DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-12 > 1228407797


From: "Paul Conroy" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:23:17 -0500
References: <c8c.316ffdd5.36687e94@aol.com><001301c955ea$438a5fe0$ca9f1fa0$@com> <4937A795.6090707@aol.com><001b01c9560c$0877b930$19672b90$@com>
In-Reply-To: <001b01c9560c$0877b930$19672b90$@com>


Sandy,
I've read somewhere - can't find it now - that among European-Americans,
when a man is confident that he is the father of a given child, there is a
1% chance that he is not. When he has some suspicions that his wife may have
cheated on him, there is a 5% chance that a given child is not his. Rates of
infidelity were probably much higher in Gaelic culture in the past, as women
- almost uniquely - had almost equal rights to "fool around" as men did.

I remember in my teens in the Connemara Gaeltacht - Irish/Gaelic language
speaking area - being introduced to the phrase "Paiste greine" - literally
"Child of the sun" - which referred to children born out of wedlock, 9
months after harvest time. Irish peasants of all ages, both male and female,
would work together in the fields to cut the grass in August to make hay,
and in the course of doing so many a short term fling ensued, resulting in a
bunch of kids later. This was seen as a natural/normal event, to be
expected.

That combined with the fluidity of tribal identity in Scotland - should mean
that almost all clan lineages there would have a substantial percentages of
people of indeterminate origin.

Cheers,
Paul


On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Sandy Paterson <
> wrote:

> Hi John
>
> >
> There are some things I don't respond to
> either because I have no real position one way or the other or I think
> someone else might respond. I think what you're referring to though is
> the following:
>
> "This seems quite relevant to me in considering for instance the DNA of
> purportedly Dalriadic descendants. In particular, the roughly 10% R1b1c7
> found in Clan McDonald would seem to be about what one would expect if
> they were originally R1b1c7."
> >
>
> No, that's not what I'm getting at at all. I used the McDonalds merely as
> an
> example. What I was trying to say is that whatever they were when they
> started, the effect of NPE's would in all likelihood, over time, reduce
> whatever their haplogroup was when they arrived in Scotland, to a small
> proportion of the whole.
>
> The Dalriata origins are of interest to me in the general sense, but I hold
> no strong views on what they were.
>
> >
> I think the issue Sandy wants people to chime in on is whether he is
> right that the 10% of R1b1c7 in the McDonald project proves the Scottish
> Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. If I misstated his position I'm sure
> he'd be happy to clarify it himself.
> >
>
> Just to be 100% sure there's no misunderstanding, that is not what I'm
> getting at at all.
>
> I think this may be important though, so I'll repeat my reasoning here
> instead of referring to earlier postings.
>
> Estimated NPE rates vary.
>
> David Ewing mentioned an estimate of between 2% an 5%, based on statistics
> from organ transplants, where tissue rejection is a major issue.
>
> What I did was to consider adoption rates in the USA as a starting point,
> where the mid-point of estimates seemed to be about 3%. I then considered
> other ways in which the apparent family haplogroup could change, and ended
> up using 6% as an estimated 'haplogroup change per birth'.
>
> John, you mentioned the views of others from (I think) another discussion
> group, which included estimates in excess of 10%.
>
> David Ewing also pointed out that if an NPE occurs in a geographical area
> in
> which most of the population is of the same haplogroup, the impact on
> family
> haplogroups will be lestened.
>
> So, let's start with a 6% NPE rate per birth, somewhere in Ireland, in an
> area where say 90% of the population are M222+.
>
> After 50 generations, about
>
> (1 - .1 x .06)^50 = .7401 will still be M222+
>
> Now take an M222+ group that ends up in Scotland, where (say) only 10% of
> the population is M222+.
>
> Here, after 50 generations, only about
>
> (1 - .9 x .06)^50 = .0623
>
> will still be M222+
>
> And that, John, is why I battle to understand your puzzlement as to why
> Scottish DNA has a much lower M222+ proportion than Irish DNA.
>
> Having said that, of course I've oversimplified what happens, and of course
> the .06 used for an NPE rate should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. But
> I
> don't believe that this invalidates the explanation.
>
> Now let's have a look at the sprinkling of M222+ we find in English
> families, another thing John, that seems to worry you.
>
> Well, just as M222+ families who move to England (or Scotland) would have
> their M222+ proportion depleted over time, some English families would pick
> up the odd bit of M222+.
>
> So if Mr and Mrs Bottomley-Grant's little boy Johnny is found in a school
> project to be M222+, there's really no need for Mr Bottomley-Grant to rush
> off to purchase a chastity belt. It probably happened many generations
> back,
> via an NPE that (I believe, anyway) probably had nothing to do with
> infidelity.
>
> But this is all perfectly natural and perfectly consistent with the way man
> procreates.
>
> Thanks John, for responding constructively.
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of John McLaughlin
> Sent: 04 December 2008 09:49
> To:
> Subject: Re: [R-M222] NPE Frequency
>
> <Having set out in some detail why it is not a logical deduction, I
> don't think there's anything further I can do.>
>
> Then we can just disagree. You don't need to be a Scot to do that.
>
> <I must say I'm puzzled. You've responded to almost every e-mail I've
> posted (which I appreciate), but you seem to have missed (or ignored)
> much of what I've said, particularly about the impact of NPE's.
>
> Maybe we should clear this up before continuing. Would you like me to
> give you the dates and times of the specific e-mails to save you having
> to sift through what's been said? I'll do so with pleasure if wish..>
>
> I'll apologize for that. There are some things I don't respond to
> either because I have no real position one way or the other or I think
> someone else might respond. I think what you're referring to though is
> the following:
>
> "This seems quite relevant to me in considering for instance the DNA of
> purportedly Dalriadic descendants. In particular, the roughly 10% R1b1c7
> found in Clan McDonald would seem to be about what one would expect if
> they were originally R1b1c7."
>
> This statement is what started the thread which is why I responded in
> the first place. There is nothing in history which suggests to me that
> the Scottish Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. What you're suggesting
> here is a possibility but in my opinion a remote one. I already
> mentioned the reasons why I do not think the Scottish Dal Riata were
> originally R1b1c7. Again in my opinion the most likely possibility is
> the Scot modal. If you don't know by now I almost always respond to DNA
> questions in a historical context. As to the 10% figure I can think of
> a lot of other ways that could come about.
>
> I think the issue Sandy wants people to chime in on is whether he is
> right that the 10% of R1b1c7 in the McDonald project proves the Scottish
> Dal Riata were originally R1b1c7. If I misstated his position I'm sure
> he'd be happy to clarify it himself.
>
> Does anyone else on the list have an opinion?
>
>
> John
>
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: