3 ms·
« Non-paternity events » occur at a rate of a few percents a given generation at best, but it's enough that at this scale even a rock-solid documents trail isn'
by Bayart 4y ago
« Non-paternity events » occur at a rate of a few percents a given generation at best, but it's enough that at this scale even a rock-solid documents trail isn't proof of descent.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoAssuming it's 3%, then after 80 generations there would only an 8% chance of the genealogy being accurate.
- WalterBright 4y ago> « Non-paternity events » occur at a rate of a few percents a given generation at best I thought that widespread genetic testing has shown it to be much higher than that.
- bloak 4y ago> I thought that widespread genetic testing has shown it to be much higher than that. Higher rates might be mythical. In any case, it's unclear what the definition should be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event#Rates_of_non-paternity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event#Rates_of_n... It's quite fun to imagine doing research on this. You could stand around outside a primary school with a clipboard at the end of the day and ask fathers whether they believe they are the biological parent of the child and fill in a form that looks like this: [ ] Man with parental responsibity told me to fuck off. [ ] Man with parental responsibity said: "Look at him, what do you fucking think?" [ ] Man with parental responsibity told me it was none of my fucking business. [ ] Man with parental responsibity punched me on the nose. [ ] Other. Then you could correlate that with the genetic data ...