow or somesuch, so her two sons were tested to see if they were good matches. I meant documentation of her claim of roughly 30% mistaken paternity. Sure there are plenty of individual cases.


This is the basis I used for my original statement.
1. Paternity testing is now routine in states that allow it at the
time of divorce if child support is an issue and the parties can
afford it. Testing agencies/companies are reporting oopsies in the 30
% range.
2. The divorce rate for families with dependent children is very high;
I do not remember exactly, but it is a significant portion, so this is
a useful sample.
3. Presumably, the rate of "error" would be even higher in poorer
families(those unable to afford testing) because the wife would have a
stronger reason to look for better genes than what was available from
a loser husband.
4. There is no reason to think that these numbers would have been much
different if these sorts of tests had been available say, 10 years
ago, so we may infer these results onto the past.
5. The vast majority of divorces are initated by the wife when there
are small children at home. This suggested that the sample provided by
divorcing couples does not represent disportionately those marriages
where the husband is terminally upset by a wifes infidelity.
6. Couples that stay married are staying together therefore because
the wife is happy with the way things are going. Since having a child
not-her-husbands is not something that would displease her(since she
arranged it herself), there is little reason to think that the rate
would be lower in "happy" intact families.

Taken altogether, extrapolating from current divorce data to all
families is obviously a leap, but I do not think it is so implausible.
Be all that as it may, most people are very surprised even by the
current divorce-data. This itself is very interesting, I think. It
suggests that men are easily fooled by women about this matter and
women have not been too squeamish about taking advantage of this
fact.It may take a while for this all to soak into the collective
awareness.

rdubose@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<r83ccq6ccc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > >And don't forget, since some parental > > combinations would allow for the possibility of multiple blood types > > then the actual percent of mistaken paternities would probably be > > higher. > > Do you have any documentation for this story (which sounds like urban > myth to me)? I actually heard of a case like this on NPR. A mom needed bone marrow or somesuch, so her two sons were tested to see if they were good matches. I meant documentation of her claim of roughly 30% mistaken paternity. Sure there are plenty of individual cases. This is the basis I used for my original statement. 1. Paternity testing is now routine in states that allow it at the time of divorce if child support is an issue and the parties can afford it. Testing agencies/companies are reporting oopsies in the 30 % range.

This sample is _so_ non-random. In other words you are using the sample
of divorcing couples that want paternity testing.
2. The divorce rate for families with dependent children is very high; I do not remember exactly, but it is a significant portion, so this is a useful sample.

No, it isn't useful. Again, divorcing couples are not a random, but
at least as important, divorcing couples where child support is an
issue and one or more partners want a paternity test is _really_ not
random.

What we can conclude from this sample is the approximate rate of
"oopsies" among couple who later divorce under circumstances where
child-support is an issue and at least one parent wants a paternity
test. It represents nothing further.
3. Presumably, the rate of "error" would be even higher in poorer families(those unable to afford testing) because the wife would have a stronger reason to look for better genes than what was available from a loser husband. 4. There is no reason to think that these numbers would have been much different if these sorts of tests had been available say, 10 years ago, so we may infer these results onto the past.

Yes, we can generalize to couples divorcing in the past where
child-support is an issue and at least one parent wants a paternity
test.
5. The vast majority of divorces are initated by the wife when there are small children at home. This suggested that the sample provided by divorcing couples does not represent disportionately those marriages where the husband is terminally upset by a wifes infidelity.

This _may_ suggest that among divorcing couples in general men who are
upset about their wife's infidelity are not disproportionally
represented (though I doubt that). It certainly _doesn't_ suggest
such men aren't diproportionally represented among divorcing couples
who do paternity testing.
6. Couples that stay married are staying together therefore because the wife is happy with the way things are going. Since having a child not-her-husbands is not something that would displease her(since she arranged it herself), there is little reason to think that the rate would be lower in "happy" intact families.

Sure there is. Infidelity is likely to lead to divorce.
Taken altogether, extrapolating from current divorce data to all families is obviously a leap, but I do not think it is so implausible.

I hope you _don't_ do statistics for a living. You've taken so many
implausible leaps above, where just _one_ is enough to scotch any
ability to generalize.
Be all that as it may, most people are very surprised even by the current divorce-data. This itself is very interesting, I think. It suggests that men are easily fooled by women about this matter and women have not been too squeamish about taking advantage of this fact.It may take a while for this all to soak into the collective awareness.

Perhaps. What _is_ the actual divorce data that surprises people?

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vDftb.150231$mZ5.1018742@attbi_s54>... rdubose@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<r83ccq6ccc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >And don't forget, since some parental > > > combinations would allow for the possibility of multiple blood types > > > then the actual percent of mistaken paternities would probably be > > > higher. > > > > Do you have any documentation for this story (which sounds like urban > > myth to me)? > > I actually heard of a case like this on NPR. A mom needed bone marrow > or somesuch, so her two sons were tested to see if they were good > matches. I meant documentation of her claim of roughly 30% mistaken paternity. Sure there are plenty of individual cases. This is the basis I used for my original statement. 1. Paternity testing is now routine in states that allow it at the time of divorce if child support is an issue and the parties can afford it. Testing agencies/companies are reporting oopsies in the 30 % range. This sample is _so_ non-random. In other words you are using the sample of divorcing couples that want paternity testing.

Dougie, you are not listening. In states that allow it, paternity
testing is done in virtually EVERY case these days. An attorney would
be liable for a malpractice suit if he/she did not insist on it. When
the oopsy rate is this high, only a lunatic would not insist on it. In
my state, divorce attorneys would not dare fail to ask for it unless
the dad did not seem to care. So these numbers are not based on a
biased sample.

2. The divorce rate for families with dependent children is very high; I do not remember exactly, but it is a significant portion, so this is a useful sample. No, it isn't useful. Again, divorcing couples are not a random, but at least as important, divorcing couples where child support is an issue and one or more partners want a paternity test is _really_ not random.

Virtually EVERY child support case is nowadays preceded by DNA
testing unless 1.the guy cannot afford it 2. the state does not allow
it.


What we can conclude from this sample is the approximate rate of "oopsies" among couple who later divorce under circumstances where child-support is an issue and at least one parent wants a paternity test. It represents nothing further. 3. Presumably, the rate of "error" would be even higher in poorer families(those unable to afford testing) because the wife would have a stronger reason to look for better genes than what was available from a loser husband. 4. There is no reason to think that these numbers would have been much different if these sorts of tests had been available say, 10 years ago, so we may infer these results onto the past. Yes, we can generalize to couples divorcing in the past where child-support is an issue and at least one parent wants a paternity test.

No, it is not "At least one" parent that desires this test. It is
only the "dad" who wants it, because the mom always knows that there
are alternative possibilities that she wishes no-one else will know
about.

5. The vast majority of divorces are initated by the wife when there are small children at home. This suggested that the sample provided by divorcing couples does not represent disportionately those marriages where the husband is terminally upset by a wifes infidelity. This _may_ suggest that among divorcing couples in general men who are upset about their wife's infidelity are not disproportionally represented (though I doubt that). It certainly _doesn't_ suggest such men aren't diproportionally represented among divorcing couples who do paternity testing.


Any competent attorney in my state,or any state that allows it,
will insist on such testing. It is not "samplying" any more.
Where do you get this, "Couples who insist on testing" crap? The
mom would NEVER insist on it. She already knows.

6. Couples that stay married are staying together therefore because the wife is happy with the way things are going. Since having a child not-her-husbands is not something that would displease her(since she arranged it herself), there is little reason to think that the rate would be lower in "happy" intact families. Sure there is. Infidelity is likely to lead to divorce.


My whole point is that women are very efficient at concealing
infidelity.

Taken altogether, extrapolating from current divorce data to all families is obviously a leap, but I do not think it is so implausible. I hope you _don't_ do statistics for a living. You've taken so many implausible leaps above, where just _one_ is enough to scotch any ability to generalize.

Be all that as it may, most people are very surprised even by the current divorce-data. This itself is very interesting, I think. It suggests that men are easily fooled by women about this matter and women have not been too squeamish about taking advantage of this fact.It may take a while for this all to soak into the collective awareness. Perhaps. What _is_ the actual divorce data that surprises people?

That ROUTINE testing of ordinary run-of-the-mill divorcing families
reveals that roughly 30% of dads get a big surprise.

rdubose@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vDftb.150231$mZ5.1018742@attbi_s54>... rdubose@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<r83ccq6ccc.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>... > mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne) writes: > > > Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >And don't forget, since some parental > > > > combinations would allow for the possibility of multiple blood types > > > > then the actual percent of mistaken paternities would probably be > > > > higher. > > > > > > Do you have any documentation for this story (which sounds like urban > > > myth to me)? > > > > I actually heard of a case like this on NPR. A mom needed bone marrow > > or somesuch, so her two sons were tested to see if they were good > > matches. > > I meant documentation of her claim of roughly 30% mistaken paternity. > > Sure there are plenty of individual cases. This is the basis I used for my original statement. 1. Paternity testing is now routine in states that allow it at the time of divorce if child support is an issue and the parties can afford it. Testing agencies/companies are reporting oopsies in the 30 % range. This sample is _so_ non-random. In other words you are using the sample of divorcing couples that want paternity testing. Dougie, you are not listening. In states that allow it, paternity testing is done in virtually EVERY case these days.

It isn't that I'm not listening. It's simply that you didn't say that
the first time. Is this really true? Any divorce atty's here?
An attorney would be liable for a malpractice suit if he/she did not insist on it. When the oopsy rate is this high, only a lunatic would not insist on it. In my state, divorce attorneys would not dare fail to ask for it unless the dad did not seem to care. So these numbers are not based on a biased sample.

Well, you are changing what you are saying.

The first time you said this happens "if child support is an issue and
the parties can afford it." Now you say this happens in all divorce
cases. Make up your mind.

In any case, it is still an incredibly biased sample. "Divorcing
parents" are not an unbiased sample of "all parents."
2. The divorce rate for families with dependent children is very high; I do not remember exactly, but it is a significant portion, so this is a useful sample. No, it isn't useful. Again, divorcing couples are not a random, but at least as important, divorcing couples where child support is an issue and one or more partners want a paternity test is _really_ not random. Virtually EVERY child support case is nowadays preceded by DNA testing unless 1.the guy cannot afford it 2. the state does not allow it.

Again, not what you said before. Again, any divorce attorneys here?
What we can conclude from this sample is the approximate rate of "oopsies" among couple who later divorce under circumstances where child-support is an issue and at least one parent wants a paternity test. It represents nothing further. 3. Presumably, the rate of "error" would be even higher in poorer families(those unable to afford testing) because the wife would have a stronger reason to look for better genes than what was available from a loser husband. 4. There is no reason to think that these numbers would have been much different if these sorts of tests had been available say, 10 years ago, so we may infer these results onto the past. Yes, we can generalize to couples divorcing in the past where child-support is an issue and at least one parent wants a paternity test. No, it is not "At least one" parent that desires this test. It is only the "dad" who wants it, because the mom always knows that there are alternative possibilities that she wishes no-one else will know about.

Ah. So actually our "unbiased sample" is divorcing couples with
children where child-support is an issue and the _dad_ wants a
paternity test.

Very amusing. What next? Has it occurred to you that you may not
understand the meaning of "unbiased sample?"
snip of more silliness Perhaps. What _is_ the actual divorce data that surprises people? That ROUTINE testing of ordinary run-of-the-mill divorcing families reveals that roughly 30% of dads get a big surprise.

And from where does this statistic come? I'm interested in a source,
on or off the net.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dougie, you are not listening. In states that allow it, paternity testing is done in virtually EVERY case these days. It isn't that I'm not listening. It's simply that you didn't say that the first time. Is this really true? Any divorce atty's here?

I'd like some evidence of this too, please.