Some observations, looking at the new charts: 151270 (Thomas Kilgore, b 1792 KY,) appears to be in the wrong line - it looks like he is possibly related to 134024 and 134403, both of Charles Kilgore, b. 1740, NC, d 1823 Greene Co.,TN and not at all related to the James Kilgore b. 1760, Hartsville, SC Darlington Dist. line. Also, 131072 (Henry - ) appears to belong to the Thomas/Rebecca side, rather than the James W. Kilgore, b.ca. 1701 Ireland, d. 1771 PA., line. I am not a DNA expert, so I may be missing something. Is the person who groups the data on this list? If so, can you share some of your reasoning on the family grouping? JK

John, I so don't undestand DNA but I am trying!!! I have written down the kit numbers that intersect and there is a zero between our number 134024 and 134403 who is Vickie's brother and we KNOW that we both come from Charles b 1740. Am I totally off base here??? I am reading it as you would a mileage chart??? HELP!!! Sherry ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Kilgore" <john@johnkilgore.com> To: <kilgore@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [KILGORE] Kilgore- New Tables > Some observations, looking at the new charts: > > 151270 (Thomas Kilgore, b 1792 KY,) appears to be in the wrong line - > it looks like he is possibly related to 134024 and 134403, both of > Charles Kilgore, b. 1740, NC, d 1823 Greene Co.,TN and not at all > related to the James Kilgore b. 1760, Hartsville, SC Darlington Dist. > line. > > Also, 131072 (Henry - ) appears to belong to the Thomas/Rebecca side, > rather than the James W. Kilgore, b.ca. 1701 Ireland, d. 1771 PA., line. > > I am not a DNA expert, so I may be missing something. Is the person > who groups the data on this list? If so, can you share some of your > reasoning on the family grouping? > > JK > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KILGORE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

The 0 means that the two are very closely related, so this confirms what you know. There is a link at the bottom of the chart that explains what the numbers mean - click on the one for 37 markers. The larger the number in the chart, the less closely related two kit numbers are. O-3 is most certainly related, 4 is probably related, 5 is possibly related, and 6 and above is ranging from very distant to absolutely not related. One note is that I have a couple of 6s, but people I am 3 away from are 3 away from my 6s, and I notice similar relations for others on the list. It appears that the James of Darlington District line has a higher then average rate of mutation. It would be interesting to see what FTDNA says about this. I made both of these charts with a fantastic web tool: http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility.html It was made for use by geneticists, but it's pretty darn useful for those trying to figure out how different lines are related. Like all statistical calculations, the results, particularly in the generation chart, are NOT precise, but close, and can show patterns that otherwise might have gone unnoticed. JK On Nov 16, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Sherry Arnold wrote: > John, I so don't undestand DNA but I am trying!!! I have written > down the > kit numbers that intersect and there is a zero between our number > 134024 and > 134403 who is Vickie's brother and we KNOW that we both come from > Charles b > 1740. Am I totally off base here??? I am reading it as you would > a mileage > chart??? > HELP!!! > > Sherry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Kilgore" <john@johnkilgore.com> > To: <kilgore@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:07 PM > Subject: Re: [KILGORE] Kilgore- New Tables > > >> Some observations, looking at the new charts: >> >> 151270 (Thomas Kilgore, b 1792 KY,) appears to be in the wrong line - >> it looks like he is possibly related to 134024 and 134403, both of >> Charles Kilgore, b. 1740, NC, d 1823 Greene Co.,TN and not at all >> related to the James Kilgore b. 1760, Hartsville, SC Darlington Dist. >> line. >> >> Also, 131072 (Henry - ) appears to belong to the Thomas/Rebecca side, >> rather than the James W. Kilgore, b.ca. 1701 Ireland, d. 1771 PA., >> line. >> >> I am not a DNA expert, so I may be missing something. Is the person >> who groups the data on this list? If so, can you share some of your >> reasoning on the family grouping? >> >> JK >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> KILGORE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KILGORE- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >