Monongalia County, (West) Virginia, Records of the District, Superior, and County Courts By Melba Pender Zinn Published by Heritage Books, 1990 ISBN 0788401386, 9780788401381 There are records here for Robert Patton, Jr. of Alexandria, Virginia and Benjamin Reeder. One of the Patton daughters married a Reeder, I recall. http://books.google.com/books?id=JolKzWaFPM4C&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=%22Robert+Patton%22+%2B+Alexandria&source=web&ots=zomH9ubbbI&sig=e3n-4fQKV9udjk3nrEiCTreps1I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result But there are new Kincaid records here for a William Sr. and William Jr., Mary Kinkaid, Joseph Kinkaid, Edward Kincade in the above book. Search in the box for the Kincade ,Kincaid, Kingcade, and Kinkaid spellings. Barb Van Hout

I probably shouldn't say this, but it's a rainy day outside and I'm in a frisky mood. So, tongue in cheek and grain of salt. As Don said, 80% means 80 out of 100 times predictions are made. But wait a minute. I can only make one prediction, not 100. Only family tree can make a 100 in its data base. I've only got one ancestor to predict: Am I in the 80 side or the incorrect 20 side? Or just some plus or minus region around 250 years? The generations known is simply adding evidence that one is sure can narrow down the time period further, leading to a new probability. You're still left with a range of probable dates for a common ancestor, and it's questionable whether the new probabilies help that much. You're still looking for a connection at about the same time period. The odd thing is, of course, is that if you can supply the new "genertional" link, then you already know more or less when the common ancestor lived! You already know more than you can get from the refined probability. You have the genealogical data. So, I always thought that was a bit funny. So, I'm with Peter on this one. The sets of say 5 or even our 100 member data base can make great use of manual or computer clustering of the 25, 36, or 67 DNA markers to cluster known related members and therefore restrict the genealogical search to the right place, time, and related ancestors. This is exactly what we use the DNA evidence to do and it does not require probabability estimates of time of common ancestor. More useful in this respect is the scientific knowledge about how easily or often particular markers mutate. If I'm not mistaken, these probabilites can be entered into the clustering routines in the computer to get a "weighted" cluster result. The mutation knowledge allows a more precise clustering. Once you know this, then the two or three of you who cluster the closest in the group can search for the common ancestor. By then I think you'd already have a good idea yourself about the age of the common ancestor. Unfortunately, it's somewhere in Ireland or Scotland just beyond everyone's known ancestors. What I'd really want to learn is how Family Tree arrives at its probabilities in the first place. Knowing the two or thre markers that mismatch seems more useful. So, in my opinion we're already using the DNA data the right way. Moving from 80% to 90% or from 300 years to 250 years doesn't seem much of an improvement over the "distance of 35 out of 27 markers." This all reminds me of the two statisticians who went off to war together. In the first battle they were charged by the enemy and one shot about 5 feet to the left and the other shot 5 feet to the right. They looked at each other and said "Got him!" I suppose that was their last accomplishment. So . . . this is how probabilities work? Neighborhoods or regions of probability where something may or may not be. Can anyone give us as good a probability of the US banking system failing if it's not given 700 billion dollars in one week? Not even close to 80%. Don L Kincaid, clustered in group C-2. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> wrote: > I don't think 4323 fits with 4164 and 122441. He has the mutation you do > not. You will need to show that the mutation to 18 in his line was parallel > before he can be included in John/Margaret Miles line. John did not have > the > mutation per your test and 122441. Note that I erred in listing 122441 as > from another son of George. It is John who (when 122441 is vetted) will be > known not to have the mutation. It still works out the same as > contemporaries of George/Jean do have the mutation. Otherwise your grouping > is feasible. > > There is a vetting post about to be made by Marcelle for 130629 whose test > is at the lab. There is some indication that his results could come back as > A-2b. I do hope all will take the time to go through the post and comment. > > Sue Liedtke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:01 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Thanks, Sue. > George Kinkead & Jean Mitchell had two sons: Andrew & John. John Kinkead & > Margaret Miles had at least 3 sons, William, 4323, John 4164 & Andrew, > 122441 all of which are now represented by DNA samples. I had contacted a > descendant of Andrew, son of George, about being a DNA donor but never > heard > back. This was Jack Kinkead of Cambria County, PA. My theory now is that > the > Carlisle, Middleton Township, Tyrone Township, Toboyne Township, Cumberland > County, PA Kincaids: George, John the Merchant, Andrew the Carpenter, and > James, who I believe is the James Kinkead of Rowan County, NC, were at the > closest brothers or if not then cousins. I also believe that Andrew > Kinkead, > carpenter, was the father of Andrew and Archibald. As for sample > 5803, I have tried to figure out where he belongs and one of the few > logical > explanations attractive to me is that he may be a grandson of John Kinkead, > the merchant, through his son, Andrew. But the only heir ever mentioned for > Andrew, son of John, the merchant, was John who eventually interited the > Middleton Township plantation and died in 1822 in Carlisle. Then there is > still sample 15550 who I still believe descends from James Kinkead of West > Pennsborough/ Dickinson Township, who was a weaver, and William Kinkead > 5803 > of Rye Township was also a weaver, so he could be from James Kinkead of > West > Pennsborough as well. So what I am seeing is not only a tighter social > cluster, but a tighter DNA cluster as well. I have tried to find surveys > for > James Kinkead of West Pennsborough/Dickinson Township, and William Kinkead > of Rye Township, but so far have been unsuccessful, even to find them as > adjacent landowners. James of West Pennsborough was a > freeman in 1774 so he was born about 1750 and would be contemporary of > Archibald & Andrew and their cousins. > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:38:24 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > Only if the 18 at DYS 456 was a mutation from early 1700's and all 2b can > trace to the same source, (perhaps a brother to George/Jean b c1733?). I > really don't think this will prove to be a troublesome marker with parallel > mutations gumming up the works. As Norman is pretty sure that 122441 is > from > George/Jean through a different son, we know that George/Jean didn't have > the mutation and that lines with the mutation believe they can trace to > ancestors b 1739, 1745 and 1749 (which would be the same generation as > George/Jean), therefore anyone with it is not a descendent of George/Jean. > > Sue Liedtke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:53 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > >I generated a Fluxus graphic based on the 67 marker results to > > date using reduced median joining with the reduction threshold > > set to 1 (ie. to reduce parallel mutations). It clusters samples > > 4323, 5803, 49289, 4164 and 122441 together as one branch. > > Is this not in line with the relationships as understood by Norman? > > > > Peter > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Norman Kincaide > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > > > Thanks, Sue. Sample 122441 has a 17 at number 30, but has other > > mismatches with my 4164. 122441 (this line has not been vetted yet) is > > from a descendant of Martin Kincaid, son of Andrew Kincaid, also brother > > to my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and I have a clear paper > > trail from Martin Kincaid to Andrew and Andrew Kincaid to John Kinkead > who > > died in Union Township, Erie County, PA. Andrew Kinkead of Dubois County, > > IN, sent a letter in 1832 to the Orphan's Court in Erie County, PA giving > > his brother, John Kinkead, power of attorney over the estate of their > late > > father, John Kinkead. Samuel Kincaid of Wayne Township, Erie County, PA, > > brother to John G. Kincaide, my great great grandfather, wrote to Martin > > Kincaid in reply to a letter in 1866 that concerned Andrew Kincaid's > share > > of John Kinkead's estate that clearly shows a father son, and brother > > relationship and is in Group A-2a with my sample. > > > > Sincerely > > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:55:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > Norman, I think you have to look at the pattern of mutation within our > > project as well as the sheer number of mutations between you and Treasa. > > The > > percentage information is all very interesting but is based on averages > > and > > sheer numbers so I don't really think it is anything more than a > > curiousity. > > > > The important mutation between your and Treasa's samples occurs with the > > 18 > > at marker 30. This is because there is a large representation within the > > project of those who match Treasa's sample exactly as well as others who > > also have this mutation but also have a few other scattered mutations.. > > Unless there was a parallel mutation in her line, it is unlikely she > > connects to your line before she connects to the others in A-2b. In order > > to > > show a parallel mutation she must have a representative from a proven > > brother's line for each generation until the parallel mutation is > > isolated. > > > > The eldest ancestor claims (unvetted) in A-2b (this set is based on the > > marker 30 mutation to 18) trace to James/Hanna b 1739 of Rowan Co. NC, > > Andrew/Martha Townsley b 1745 of Cumberland Co. PA, and John/Ann Gregory > > b > > 1749 of Cumberland Co. PA. In the same generation would be your > > George/Jean > > Mitchell b c1733 of Cumberland Co. PA who does not have that mutation. > > While > > it is POSSIBLE for James, Andrew and John to be brothers, George cannot > > also > > be a brother unless somewhere in your line another mutation occured which > > returned the result at marker 30 to 17. You would need a representative > > from > > a brotherly line in each generation to isolate the mutation. The CLOSEST > > your George could be with them would be first cousin, i.e. it is their > > father (George's father's brother) who had the original mutation at this > > marker and all A-2b participants, including Treasa, will ultimately trace > > to > > him. > > > > >The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > > Smith > > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > > County, > > PA in 1822.< > > > > One of you may have an error in your linkages unless either of you can > > prove > > a parallel mutation. > > > > Sue Liedtke > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> > > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > > > Thanks, Don. > > > > So the refinement process doesn't apply to instances of where a paper > > trail > > definitely points to a common ancester within a definite number of > > generations based upon the same DNA marker test (in my case 4164, with > > Treasa Brookman's sampel 4323). > > > > Sincerely > > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:43:51 AM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > First of all, the percentages given are simply the likelihood of having a > > common ancestor within a certain number of generations but the common > > ancestor predictor does not show exactly when a common ancestor will be > > found. If you have an 80% chance of having a common ancestor with a dna > > match in 8 generations back, a common ancestor could be found in a lesser > > or > > greater number of generations. In this example the 80% means that 80 > > times > > out of 100 that you will find a common ancestor within the 8 generations > > and > > that find could have occurred in any generation from 2nd to 8th. Put > > another > > way it means there will be a common ancestor found some generation within > > 8 > > generations 80% of the time. > > > > The opportunity to refine your results is for those matches for whom you > > have NOT found a common ancestor and gives you a chance to put in the > > number > > of generations you know there is not a common ancestor and the results > > will > > be refined to show you more precisely how many generations back that > > common > > ancestor will likely be found. It has no value for those matches with > > whom > > you know you have a common ancestor. > > > > "What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > > Treasa > > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations." > > > > This simply means that the percentages of having a common ancestor will > > be > > mathematically refined if you know you do not have a common ancestor in > > so > > many generations with a match and input that number of generations. The > > refinement results will show a larger number of generations to find a > > common > > ancestor so be sure to watch for the change in number of generations in > > the > > refined results as well as the percentages. > > > > "Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > > box and click on the recalculate button. > > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > > the box)" > > > > I believe the answer to this question is no. If you know you have a > > common > > ancestor there is no need to use the refinement process since you already > > know the common ancestor. > > > > "So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > > increase > > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?" > > > > The paper trail information should decrease the percentage of having a > > common ancestor within the same number of generations however remember > > Family Tree DNA changes the number of generations in the refinement > > instead > > of lowering the percentage for the same number of generations. I wish > > they > > would change the percentage and leave the number of generations the same > > since it would make comparison much easier and less confusing! > > > > Here is an example from my personal situation. In looking at the FTDNA > > probability information for my # 1427 closest dna match for 67 markers, > > James Elliott Kincaid, # 2563, FTDNA shows 85.95% likelihood of finding a > > common ancestor within 8 generations before doing a refinement. Since our > > documentation shows there cannot be a common ancestor within 7 > > generations > > we put 7 into the box and hit recalculate and see that the refinement > > shows > > a 77.76% of having a common ancestor is for the period of 7 up to 11 > > generations. It also shows that for 15 generations, the percent is > > 95.98%. > > This does not tell me which generation to expect to find a common > > ancestor > > with 2563, just the odds or likelihood of doing so within a certain > > number > > of generations. In my and Jim's case I personally believe we will find a > > common ancestor within 2 or 3 generations beyond each of our most distant > > ancestors that are known in early to mid 1700's. > > > > I should note that the refinement opportunity for each match will be for > > the > > highest number of markers dna test used for both participants so in my > > example, I cannot use the 37 marker results for anything other than the > > 4, > > 8, 12 & 16 generation percentages and if I want to refine my percentages > > I > > have to use the 67 marker results. The more markers a participant has > > been > > tested for the better the mathematical probability will be more > > meaningful. > > > > Yours aye, > > > > Don W. Kincaid > > Kincaid Surname DNA Administrator Team > > donwkincaid@cox.net > > 254 631-5684 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Norman Kincaide > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:40 PM > > Subject: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > > > Does anyone know what this means? It's from the Family Tree DNA website > > and > > I have read it over several times.. > > > > Refine your results with paper trail input > > > > The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA > > results, which show 2 mismatches. > > However, these results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that > > no > > common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have > > lived > > in a certain number of past generations. > > > > If you don't know this information for a fact, do not change the "1" in > > the > > box in the next paragraph. However, if you have the information, please > > enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. > > > > What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > > Treasa > > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations. > > > > And then: > > If you don't know this information for a fact (does this mean that the > > paper > > trail information does not show a common ancestor) do not change the "1" > > in > > the box. > > > > Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > > box > > and click on the recalculate button. > > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > > the box) > > > > The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > > Smith > > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > > County, > > PA in 1822. > > > > So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > > increase > > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not? > > > > Sincerely > > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To > > unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotesin the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------Tounsubscribe from the list, please send an email > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotesin the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Here are a few facts about John Jordan. He applied for a warrant for New Purchase lands, #3720 for 100 acres adjoining Robert Suransesy, Thomas Erwin, and Paul Reed in Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, PA, later West Pennsborough then ultimately Dickinson Township, Cumberland County, PA. Applications 3718 and 3719 were by John Kinkead, Merchant of Carlisle and George Kinkead respectively. 1767 John Kinkead [93625] applied for 100 acres in Cumberland County, PA, May 21, 1767, application #3718, West Side,  warrant, none, adjoining Andrew Holmes, Widow Peterson, and barrens in Cumberland County, PA. Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, WEST SIDE APPLICATIONS: NUMERIC LISTING OF APPLICATIONS, 1766-1769, page begins with 3709. 1767 George Kinkead [4164] applied for 200 acres in Cumberland County, PA, May 22, 1767, application #3719,  West Side, warrant, none, adjoining John Moore, John Lusk, and Thomas Willson in Cumberland County, PA. Pennsylvania State Archives, RG-17, Records of the Land Office, WEST SIDE APPLICATIONS: NUMERIC LISTING OF APPLICATIONS, 1766-1769, page begins with 3709. There is a survey for this property at Pennsylvania State Archives land records website at: C-71, 185; and at C-209, 46, 47 See also for a survey in Toboyne Township, Cumberland County, PA A-46, 273 and another survey in West Pennsborough C-96, 209 Sincerely Norman Kincaide

Connie, good luck. We are all thinking of you. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "C Hurley" <hurley@myonetone.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:31 PM Subject: [KINCAID] Hi everyone- Connie-Kentucky-DNA 3350 > Hi everyone, > It has been a while since I have posted anything at all, > My name is Connie Poole Hurley , > I live in Kentucky and my/our DNA number is 3350. > > There are a few of us under that number, > Y Search and Kit numbers and ours is-Kit #3350. > Tamara Kincaide's husband Charles > is and was our donor of his DNA Cell Swab Test. > > Tamara Kincaide > Darlene Embry > Dyane Guisto > Elaine Ezell > > We are the descendants of John Kincade and his son > David Kincade who we assume to be the son of John > Kincade, since he did sigh the marriage bond for him/them. > > We find them in the beginning of our search in > Wilson County, Tennessee. > > I would like to at this time say this, we do have copies > of all documents that we could possibly find, from > marriage bonds to death certificates, to deed, to census > records. And in some instance we are beginning to > gather quite a few photo's up to the present time. > But we don't have David's or John's or their wives. > I only wish (smile) > > I will not be posting very much at all,my health at this time > prevents me from doing so, I am now waiting for a call from > my doctor to let me know when I go to the hospital again, I > have a 90 to 95% blockage in my neck on the left side, I'm > not sure what will happen at this point,I could stroke out, I > have opted for a Stent and not Surgery. > So all prayers will be very appreciated. > > My email address is : > hurey@myonetone.com > and also > conniehurley2003@yahoo.com > --- > John Kincade b.1760-1780 VA > John appears 1820-1830 Wilson Co. Tn. Census. > John was bond & witness at marriage of son ? > David Kincade to Sarah/Sally McWhirter > > We still do not know who John is. > is So we assume he is David's father. > > David Kincade-Born 1802 Tn. > d.aft 1860 > Married Feb 27 1824 Wilson Co,TN. > Sally/Sarah McWhirter-Born 1808 Tn. > d.aft 1860 > > Their Children: > > (1) Elizabeth E Kincade b.1828 Tn. > d. aft 1900 Ky. > --- > (2) Hugh A. Kincade/Kinkade b.1827 Tn. > d. May 1860 Butler Co. Ky. > --- > (3)John T. Kincade b.Oct 29 1829 Tn. > d.May 4 1911 Ohio Co,Ky. > --- > (4) Elias J Kincade b.1834 Tn. > d.aft 1880 Spencer Co. Ind. > --- > (5) Mary A Kincade b.Feb 2 1835 Tn. > d.Oct 9 1878 Spencer Co. Ind. > --- > (6)William Kincade b.Oct 10 1837 Tn. > --- > (7) Henry H Kincade b.Oct 7 1842 Tn. > d.Feb 8 1915 Warrick Co Ind. > --- > (8) David Blackburn Kincade b.1845 Tn. > d.aft 1880 Ky. > --- > (9) Andrew I Kincade b.1847/48 Tn. > --- > Wilson Co formed from Sumner Co > and was formed from Davidson Co- > Davidson Co and formed from Washington Co NC > --- > County Facts > Wilson County History and Information > > Date Created:October 26, 1799 County Seat: Lebanon > Name Origin: Major David Wilson > Formed From: Sumner County > --- > Source as > The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture > Tennessee Historical Society > > The Tennessee General Assembly created Wilson County > on October 26, 1799. > > Its prehistoric heritage is rich. The Sellars temple mound on > Spring Creek, for example, yielded an outstanding piece of > pre-Columbian sculpture that has been the emblem of the > Tennessee Archaeological Society. > > Europeans explored the land long before settlement: > French trappers arrived as early as 1760, and the > hunting party of Henry Scraggins passed through the > area in 1765. > > John B. Walker led the first permanent settlers to > Hickory Ridge, west of the present site of Lebanon, > in 1794. > > ---------------- > Sumner County History and Information > > Date Created:1786 County Seat: Gallatin > Name Origin: General Jethro Sumner > Formed From: Davidson County > --- > Source as > "The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture > Tennessee Historical Society > > Archaeological evidence in Sumner County indicates > occupation by Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and > Mississippian cultures in the deep past. > > Two easily accessible prehistoric mounds stand at > Castilian Springs, where Native Americans for centuries > came to hunt the game which gathered at the springs and > its salt lick. > > The first white long hunters included Henry, Charles, and > Richard Skaggs, and Joseph Drake in 1765. Among other > early explorers and long hunters were James Smith and > an eighteen-year-old male mulatto slave in 1766, and > Kasper Mansker, Isaac Bledsoe, and others in 1771-72. > > The first permanent settler was the fearless Thomas Sharp > Spencer, who earned that distinction by living several months > in the hollow of a sycamore tree at Bledsoe's Lick in 1776, > then planting crops and building cabins from 1776 to 1779. > > By 1783 settlers had erected three forts--Mansker's, Bledsoe's, > and Asher's--for protection against Indian attack. > --------------------------------------------- > Davidson County History and Information > Date Created:1783 County Seat:Nashville TN > Name Origin: William Lee Davidson > and was Formed From:Washington County, NC > > Davidson County is the oldest county in Middle Tennessee. > It dates to 1783, when the North Carolina legislature created > the county and named it in honor of William L. Davidson, a > North Carolina officer who died in the Revolutionary War > on January 1, 1782. > > The county seat, Nashville, is also the oldest permanent > white settlement in Middle Tennessee, founded by James > Robertson and John Donelson during the winter of > 1779-80. > > The initial white settlers established the Cumberland > Compact in order to establish a basic rule of law and > to protect their land titles. Through much of the early > 1780s the settlers also faced a hostile response from > Native American tribes. As the county's many known > archaeological sites attest, the resources of Davidson > County had attracted Native Americans for centuries. > > In fact, the first whites to encounter the area were fur > traders, then long hunters, who came to a large salt > lick, known as French Lick, in present-day Nashville > to trade with Native Americans and to hunt the abundant > game. > > Nashville has always been the region's center of > commerce, industry, transportation, and culture, > but it did not become the capital of Tennessee until > 1827 and did not gain permanent capital status until > 1843. Its story is best told through its individual entry > and the hundreds of other entries in this volume that > cover significant people, events, and institutions > associated with Nashville as the capital city of > Tennessee. > --- > TNWILSON > Wilson County, Tennessee > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwilson/index.html > --- > Wilson County, Tennessee > Genealogy Depot > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwcogs/ > --- > Wilson County > Marriage Records - GROOMS > > KINCADE, David McWHIRTER, Sally24 > Feb 182427 Feb 1824 > Hardy Hunt, J.P. John Kincade > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwcogs/marriage/groomsA-L.html > --- > 1830 Federal Census of Wilson County, Tennessee > > KINCADE, John 147 01012001--10011001 > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwcogs/census/1830wctK.html > --- >>From Wilson County Archives > > Rutherford County and Wilson county TN have a common boarder > and the "old timers" moved freely across it during their lives there. > It was a source of commerce. > >>> This John Kincaid in the 1820 census could > have been on both sides at different times. > The eastern end of the Wilson/Rutherford line moved > north just a bit in 1815. > It's possible these folks changed counties without moving. > --- > And then we find them here in Sumner County, Tennesse in 150 > 1850 Sumner County, Tennessee Federal > Census Indexed Individuals > [ K ] > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~providence/census/census1850_k.htm > --- > 1850 Sumner County, Tennessee Federal > Census Transcription > Transcribed in 1997/1999/2000 by Linda Carpenter, > Jan Johnson Barnes, Marie Johnson, and E. J. Keen > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~providence/census/census1850ndx.htm > --- > District 12 > 12 287 Kincade, David 48 M > 12 287 Kincade, Sarah 42 F > 12 287 Kincade, Hugh 25 M > 12 287 Kincade, Elizabeth 21 F > 12 287 Kincade, John 20 M > 12 287 Kincade, Elias 16 M > 12 287 Kincade, William 12 M > 12 287 Kincade, Mary 14 F > 12 287 Kincade, Henry 9 M > 12 287 Kincade, Blackburn 8 M > 12 287 Kincade, Jackson 4 M > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~providence/census/census1850_k.htm > --- > Connie > *In Beautiful Western Kentucky* > DNA Kincaid # 3350 > DNA Knight #N38010 > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > Connie's Links-Lots of Links-Try Them > www.angelfire.com/ky2/connie/Links.html > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > (\o/) The first duty of love is to listen. > /_\ ~ Paul Tillich~ > --- > Browse the KINCAID archives > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/?list=KINCAID > Browse the KINCAID archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/KINCAID/ > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can see where the probabilies may assist in determining a direction.  My research is in Pennsylvania forward, basically from 1680-forward and largely westward into the Province of Pennsylvania, later the state and westward and southward from Pennsylvania.  I look for connections to Ireland and Scotland.  But clear cut indications of a place of origin for most Kincaids in Pennsylvania is lacking.  There are a few exceptions: James Kinkead, the watchmaker and David Kinkead who married Martha Sproul.  There is no DNA sample for James Kinkead, the watchmaker, yet.  There is for David Kinkead who married Martha Sproul.  Peter's area is Ireland and Scotland..  He is from Ireland and Scotland forward and back ward.  My research basically stops at the Delaward River and the Atlantic Ocean.  What I see in this is Peter is looking for connections to America from Ireland and Scotland, while I am looking for connections from the other direction.  This is where these probablities may come into play.  I do not extrapolate to Ireland because that area is not my expertise.  My main focus is to sort the Kincaids in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland and if a connection to Ireland or Scotland is uncovered then Peter can interject his expertise of where in Ireland or Scotland a particular lineage originates.   Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Larry Kincaid <larryk34@gmail.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 9:16:38 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question I probably shouldn't say this, but it's a rainy day outside and I'm in a frisky mood.  So, tongue in cheek and grain of salt. As Don said, 80% means 80 out of 100 times predictions are made.  But wait a minute.  I can only make one prediction, not 100.  Only family tree can make a 100 in its data base.  I've only got one ancestor to predict: Am I in the 80 side or the incorrect 20 side?  Or just some plus or minus region around 250 years?  The generations known is simply adding evidence that one is sure can narrow down the time period further, leading to a new probability. You're still left with a range of probable dates for a common ancestor, and it's questionable whether the new probabilies help that much.  You're still looking for a connection at about the same time period.  The odd thing is, of course, is that if you can supply the new "genertional" link, then you already know more or less when the common ancestor lived!  You already know more than you can get from the refined probability. You have the genealogical data.  So, I always thought that was a bit funny. So, I'm with Peter on this one.  The sets of say 5 or even our 100 member data base can make great use of manual or computer clustering of the 25, 36, or 67 DNA markers to cluster known related members and therefore restrict the genealogical search to the right place, time, and related ancestors.  This is exactly what we use the DNA evidence to do and it does not require probabability estimates of time of common ancestor.  More useful in this respect is the scientific knowledge about how easily or often particular markers mutate.  If I'm not mistaken, these probabilites can be entered into the clustering routines in the computer to get a "weighted" cluster result.  The mutation knowledge allows a more precise clustering. Once you know this, then the two or three of you who cluster the closest in the group can search for the common ancestor.  By then I think you'd already have a good idea yourself about the age of the common ancestor. Unfortunately, it's somewhere in Ireland or Scotland just beyond everyone's known ancestors. What I'd really want to learn is how Family Tree arrives at its probabilities in the first place.  Knowing the two or thre markers that mismatch seems more useful.  So, in my opinion we're already using the DNA data the right way.  Moving from 80% to 90% or from 300 years to 250 years doesn't seem much of an improvement over the "distance of 35 out of 27 markers." This all reminds me of the two statisticians who went off to war together. In the first battle they were charged by the enemy and one shot about 5 feet to the left and the other shot 5 feet to the right.  They looked at each other and said "Got him!"  I suppose that was their last accomplishment.  So . . . this is how probabilities work?  Neighborhoods or regions of probability where something may or may not be.  Can anyone give us as good a probability of the US banking system failing if it's not given 700 billion dollars in one week?  Not even close to 80%.  Don L Kincaid, clustered in group C-2. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> wrote: > I don't think 4323 fits with 4164 and 122441. He has the mutation you do > not. You will need to show that the mutation to 18 in his line was parallel > before he can be included in John/Margaret Miles line. John did not have > the > mutation per your test and 122441. Note that I erred in listing 122441 as > from another son of George. It is John who (when 122441 is vetted) will be > known not to have the mutation. It still works out the same as > contemporaries of George/Jean do have the mutation. Otherwise your grouping > is feasible. > > There is a vetting post about to be made by Marcelle for 130629 whose test > is at the lab. There is some indication that his results could come back as > A-2b. I do hope all will take the time to go through the post and comment. > > Sue Liedtke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> >  Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:01 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Thanks, Sue. > George Kinkead & Jean Mitchell had two sons: Andrew & John. John Kinkead & > Margaret Miles had at least 3 sons, William, 4323, John 4164 & Andrew, > 122441 all of which are now represented by DNA samples. I had contacted a > descendant of Andrew, son of George, about being a DNA donor but never > heard > back. This was Jack Kinkead of Cambria County, PA. My theory now is that > the > Carlisle, Middleton Township, Tyrone Township, Toboyne Township, Cumberland > County, PA Kincaids: George, John the Merchant, Andrew the Carpenter, and > James, who I believe is the James Kinkead of Rowan County, NC, were at the > closest brothers or if not then cousins. I also believe that Andrew > Kinkead, > carpenter, was the father of Andrew and Archibald. As for sample > 5803, I have tried to figure out where he belongs and one of the few > logical > explanations attractive to me is that he may be a grandson of John Kinkead, > the merchant, through his son, Andrew. But the only heir ever mentioned for > Andrew, son of John, the merchant, was John who eventually interited the > Middleton Township plantation and died in 1822 in Carlisle. Then there is > still sample 15550 who I still believe descends from James Kinkead of West > Pennsborough/ Dickinson Township, who was a weaver, and William Kinkead > 5803 > of Rye Township was also a weaver, so he could be from James Kinkead of > West > Pennsborough as well. So what I am seeing is not only a tighter social > cluster, but a tighter DNA cluster as well. I have tried to find surveys > for > James Kinkead of West Pennsborough/Dickinson Township, and William Kinkead > of Rye Township, but so far have been unsuccessful, even to find them as > adjacent landowners. James of West Pennsborough was a >  freeman in 1774 so he was born about 1750 and would be contemporary of > Archibald & Andrew and their cousins. > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:38:24 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > Only if the 18 at DYS 456 was a mutation from early 1700's and all 2b can > trace to the same source, (perhaps a brother to George/Jean b c1733?). I > really don't think this will prove to be a troublesome marker with parallel > mutations gumming up the works. As Norman is pretty sure that 122441 is > from > George/Jean through a different son, we know that George/Jean didn't have > the mutation and that lines with the mutation believe they can trace to > ancestors b 1739, 1745 and 1749 (which would be the same generation as > George/Jean), therefore anyone with it is not a descendent of George/Jean. > > Sue Liedtke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:53 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > >I generated a Fluxus graphic based on the 67 marker results to > > date using reduced median joining with the reduction threshold > > set to 1 (ie.. to reduce parallel mutations). It clusters samples > > 4323, 5803, 49289, 4164 and 122441 together as one branch. > > Is this not in line with the relationships as understood by Norman? > > > > Peter > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Norman Kincaide > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > > > Thanks, Sue. Sample 122441 has a 17 at number 30, but has other > > mismatches with my 4164.. 122441 (this line has not been vetted yet) is > > from a descendant of Martin Kincaid, son of Andrew Kincaid, also brother > > to my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and I have a clear paper > > trail from Martin Kincaid to Andrew and Andrew Kincaid to John Kinkead > who > > died in Union Township, Erie County, PA. Andrew Kinkead of Dubois County, > > IN, sent a letter in 1832 to the Orphan's Court in Erie County, PA giving > > his brother, John Kinkead, power of attorney over the estate of their > late > > father, John Kinkead. Samuel Kincaid of Wayne Township, Erie County, PA, > > brother to John G. Kincaide, my great great grandfather, wrote to Martin > > Kincaid in reply to a letter in 1866 that concerned Andrew Kincaid's > share > > of John Kinkead's estate that clearly shows a father son, and brother > > relationship and is in Group A-2a with my sample. > > > > Sincerely > > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:55:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > Norman, I think you have to look at the pattern of mutation within our > > project as well as the sheer number of mutations between you and Treasa. > > The > > percentage information is all very interesting but is based on averages > > and > > sheer numbers so I don't really think it is anything more than a > > curiousity. > > > > The important mutation between your and Treasa's samples occurs with the > > 18 > > at marker 30. This is because there is a large representation within the > > project of those who match Treasa's sample exactly as well as others who > > also have this mutation but also have a few other scattered mutations.. > > Unless there was a parallel mutation in her line, it is unlikely she > > connects to your line before she connects to the others in A-2b. In order > > to > > show a parallel mutation she must have a representative from a proven > > brother's line for each generation until the parallel mutation is > > isolated. > > > > The eldest ancestor claims (unvetted) in A-2b (this set is based on the > > marker 30 mutation to 18) trace to James/Hanna b 1739 of Rowan Co. NC, > > Andrew/Martha Townsley b 1745 of Cumberland Co. PA, and John/Ann Gregory > > b > > 1749 of Cumberland Co. PA. In the same generation would be your > > George/Jean > > Mitchell b c1733 of Cumberland Co. PA who does not have that mutation. > > While > > it is POSSIBLE for James, Andrew and John to be brothers, George cannot > > also > > be a brother unless somewhere in your line another mutation occured which > > returned the result at marker 30 to 17. You would need a representative > > from > > a brotherly line in each generation to isolate the mutation. The CLOSEST > > your George could be with them would be first cousin, i.e. it is their > > father (George's father's brother) who had the original mutation at this > > marker and all A-2b participants, including Treasa, will ultimately trace > > to > > him. > > > > >The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > > Smith > > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > > County, > > PA in 1822.< > > > > One of you may have an error in your linkages unless either of you can > > prove > > a parallel mutation. > > > > Sue Liedtke > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> > > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:13 AM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > > > Thanks, Don. > > > > So the refinement process doesn't apply to instances of where a paper > > trail > > definitely points to a common ancester within a definite number of > > generations based upon the same DNA marker test (in my case 4164, with > > Treasa Brookman's sampel 4323). > > > > Sincerely > > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:43:51 AM > > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > First of all, the percentages given are simply the likelihood of having a > > common ancestor within a certain number of generations but the common > > ancestor predictor does not show exactly when a common ancestor will be > > found. If you have an 80% chance of having a common ancestor with a dna > > match in 8 generations back, a common ancestor could be found in a lesser > > or > > greater number of generations. In this example the 80% means that 80 > > times > > out of 100 that you will find a common ancestor within the 8 generations > > and > > that find could have occurred in any generation from 2nd to 8th. Put > > another > > way it means there will be a common ancestor found some generation within > > 8 > > generations 80% of the time. > > > > The opportunity to refine your results is for those matches for whom you > > have NOT found a common ancestor and gives you a chance to put in the > > number > > of generations you know there is not a common ancestor and the results > > will > > be refined to show you more precisely how many generations back that > > common > > ancestor will likely be found. It has no value for those matches with > > whom > > you know you have a common ancestor. > > > > "What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > > Treasa > > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations." > > > > This simply means that the percentages of having a common ancestor will > > be > > mathematically refined if you know you do not have a common ancestor in > > so > > many generations with a match and input that number of generations. The > > refinement results will show a larger number of generations to find a > > common > > ancestor so be sure to watch for the change in number of generations in > > the > > refined results as well as the percentages. > > > > "Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > > box and click on the recalculate button. > > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > > the box)" > > > > I believe the answer to this question is no. If you know you have a > > common > > ancestor there is no need to use the refinement process since you already > > know the common ancestor. > > > > "So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > > increase > > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?" > > > > The paper trail information should decrease the percentage of having a > > common ancestor within the same number of generations however remember > > Family Tree DNA changes the number of generations in the refinement > > instead > > of lowering the percentage for the same number of generations. I wish > > they > > would change the percentage and leave the number of generations the same > > since it would make comparison much easier and less confusing! > > > > Here is an example from my personal situation. In looking at the FTDNA > > probability information for my # 1427 closest dna match for 67 markers, > > James Elliott Kincaid, # 2563, FTDNA shows 85.95% likelihood of finding a > > common ancestor within 8 generations before doing a refinement. Since our > > documentation shows there cannot be a common ancestor within 7 > > generations > > we put 7 into the box and hit recalculate and see that the refinement > > shows > > a 77.76% of having a common ancestor is for the period of 7 up to 11 > > generations. It also shows that for 15 generations, the percent is > > 95.98%. > > This does not tell me which generation to expect to find a common > > ancestor > > with 2563, just the odds or likelihood of doing so within a certain > > number > > of generations. In my and Jim's case I personally believe we will find a > > common ancestor within 2 or 3 generations beyond each of our most distant > > ancestors that are known in early to mid 1700's. > > > > I should note that the refinement opportunity for each match will be for > > the > > highest number of markers dna test used for both participants so in my > > example, I cannot use the 37 marker results for anything other than the > > 4, > > 8, 12 & 16 generation percentages and if I want to refine my percentages > > I > > have to use the 67 marker results. The more markers a participant has > > been > > tested for the better the mathematical probability will be more > > meaningful. > > > > Yours aye, > > > > Don W. Kincaid > > Kincaid Surname DNA Administrator Team > > donwkincaid@cox.net > > 254 631-5684 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Norman Kincaide > > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:40 PM > > Subject: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > > > > Does anyone know what this means? It's from the Family Tree DNA website > > and > > I have read it over several times.. > > > > Refine your results with paper trail input > > > > The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA > > results, which show 2 mismatches. > > However, these results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that > > no > > common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have > > lived > > in a certain number of past generations. > > > > If you don't know this information for a fact, do not change the "1" in > > the > > box in the next paragraph. However, if you have the information, please > > enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. > > > > What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > > Treasa > > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations. > > > > And then: > > If you don't know this information for a fact (does this mean that the > > paper > > trail information does not show a common ancestor) do not change the "1" > > in > > the box. > > > > Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > > box > > and click on the recalculate button. > > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > > the box) > > > > The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > > Smith > > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > > County, > > PA in 1822. > > > > So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > > increase > > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not? > > > > Sincerely > > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes > > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To > > unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotesin the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------Tounsubscribe from the list, please send an email > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotesin the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi everyone, It has been a while since I have posted anything at all, My name is Connie Poole Hurley , I live in Kentucky and my/our DNA number is 3350. There are a few of us under that number, Y Search and Kit numbers and ours is-Kit #3350. Tamara Kincaide's husband Charles is and was our donor of his DNA Cell Swab Test. Tamara Kincaide Darlene Embry Dyane Guisto Elaine Ezell We are the descendants of John Kincade and his son David Kincade who we assume to be the son of John Kincade, since he did sigh the marriage bond for him/them. We find them in the beginning of our search in Wilson County, Tennessee. I would like to at this time say this, we do have copies of all documents that we could possibly find, from marriage bonds to death certificates, to deed, to census records. And in some instance we are beginning to gather quite a few photo's up to the present time. But we don't have David's or John's or their wives. I only wish (smile) I will not be posting very much at all,my health at this time prevents me from doing so, I am now waiting for a call from my doctor to let me know when I go to the hospital again, I have a 90 to 95% blockage in my neck on the left side, I'm not sure what will happen at this point,I could stroke out, I have opted for a Stent and not Surgery. So all prayers will be very appreciated. My email address is : hurey@myonetone.com and also conniehurley2003@yahoo.com --- John Kincade b.1760-1780 VA John appears 1820-1830 Wilson Co. Tn. Census. John was bond & witness at marriage of son ? David Kincade to Sarah/Sally McWhirter We still do not know who John is. is So we assume he is David's father. David Kincade-Born 1802 Tn. d.aft 1860 Married Feb 27 1824 Wilson Co,TN. Sally/Sarah McWhirter-Born 1808 Tn. d.aft 1860 Their Children: (1) Elizabeth E Kincade b.1828 Tn. d. aft 1900 Ky. --- (2) Hugh A. Kincade/Kinkade b.1827 Tn. d. May 1860 Butler Co. Ky. --- (3)John T. Kincade b.Oct 29 1829 Tn. d.May 4 1911 Ohio Co,Ky. --- (4) Elias J Kincade b.1834 Tn. d.aft 1880 Spencer Co. Ind. --- (5) Mary A Kincade b.Feb 2 1835 Tn. d.Oct 9 1878 Spencer Co. Ind. --- (6)William Kincade b.Oct 10 1837 Tn. --- (7) Henry H Kincade b.Oct 7 1842 Tn. d.Feb 8 1915 Warrick Co Ind. --- (8) David Blackburn Kincade b.1845 Tn. d.aft 1880 Ky. --- (9) Andrew I Kincade b.1847/48 Tn. --- Wilson Co formed from Sumner Co and was formed from Davidson Co- Davidson Co and formed from Washington Co NC --- County Facts Wilson County History and Information Date Created:October 26, 1799 County Seat: Lebanon Name Origin: Major David Wilson Formed From: Sumner County --- Source as The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture Tennessee Historical Society The Tennessee General Assembly created Wilson County on October 26, 1799. Its prehistoric heritage is rich. The Sellars temple mound on Spring Creek, for example, yielded an outstanding piece of pre-Columbian sculpture that has been the emblem of the Tennessee Archaeological Society. Europeans explored the land long before settlement: French trappers arrived as early as 1760, and the hunting party of Henry Scraggins passed through the area in 1765. John B. Walker led the first permanent settlers to Hickory Ridge, west of the present site of Lebanon, in 1794. ---------------- Sumner County History and Information Date Created:1786 County Seat: Gallatin Name Origin: General Jethro Sumner Formed From: Davidson County --- Source as "The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture Tennessee Historical Society Archaeological evidence in Sumner County indicates occupation by Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian cultures in the deep past. Two easily accessible prehistoric mounds stand at Castilian Springs, where Native Americans for centuries came to hunt the game which gathered at the springs and its salt lick. The first white long hunters included Henry, Charles, and Richard Skaggs, and Joseph Drake in 1765. Among other early explorers and long hunters were James Smith and an eighteen-year-old male mulatto slave in 1766, and Kasper Mansker, Isaac Bledsoe, and others in 1771-72. The first permanent settler was the fearless Thomas Sharp Spencer, who earned that distinction by living several months in the hollow of a sycamore tree at Bledsoe's Lick in 1776, then planting crops and building cabins from 1776 to 1779. By 1783 settlers had erected three forts--Mansker's, Bledsoe's, and Asher's--for protection against Indian attack. --------------------------------------------- Davidson County History and Information Date Created:1783 County Seat:Nashville TN Name Origin: William Lee Davidson and was Formed From:Washington County, NC Davidson County is the oldest county in Middle Tennessee. It dates to 1783, when the North Carolina legislature created the county and named it in honor of William L. Davidson, a North Carolina officer who died in the Revolutionary War on January 1, 1782. The county seat, Nashville, is also the oldest permanent white settlement in Middle Tennessee, founded by James Robertson and John Donelson during the winter of 1779-80. The initial white settlers established the Cumberland Compact in order to establish a basic rule of law and to protect their land titles. Through much of the early 1780s the settlers also faced a hostile response from Native American tribes. As the county's many known archaeological sites attest, the resources of Davidson County had attracted Native Americans for centuries. In fact, the first whites to encounter the area were fur traders, then long hunters, who came to a large salt lick, known as French Lick, in present-day Nashville to trade with Native Americans and to hunt the abundant game. Nashville has always been the region's center of commerce, industry, transportation, and culture, but it did not become the capital of Tennessee until 1827 and did not gain permanent capital status until 1843. Its story is best told through its individual entry and the hundreds of other entries in this volume that cover significant people, events, and institutions associated with Nashville as the capital city of Tennessee. --- TNWILSON Wilson County, Tennessee http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwilson/index.html --- Wilson County, Tennessee Genealogy Depot http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwcogs/ --- Wilson County Marriage Records - GROOMS KINCADE, David McWHIRTER, Sally24 Feb 182427 Feb 1824 Hardy Hunt, J.P. John Kincade http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwcogs/marriage/groomsA-L.html --- 1830 Federal Census of Wilson County, Tennessee KINCADE, John 147 01012001--10011001 http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~tnwcogs/census/1830wctK.html --- >From Wilson County Archives Rutherford County and Wilson county TN have a common boarder and the "old timers" moved freely across it during their lives there. It was a source of commerce. >> This John Kincaid in the 1820 census could have been on both sides at different times. The eastern end of the Wilson/Rutherford line moved north just a bit in 1815. It's possible these folks changed counties without moving. --- And then we find them here in Sumner County, Tennesse in 150 1850 Sumner County, Tennessee Federal Census Indexed Individuals [ K ] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~providence/census/census1850_k.htm --- 1850 Sumner County, Tennessee Federal Census Transcription Transcribed in 1997/1999/2000 by Linda Carpenter, Jan Johnson Barnes, Marie Johnson, and E. J. Keen http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~providence/census/census1850ndx.htm --- District 12 12 287 Kincade, David 48 M 12 287 Kincade, Sarah 42 F 12 287 Kincade, Hugh 25 M 12 287 Kincade, Elizabeth 21 F 12 287 Kincade, John 20 M 12 287 Kincade, Elias 16 M 12 287 Kincade, William 12 M 12 287 Kincade, Mary 14 F 12 287 Kincade, Henry 9 M 12 287 Kincade, Blackburn 8 M 12 287 Kincade, Jackson 4 M http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~providence/census/census1850_k.htm --- Connie *In Beautiful Western Kentucky* DNA Kincaid # 3350 DNA Knight #N38010 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Connie's Links-Lots of Links-Try Them www.angelfire.com/ky2/connie/Links.html ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (\o/) The first duty of love is to listen. /_\ ~ Paul Tillich~ --- Browse the KINCAID archives http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/?list=KINCAID Browse the KINCAID archives http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/KINCAID/

Dear Kincaid-listers, I have taken another look at the John Kincaids in the Pennsylvania Continental line.  I have already identified the John Kincaid, private or matross, in the Artillery Artificer Regiment, who was stationed the Carlisle Munitions Lab, and who later died in Butler County, PA in 1814. Then there is a John Kincaid who is a private in Capt. William Wilson's Company, 1780 John Kinkead, [000024] private, in Capt. William Wilson’s Company, 1st Penn. Regiment, commanded by         Col. James Chambers, from Sept.-Oct. 1780. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, v. 23, p.364. 1780 John Kenkead, private, engaged, June 28th, expires, January 15th 1781, Muster Roll of Capt. William                 Wilson’s Company, 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Continental Line in the service of the United States of                 America, commanded by Col. James Chambers for months of Sept. & October 1780.  Pennsylvania                     Archives, s. 6, v. 2, p. 848. 1780 John Kinkead, [000024] private, discharged from Capt. William Wilson’s Company, a seven month man from         1780, Joseph Howell, Jr., assistant Commisary of accounts Pay Office Philadelphia, PA May 17, 1785, to         John Nichelson, Esq.  Pennsylvania Archives, s. 6, v. 2, p. 852. 1781 John Kinkead, [000024] private, Capt. William Wilson’s Company, 1st Penn. Regiment from the enlistment         of 1780, discharged, January 15, 1781. Pennsylvania Archives, s. v. p. 1785 John Kinkead, Capt. William Wilson, 1st Regiment, 7 months man, discharged, return of men enlisted for             seven months in the Penn. Line, Pay Office, Philadelphia, 17 May 1785.  Active Duty Line.  Record Proves         Active Duty.  Pennsylvania State Archives Online Card File I believe this John Kincaid to be my John Kincaid who married Margaret Miles and serves with his brother who was a corporal. 1780 Andrew Kinkead, Corp. Capt. William Wilson’s Company, 1st Regiment Pennsylvania in the service of                 the   United States Commanded by Col. James Chambers for months of September and October, 1780.              Pennsylvania Archives, s. 3, vol. 23, p. 364. Then there is a younger John Kincaid who enlists in 1781. 1781 John Kinkead, inlisted for Class No. 131 for 18 mo. From the 1st of July, 1781, aged about 18 yrs., 5 feet 8         inches high, sandy col'd hair, fair complexion, born in Cumberland county, a laborer. 30th August, 1781.              Notes and Queries edited by William Henry Egle, 1900, p. 200. 1781 John Kinkaid, [000024] private, in Col. Craig’s detachment, 1st Penn. Regiment Continental Line, in                     Jackson’s Company, 1st Regiment, 1781,  transferred to Zigler’s Company, 1782. Pennsylvania Archives, s.         5, v. 2, p. 753. John Kincaid, artificer was in Isaac Craig's detachment under General William Irvine stationed at Fort Pitt. 1782 John Kinkead, [000024] artificer, on roll of Major Isaac Craig’s Detachment, 4th Penn. Regiment for                     Feb.1782, December 1782, & March 1783, stationed at Fort Pitt. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 5, v. 3, p. 1059. 1782 John Kincaid, [000024] private, carpenter, on return of Capt. Thomas Wylie’s Company, Penn. Corps of             Artillery & Artificers stationed at Fort Pitt, November 1, 1782. Pennsylvania Archives, s. 5, v. 3, p. 1096;             Record proves active duty. Pennsylvania State Archives Online Card File I had thought that the John Kincaid serving in Capt. William Wilson's company was the same John Kincaid who enlisted for 18 months with Capt. Jackson then with Capt. David Zigler's Company.  But David Zigler's Company marched with Col. Thomas Craig's detachment on the campaign in the Carolinas and Charlston from Jan.-Nov. 1782.  I now believe that Private John Kincaid in Capt. David Zigler's is a different man than the John Kincaid who served in Capt. William Wilson's Company and was not re-enlisting after his discharge for Capt. William Wilson's company. My John Kincaid was married Oct. 31, 1782.  The John Kincaid in Capt. David Zigler's Company was in the Carolinas from Jan. 1782 to as late as Nov. 1782. Another interesting item is that John Jordan was Capt. stationed at the Carlisle Muntions Lab from 1777 to 1783. John Jordan was guardian of John Kincaid, son of Andrew, grandson of John Kinkead, the merchant and was an executor of John Kinkead the merchant's estate. Sincerely Norman Kincaide

I don't think 4323 fits with 4164 and 122441. He has the mutation you do not. You will need to show that the mutation to 18 in his line was parallel before he can be included in John/Margaret Miles line. John did not have the mutation per your test and 122441. Note that I erred in listing 122441 as from another son of George. It is John who (when 122441 is vetted) will be known not to have the mutation. It still works out the same as contemporaries of George/Jean do have the mutation. Otherwise your grouping is feasible. There is a vetting post about to be made by Marcelle for 130629 whose test is at the lab. There is some indication that his results could come back as A-2b. I do hope all will take the time to go through the post and comment. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Thanks, Sue. George Kinkead & Jean Mitchell had two sons: Andrew & John. John Kinkead & Margaret Miles had at least 3 sons, William, 4323, John 4164 & Andrew, 122441 all of which are now represented by DNA samples. I had contacted a descendant of Andrew, son of George, about being a DNA donor but never heard back. This was Jack Kinkead of Cambria County, PA. My theory now is that the Carlisle, Middleton Township, Tyrone Township, Toboyne Township, Cumberland County, PA Kincaids: George, John the Merchant, Andrew the Carpenter, and James, who I believe is the James Kinkead of Rowan County, NC, were at the closest brothers or if not then cousins. I also believe that Andrew Kinkead, carpenter, was the father of Andrew and Archibald. As for sample 5803, I have tried to figure out where he belongs and one of the few logical explanations attractive to me is that he may be a grandson of John Kinkead, the merchant, through his son, Andrew. But the only heir ever mentioned for Andrew, son of John, the merchant, was John who eventually interited the Middleton Township plantation and died in 1822 in Carlisle. Then there is still sample 15550 who I still believe descends from James Kinkead of West Pennsborough/ Dickinson Township, who was a weaver, and William Kinkead 5803 of Rye Township was also a weaver, so he could be from James Kinkead of West Pennsborough as well. So what I am seeing is not only a tighter social cluster, but a tighter DNA cluster as well. I have tried to find surveys for James Kinkead of West Pennsborough/Dickinson Township, and William Kinkead of Rye Township, but so far have been unsuccessful, even to find them as adjacent landowners. James of West Pennsborough was a freeman in 1774 so he was born about 1750 and would be contemporary of Archibald & Andrew and their cousins. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:38:24 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Only if the 18 at DYS 456 was a mutation from early 1700's and all 2b can trace to the same source, (perhaps a brother to George/Jean b c1733?). I really don't think this will prove to be a troublesome marker with parallel mutations gumming up the works. As Norman is pretty sure that 122441 is from George/Jean through a different son, we know that George/Jean didn't have the mutation and that lines with the mutation believe they can trace to ancestors b 1739, 1745 and 1749 (which would be the same generation as George/Jean), therefore anyone with it is not a descendent of George/Jean. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question >I generated a Fluxus graphic based on the 67 marker results to > date using reduced median joining with the reduction threshold > set to 1 (ie. to reduce parallel mutations). It clusters samples > 4323, 5803, 49289, 4164 and 122441 together as one branch. > Is this not in line with the relationships as understood by Norman? > > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Norman Kincaide > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:34 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Thanks, Sue. Sample 122441 has a 17 at number 30, but has other > mismatches with my 4164. 122441 (this line has not been vetted yet) is > from a descendant of Martin Kincaid, son of Andrew Kincaid, also brother > to my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and I have a clear paper > trail from Martin Kincaid to Andrew and Andrew Kincaid to John Kinkead who > died in Union Township, Erie County, PA. Andrew Kinkead of Dubois County, > IN, sent a letter in 1832 to the Orphan's Court in Erie County, PA giving > his brother, John Kinkead, power of attorney over the estate of their late > father, John Kinkead. Samuel Kincaid of Wayne Township, Erie County, PA, > brother to John G. Kincaide, my great great grandfather, wrote to Martin > Kincaid in reply to a letter in 1866 that concerned Andrew Kincaid's share > of John Kinkead's estate that clearly shows a father son, and brother > relationship and is in Group A-2a with my sample. > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:55:25 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > Norman, I think you have to look at the pattern of mutation within our > project as well as the sheer number of mutations between you and Treasa. > The > percentage information is all very interesting but is based on averages > and > sheer numbers so I don't really think it is anything more than a > curiousity. > > The important mutation between your and Treasa's samples occurs with the > 18 > at marker 30. This is because there is a large representation within the > project of those who match Treasa's sample exactly as well as others who > also have this mutation but also have a few other scattered mutations.. > Unless there was a parallel mutation in her line, it is unlikely she > connects to your line before she connects to the others in A-2b. In order > to > show a parallel mutation she must have a representative from a proven > brother's line for each generation until the parallel mutation is > isolated. > > The eldest ancestor claims (unvetted) in A-2b (this set is based on the > marker 30 mutation to 18) trace to James/Hanna b 1739 of Rowan Co. NC, > Andrew/Martha Townsley b 1745 of Cumberland Co. PA, and John/Ann Gregory > b > 1749 of Cumberland Co. PA. In the same generation would be your > George/Jean > Mitchell b c1733 of Cumberland Co. PA who does not have that mutation. > While > it is POSSIBLE for James, Andrew and John to be brothers, George cannot > also > be a brother unless somewhere in your line another mutation occured which > returned the result at marker 30 to 17. You would need a representative > from > a brotherly line in each generation to isolate the mutation. The CLOSEST > your George could be with them would be first cousin, i.e. it is their > father (George's father's brother) who had the original mutation at this > marker and all A-2b participants, including Treasa, will ultimately trace > to > him. > > >The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > Smith > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > County, > PA in 1822.< > > One of you may have an error in your linkages unless either of you can > prove > a parallel mutation. > > Sue Liedtke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:13 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Thanks, Don. > > So the refinement process doesn't apply to instances of where a paper > trail > definitely points to a common ancester within a definite number of > generations based upon the same DNA marker test (in my case 4164, with > Treasa Brookman's sampel 4323). > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:43:51 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > First of all, the percentages given are simply the likelihood of having a > common ancestor within a certain number of generations but the common > ancestor predictor does not show exactly when a common ancestor will be > found. If you have an 80% chance of having a common ancestor with a dna > match in 8 generations back, a common ancestor could be found in a lesser > or > greater number of generations. In this example the 80% means that 80 > times > out of 100 that you will find a common ancestor within the 8 generations > and > that find could have occurred in any generation from 2nd to 8th. Put > another > way it means there will be a common ancestor found some generation within > 8 > generations 80% of the time. > > The opportunity to refine your results is for those matches for whom you > have NOT found a common ancestor and gives you a chance to put in the > number > of generations you know there is not a common ancestor and the results > will > be refined to show you more precisely how many generations back that > common > ancestor will likely be found. It has no value for those matches with > whom > you know you have a common ancestor. > > "What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > Treasa > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations." > > This simply means that the percentages of having a common ancestor will > be > mathematically refined if you know you do not have a common ancestor in > so > many generations with a match and input that number of generations. The > refinement results will show a larger number of generations to find a > common > ancestor so be sure to watch for the change in number of generations in > the > refined results as well as the percentages. > > "Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > box and click on the recalculate button. > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > the box)" > > I believe the answer to this question is no. If you know you have a > common > ancestor there is no need to use the refinement process since you already > know the common ancestor. > > "So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > increase > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?" > > The paper trail information should decrease the percentage of having a > common ancestor within the same number of generations however remember > Family Tree DNA changes the number of generations in the refinement > instead > of lowering the percentage for the same number of generations. I wish > they > would change the percentage and leave the number of generations the same > since it would make comparison much easier and less confusing! > > Here is an example from my personal situation. In looking at the FTDNA > probability information for my # 1427 closest dna match for 67 markers, > James Elliott Kincaid, # 2563, FTDNA shows 85.95% likelihood of finding a > common ancestor within 8 generations before doing a refinement. Since our > documentation shows there cannot be a common ancestor within 7 > generations > we put 7 into the box and hit recalculate and see that the refinement > shows > a 77.76% of having a common ancestor is for the period of 7 up to 11 > generations. It also shows that for 15 generations, the percent is > 95.98%. > This does not tell me which generation to expect to find a common > ancestor > with 2563, just the odds or likelihood of doing so within a certain > number > of generations. In my and Jim's case I personally believe we will find a > common ancestor within 2 or 3 generations beyond each of our most distant > ancestors that are known in early to mid 1700's. > > I should note that the refinement opportunity for each match will be for > the > highest number of markers dna test used for both participants so in my > example, I cannot use the 37 marker results for anything other than the > 4, > 8, 12 & 16 generation percentages and if I want to refine my percentages > I > have to use the 67 marker results. The more markers a participant has > been > tested for the better the mathematical probability will be more > meaningful. > > Yours aye, > > Don W. Kincaid > Kincaid Surname DNA Administrator Team > donwkincaid@cox.net > 254 631-5684 > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Norman Kincaide > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:40 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Does anyone know what this means? It's from the Family Tree DNA website > and > I have read it over several times.. > > Refine your results with paper trail input > > The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA > results, which show 2 mismatches. > However, these results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that > no > common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have > lived > in a certain number of past generations. > > If you don't know this information for a fact, do not change the "1" in > the > box in the next paragraph. However, if you have the information, please > enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. > > What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > Treasa > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations. > > And then: > If you don't know this information for a fact (does this mean that the > paper > trail information does not show a common ancestor) do not change the "1" > in > the box. > > Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > box > and click on the recalculate button. > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > the box) > > The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > Smith > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > County, > PA in 1822. > > So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > increase > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not? > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To > unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotesin the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotesin the subject and the body of the message

Thanks, Sue. George Kinkead & Jean Mitchell had two sons: Andrew & John.  John Kinkead & Margaret Miles had at least 3 sons, William, 4323, John 4164 & Andrew, 122441 all of which are now represented by DNA samples.  I had contacted a descendant of Andrew, son of George, about being a DNA donor but never heard back.  This was Jack Kinkead of Cambria County, PA.  My theory now is that the Carlisle, Middleton Township, Tyrone Township, Toboyne Township, Cumberland County, PA Kincaids: George, John, the Merchant, Andrew the Carpenter, and James, who I believe is the James Kinkead of Rowan County, NC, were at the closest brothers or if not then cousins.  I also believe that Andrew Kinkead, carpenter, was the father of Andrew and Archibald.  As for sample 5803, I have tried to figure out where he belongs and one of the few logical explanations attractive to me is that he may be a grandson of John Kinkead, the merchant, through his son, Andrew.  But the only heir ever mentioned for Andrew, son of John, the merchant, was John who eventually interited the Middleton Township plantation and died in 1822 in Carlisle.  Then there is still sample 15550 who I still believe descends from James Kinkead of West Pennsborough/ Dickinson Township, who was a weaver, and William Kinkead 5803 of Rye Township was also a weaver, so he could be from James Kinkead of West Pennsborough as well.  So what I am seeing is not only a tighter social cluster, but a tighter DNA cluster as well.  I have tried to find surveys for James Kinkead of West Pennsborough/Dickinson Township, and William Kinkead of Rye Township, but so far have been unsuccessful, even to find them as adjacent landowners.  James of West Pennsborough was a freeman in 1774 so he was born about 1750 and would be contemporary of Archibald & Andrew and their cousins. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:38:24 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Only if the 18 at DYS 456 was a mutation from early 1700's and all 2b can trace to the same source, (perhaps a brother to George/Jean b c1733?). I really don't think this will prove to be a troublesome marker with parallel mutations gumming up the works. As Norman is pretty sure that 122441 is from George/Jean through a different son, we know that George/Jean didn't have the mutation and that lines with the mutation believe they can trace to ancestors b 1739, 1745 and 1749 (which would be the same generation as George/Jean), therefore anyone with it is not a descendent of George/Jean. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question >I generated a Fluxus graphic based on the 67 marker results to > date using reduced median joining with the reduction threshold > set to 1 (ie. to reduce parallel mutations).  It clusters samples > 4323, 5803, 49289, 4164 and 122441 together as one branch. > Is this not in line with the relationships as understood by Norman? > > Peter > >  ----- Original Message ----- >  From: Norman Kincaide >  To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >  Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:34 PM >  Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > >  Thanks, Sue. Sample 122441 has a 17 at number 30, but has other > mismatches with my 4164. 122441 (this line has not been vetted yet) is > from a descendant of Martin Kincaid, son of Andrew Kincaid, also brother > to my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and I have a clear paper > trail from Martin Kincaid to Andrew and Andrew Kincaid to John Kinkead who > died in Union Township, Erie County, PA. Andrew Kinkead of Dubois County, > IN, sent a letter in 1832 to the Orphan's Court in Erie County, PA giving > his brother, John Kinkead, power of attorney over the estate of their late > father, John Kinkead. Samuel Kincaid of Wayne Township, Erie County, PA, > brother to John G. Kincaide, my great great grandfather, wrote to Martin > Kincaid in reply to a letter in 1866 that concerned Andrew Kincaid's share > of John Kinkead's estate that clearly shows a father son, and brother > relationship and is in Group A-2a with my sample. > >  Sincerely >  Norman Kincaide > > > >  ----- Original Message ---- >  From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> >  To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >  Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:55:25 PM >  Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > >  Norman, I think you have to look at the pattern of mutation within our >  project as well as the sheer number of mutations between you and Treasa. > The >  percentage information is all very interesting but is based on averages > and >  sheer numbers so I don't really think it is anything more than a > curiousity. > >  The important mutation between your and Treasa's samples occurs with the > 18 >  at marker 30. This is because there is a large representation within the >  project of those who match Treasa's sample exactly as well as others who >  also have this mutation but also have a few other scattered mutations.. >  Unless there was a parallel mutation in her line, it is unlikely she >  connects to your line before she connects to the others in A-2b. In order > to >  show a parallel mutation she must have a representative from a proven >  brother's line for each generation until the parallel mutation is > isolated. > >  The eldest ancestor claims (unvetted) in A-2b (this set is based on the >  marker 30 mutation to 18) trace to James/Hanna b 1739 of Rowan Co. NC, >  Andrew/Martha Townsley b 1745 of Cumberland Co. PA, and John/Ann Gregory > b >  1749 of Cumberland Co. PA. In the same generation would be your > George/Jean >  Mitchell b c1733 of Cumberland Co. PA who does not have that mutation. > While >  it is POSSIBLE for James, Andrew and John to be brothers, George cannot > also >  be a brother unless somewhere in your line another mutation occured which >  returned the result at marker 30 to 17. You would need a representative > from >  a brotherly line in each generation to isolate the mutation. The CLOSEST >  your George could be with them would be first cousin, i.e. it is their >  father (George's father's brother) who had the original mutation at this >  marker and all A-2b participants, including Treasa, will ultimately trace > to >  him. > >  >The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > Smith >  and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John >  Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > County, >  PA in 1822.< > >  One of you may have an error in your linkages unless either of you can > prove >  a parallel mutation. > >  Sue Liedtke > > >  ----- Original Message ----- >  From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> >  To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> >  Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:13 AM >  Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > >  Thanks, Don. > >  So the refinement process doesn't apply to instances of where a paper > trail >  definitely points to a common ancester within a definite number of >  generations based upon the same DNA marker test (in my case 4164, with >  Treasa Brookman's sampel 4323). > >  Sincerely >  Norman Kincaide > > > >  ----- Original Message ---- >  From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> >  To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >  Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:43:51 AM >  Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > >  First of all, the percentages given are simply the likelihood of having a >  common ancestor within a certain number of generations but the common >  ancestor predictor does not show exactly when a common ancestor will be >  found. If you have an 80% chance of having a common ancestor with a dna >  match in 8 generations back, a common ancestor could be found in a lesser > or >  greater number of generations. In this example the 80% means that 80 > times >  out of 100 that you will find a common ancestor within the 8 generations > and >  that find could have occurred in any generation from 2nd to 8th. Put > another >  way it means there will be a common ancestor found some generation within > 8 >  generations 80% of the time. > >  The opportunity to refine your results is for those matches for whom you >  have NOT found a common ancestor and gives you a chance to put in the > number >  of generations you know there is not a common ancestor and the results > will >  be refined to show you more precisely how many generations back that > common >  ancestor will likely be found. It has no value for those matches with > whom >  you know you have a common ancestor. > >  "What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper >  trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > Treasa >  Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations." > >  This simply means that the percentages of having a common ancestor will > be >  mathematically refined if you know you do not have a common ancestor in > so >  many generations with a match and input that number of generations. The >  refinement results will show a larger number of generations to find a > common >  ancestor so be sure to watch for the change in number of generations in > the >  refined results as well as the percentages. > >  "Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the >  box and click on the recalculate button. >  (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa >  Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in >  the box)" > >  I believe the answer to this question is no. If you know you have a > common >  ancestor there is no need to use the refinement process since you already >  know the common ancestor. > >  "So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > increase >  the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?" > >  The paper trail information should decrease the percentage of having a >  common ancestor within the same number of generations however remember >  Family Tree DNA changes the number of generations in the refinement > instead >  of lowering the percentage for the same number of generations. I wish > they >  would change the percentage and leave the number of generations the same >  since it would make comparison much easier and less confusing! > >  Here is an example from my personal situation. In looking at the FTDNA >  probability information for my # 1427 closest dna match for 67 markers, >  James Elliott Kincaid, # 2563, FTDNA shows 85.95% likelihood of finding a >  common ancestor within 8 generations before doing a refinement. Since our >  documentation shows there cannot be a common ancestor within 7 > generations >  we put 7 into the box and hit recalculate and see that the refinement > shows >  a 77.76% of having a common ancestor is for the period of 7 up to 11 >  generations. It also shows that for 15 generations, the percent is > 95.98%. >  This does not tell me which generation to expect to find a common > ancestor >  with 2563, just the odds or likelihood of doing so within a certain > number >  of generations. In my and Jim's case I personally believe we will find a >  common ancestor within 2 or 3 generations beyond each of our most distant >  ancestors that are known in early to mid 1700's. > >  I should note that the refinement opportunity for each match will be for > the >  highest number of markers dna test used for both participants so in my >  example, I cannot use the 37 marker results for anything other than the > 4, >  8, 12 & 16 generation percentages and if I want to refine my percentages > I >  have to use the 67 marker results. The more markers a participant has > been >  tested for the better the mathematical probability will be more > meaningful. > >  Yours aye, > >  Don W. Kincaid >  Kincaid Surname DNA Administrator Team >  donwkincaid@cox.net >  254 631-5684 > > > > > > > >  ----- Original Message ----- >  From: Norman Kincaide >  To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >  Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:40 PM >  Subject: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > >  Does anyone know what this means? It's from the Family Tree DNA website > and >  I have read it over several times.. > >  Refine your results with paper trail input > >  The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA >  results, which show 2 mismatches. >  However, these results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that > no >  common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have > lived >  in a certain number of past generations. > >  If you don't know this information for a fact, do not change the "1" in > the >  box in the next paragraph. However, if you have the information, please >  enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. > >  What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper >  trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > Treasa >  Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations. > >  And then: >  If you don't know this information for a fact (does this mean that the > paper >  trail information does not show a common ancestor) do not change the "1" > in >  the box. > >  Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > box >  and click on the recalculate button. >  (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa >  Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in >  the box) > >  The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > Smith >  and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John >  Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > County, >  PA in 1822. > >  So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > increase >  the percentage of having a common ancestor or not? > >  Sincerely >  Norman Kincaide > > > > > >  To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > >  ------------------------------- >  To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >  KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes >  in the subject and the body of the message >  To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > >  ------------------------------- >  To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >  KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes >  in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > >  To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To > unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotesin the subject and the body of the message >  To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > >  ------------------------------- >  To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > >  To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > >  ------------------------------- >  To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Only if the 18 at DYS 456 was a mutation from early 1700's and all 2b can trace to the same source, (perhaps a brother to George/Jean b c1733?). I really don't think this will prove to be a troublesome marker with parallel mutations gumming up the works. As Norman is pretty sure that 122441 is from George/Jean through a different son, we know that George/Jean didn't have the mutation and that lines with the mutation believe they can trace to ancestors b 1739, 1745 and 1749 (which would be the same generation as George/Jean), therefore anyone with it is not a descendent of George/Jean. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question >I generated a Fluxus graphic based on the 67 marker results to > date using reduced median joining with the reduction threshold > set to 1 (ie. to reduce parallel mutations). It clusters samples > 4323, 5803, 49289, 4164 and 122441 together as one branch. > Is this not in line with the relationships as understood by Norman? > > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Norman Kincaide > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:34 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Thanks, Sue. Sample 122441 has a 17 at number 30, but has other > mismatches with my 4164. 122441 (this line has not been vetted yet) is > from a descendant of Martin Kincaid, son of Andrew Kincaid, also brother > to my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and I have a clear paper > trail from Martin Kincaid to Andrew and Andrew Kincaid to John Kinkead who > died in Union Township, Erie County, PA. Andrew Kinkead of Dubois County, > IN, sent a letter in 1832 to the Orphan's Court in Erie County, PA giving > his brother, John Kinkead, power of attorney over the estate of their late > father, John Kinkead. Samuel Kincaid of Wayne Township, Erie County, PA, > brother to John G. Kincaide, my great great grandfather, wrote to Martin > Kincaid in reply to a letter in 1866 that concerned Andrew Kincaid's share > of John Kinkead's estate that clearly shows a father son, and brother > relationship and is in Group A-2a with my sample. > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:55:25 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > Norman, I think you have to look at the pattern of mutation within our > project as well as the sheer number of mutations between you and Treasa. > The > percentage information is all very interesting but is based on averages > and > sheer numbers so I don't really think it is anything more than a > curiousity. > > The important mutation between your and Treasa's samples occurs with the > 18 > at marker 30. This is because there is a large representation within the > project of those who match Treasa's sample exactly as well as others who > also have this mutation but also have a few other scattered mutations.. > Unless there was a parallel mutation in her line, it is unlikely she > connects to your line before she connects to the others in A-2b. In order > to > show a parallel mutation she must have a representative from a proven > brother's line for each generation until the parallel mutation is > isolated. > > The eldest ancestor claims (unvetted) in A-2b (this set is based on the > marker 30 mutation to 18) trace to James/Hanna b 1739 of Rowan Co. NC, > Andrew/Martha Townsley b 1745 of Cumberland Co. PA, and John/Ann Gregory > b > 1749 of Cumberland Co. PA. In the same generation would be your > George/Jean > Mitchell b c1733 of Cumberland Co. PA who does not have that mutation. > While > it is POSSIBLE for James, Andrew and John to be brothers, George cannot > also > be a brother unless somewhere in your line another mutation occured which > returned the result at marker 30 to 17. You would need a representative > from > a brotherly line in each generation to isolate the mutation. The CLOSEST > your George could be with them would be first cousin, i.e. it is their > father (George's father's brother) who had the original mutation at this > marker and all A-2b participants, including Treasa, will ultimately trace > to > him. > > >The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > Smith > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > County, > PA in 1822.< > > One of you may have an error in your linkages unless either of you can > prove > a parallel mutation. > > Sue Liedtke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:13 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Thanks, Don. > > So the refinement process doesn't apply to instances of where a paper > trail > definitely points to a common ancester within a definite number of > generations based upon the same DNA marker test (in my case 4164, with > Treasa Brookman's sampel 4323). > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:43:51 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > First of all, the percentages given are simply the likelihood of having a > common ancestor within a certain number of generations but the common > ancestor predictor does not show exactly when a common ancestor will be > found. If you have an 80% chance of having a common ancestor with a dna > match in 8 generations back, a common ancestor could be found in a lesser > or > greater number of generations. In this example the 80% means that 80 > times > out of 100 that you will find a common ancestor within the 8 generations > and > that find could have occurred in any generation from 2nd to 8th. Put > another > way it means there will be a common ancestor found some generation within > 8 > generations 80% of the time. > > The opportunity to refine your results is for those matches for whom you > have NOT found a common ancestor and gives you a chance to put in the > number > of generations you know there is not a common ancestor and the results > will > be refined to show you more precisely how many generations back that > common > ancestor will likely be found. It has no value for those matches with > whom > you know you have a common ancestor. > > "What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > Treasa > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations." > > This simply means that the percentages of having a common ancestor will > be > mathematically refined if you know you do not have a common ancestor in > so > many generations with a match and input that number of generations. The > refinement results will show a larger number of generations to find a > common > ancestor so be sure to watch for the change in number of generations in > the > refined results as well as the percentages. > > "Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > box and click on the recalculate button. > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > the box)" > > I believe the answer to this question is no. If you know you have a > common > ancestor there is no need to use the refinement process since you already > know the common ancestor. > > "So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > increase > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?" > > The paper trail information should decrease the percentage of having a > common ancestor within the same number of generations however remember > Family Tree DNA changes the number of generations in the refinement > instead > of lowering the percentage for the same number of generations. I wish > they > would change the percentage and leave the number of generations the same > since it would make comparison much easier and less confusing! > > Here is an example from my personal situation. In looking at the FTDNA > probability information for my # 1427 closest dna match for 67 markers, > James Elliott Kincaid, # 2563, FTDNA shows 85.95% likelihood of finding a > common ancestor within 8 generations before doing a refinement. Since our > documentation shows there cannot be a common ancestor within 7 > generations > we put 7 into the box and hit recalculate and see that the refinement > shows > a 77.76% of having a common ancestor is for the period of 7 up to 11 > generations. It also shows that for 15 generations, the percent is > 95.98%. > This does not tell me which generation to expect to find a common > ancestor > with 2563, just the odds or likelihood of doing so within a certain > number > of generations. In my and Jim's case I personally believe we will find a > common ancestor within 2 or 3 generations beyond each of our most distant > ancestors that are known in early to mid 1700's. > > I should note that the refinement opportunity for each match will be for > the > highest number of markers dna test used for both participants so in my > example, I cannot use the 37 marker results for anything other than the > 4, > 8, 12 & 16 generation percentages and if I want to refine my percentages > I > have to use the 67 marker results. The more markers a participant has > been > tested for the better the mathematical probability will be more > meaningful. > > Yours aye, > > Don W. Kincaid > Kincaid Surname DNA Administrator Team > donwkincaid@cox.net > 254 631-5684 > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Norman Kincaide > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:40 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Does anyone know what this means? It's from the Family Tree DNA website > and > I have read it over several times.. > > Refine your results with paper trail input > > The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA > results, which show 2 mismatches. > However, these results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that > no > common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have > lived > in a certain number of past generations. > > If you don't know this information for a fact, do not change the "1" in > the > box in the next paragraph. However, if you have the information, please > enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. > > What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper > trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and > Treasa > Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations. > > And then: > If you don't know this information for a fact (does this mean that the > paper > trail information does not show a common ancestor) do not change the "1" > in > the box. > > Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the > box > and click on the recalculate button. > (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa > Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in > the box) > > The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth > Smith > and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John > Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie > County, > PA in 1822. > > So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information > increase > the percentage of having a common ancestor or not? > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To > unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotesin the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Peter, with only the first 12 markers returned it is really too early to tell anything. 128809 so far is only 1 marker off from the Atlantic Model RBI. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] New FTDNA results for 128809 > So far 128809 is just one mutation off from sample 95627. Perhaps > a new cluster will emerge. Do you have any info on the earliest > known ancestor of either 128809 or 95627? > > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sue Liedtke > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:13 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] New FTDNA results for 128809 > > > The first panel (markers 1-12) of the 37 marker test ordered by 128809 > have > been returned. They are several weeks earlier than estimated so FTDNA is > up > and functioning. > > So far he does not match exactly any other member of the project. The > 1-12 > markers do not give a good picture of what the overall result will look > like > so I will refrain from comment until more panels are returned. > > Sue Liedtke > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I just tried the two email addresses I had for Connie Poole Hurley, but both emails bounced back to me with the addresses being no good. Connie unsubbed from the list awhile back right after some really bad weather in her area and never resubscribed. I also miss her and hope she is well. Ruth Cherecwich In a message dated 9/25/2008 7:59:10 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, tbrook@hamiltoncom.net writes: I haven't heard from Connie Poole for a long time. Is she OK? she used to send in things she found. I know at one time she had some health problems. I Hope she is OK. Treasa -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid %20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)

I generated a Fluxus graphic based on the 67 marker results to date using reduced median joining with the reduction threshold set to 1 (ie. to reduce parallel mutations). It clusters samples 4323, 5803, 49289, 4164 and 122441 together as one branch. Is this not in line with the relationships as understood by Norman? Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Norman Kincaide To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Thanks, Sue. Sample 122441 has a 17 at number 30, but has other mismatches with my 4164. 122441 (this line has not been vetted yet) is from a descendant of Martin Kincaid, son of Andrew Kincaid, also brother to my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and I have a clear paper trail from Martin Kincaid to Andrew and Andrew Kincaid to John Kinkead who died in Union Township, Erie County, PA. Andrew Kinkead of Dubois County, IN, sent a letter in 1832 to the Orphan's Court in Erie County, PA giving his brother, John Kinkead, power of attorney over the estate of their late father, John Kinkead. Samuel Kincaid of Wayne Township, Erie County, PA, brother to John G. Kincaide, my great great grandfather, wrote to Martin Kincaid in reply to a letter in 1866 that concerned Andrew Kincaid's share of John Kinkead's estate that clearly shows a father son, and brother relationship and is in Group A-2a with my sample. Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:55:25 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Norman, I think you have to look at the pattern of mutation within our project as well as the sheer number of mutations between you and Treasa. The percentage information is all very interesting but is based on averages and sheer numbers so I don't really think it is anything more than a curiousity. The important mutation between your and Treasa's samples occurs with the 18 at marker 30. This is because there is a large representation within the project of those who match Treasa's sample exactly as well as others who also have this mutation but also have a few other scattered mutations.. Unless there was a parallel mutation in her line, it is unlikely she connects to your line before she connects to the others in A-2b. In order to show a parallel mutation she must have a representative from a proven brother's line for each generation until the parallel mutation is isolated. The eldest ancestor claims (unvetted) in A-2b (this set is based on the marker 30 mutation to 18) trace to James/Hanna b 1739 of Rowan Co. NC, Andrew/Martha Townsley b 1745 of Cumberland Co. PA, and John/Ann Gregory b 1749 of Cumberland Co. PA. In the same generation would be your George/Jean Mitchell b c1733 of Cumberland Co. PA who does not have that mutation. While it is POSSIBLE for James, Andrew and John to be brothers, George cannot also be a brother unless somewhere in your line another mutation occured which returned the result at marker 30 to 17. You would need a representative from a brotherly line in each generation to isolate the mutation. The CLOSEST your George could be with them would be first cousin, i.e. it is their father (George's father's brother) who had the original mutation at this marker and all A-2b participants, including Treasa, will ultimately trace to him. >The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie County, PA in 1822.< One of you may have an error in your linkages unless either of you can prove a parallel mutation. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Thanks, Don. So the refinement process doesn't apply to instances of where a paper trail definitely points to a common ancester within a definite number of generations based upon the same DNA marker test (in my case 4164, with Treasa Brookman's sampel 4323). Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:43:51 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question First of all, the percentages given are simply the likelihood of having a common ancestor within a certain number of generations but the common ancestor predictor does not show exactly when a common ancestor will be found. If you have an 80% chance of having a common ancestor with a dna match in 8 generations back, a common ancestor could be found in a lesser or greater number of generations. In this example the 80% means that 80 times out of 100 that you will find a common ancestor within the 8 generations and that find could have occurred in any generation from 2nd to 8th. Put another way it means there will be a common ancestor found some generation within 8 generations 80% of the time. The opportunity to refine your results is for those matches for whom you have NOT found a common ancestor and gives you a chance to put in the number of generations you know there is not a common ancestor and the results will be refined to show you more precisely how many generations back that common ancestor will likely be found. It has no value for those matches with whom you know you have a common ancestor. "What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations." This simply means that the percentages of having a common ancestor will be mathematically refined if you know you do not have a common ancestor in so many generations with a match and input that number of generations. The refinement results will show a larger number of generations to find a common ancestor so be sure to watch for the change in number of generations in the refined results as well as the percentages. "Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in the box)" I believe the answer to this question is no. If you know you have a common ancestor there is no need to use the refinement process since you already know the common ancestor. "So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information increase the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?" The paper trail information should decrease the percentage of having a common ancestor within the same number of generations however remember Family Tree DNA changes the number of generations in the refinement instead of lowering the percentage for the same number of generations. I wish they would change the percentage and leave the number of generations the same since it would make comparison much easier and less confusing! Here is an example from my personal situation. In looking at the FTDNA probability information for my # 1427 closest dna match for 67 markers, James Elliott Kincaid, # 2563, FTDNA shows 85.95% likelihood of finding a common ancestor within 8 generations before doing a refinement. Since our documentation shows there cannot be a common ancestor within 7 generations we put 7 into the box and hit recalculate and see that the refinement shows a 77.76% of having a common ancestor is for the period of 7 up to 11 generations. It also shows that for 15 generations, the percent is 95.98%. This does not tell me which generation to expect to find a common ancestor with 2563, just the odds or likelihood of doing so within a certain number of generations. In my and Jim's case I personally believe we will find a common ancestor within 2 or 3 generations beyond each of our most distant ancestors that are known in early to mid 1700's. I should note that the refinement opportunity for each match will be for the highest number of markers dna test used for both participants so in my example, I cannot use the 37 marker results for anything other than the 4, 8, 12 & 16 generation percentages and if I want to refine my percentages I have to use the 67 marker results. The more markers a participant has been tested for the better the mathematical probability will be more meaningful. Yours aye, Don W. Kincaid Kincaid Surname DNA Administrator Team donwkincaid@cox.net 254 631-5684 ----- Original Message ----- From: Norman Kincaide To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:40 PM Subject: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Does anyone know what this means? It's from the Family Tree DNA website and I have read it over several times.. Refine your results with paper trail input The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. However, these results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have lived in a certain number of past generations. If you don't know this information for a fact, do not change the "1" in the box in the next paragraph. However, if you have the information, please enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations. And then: If you don't know this information for a fact (does this mean that the paper trail information does not show a common ancestor) do not change the "1" in the box. Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the box and click on the recalculate button. (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in the box) The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie County, PA in 1822. So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information increase the percentage of having a common ancestor or not? Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotesin the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

So far 128809 is just one mutation off from sample 95627. Perhaps a new cluster will emerge. Do you have any info on the earliest known ancestor of either 128809 or 95627? Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Liedtke To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:13 PM Subject: [KINCAID] New FTDNA results for 128809 The first panel (markers 1-12) of the 37 marker test ordered by 128809 have been returned. They are several weeks earlier than estimated so FTDNA is up and functioning. So far he does not match exactly any other member of the project. The 1-12 markers do not give a good picture of what the overall result will look like so I will refrain from comment until more panels are returned. Sue Liedtke

I haven't heard from Connie Poole for a long time. Is she OK? she used to send in things she found. I know at one time she had some health problems. I Hope she is OK. Treasa -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Thanks, Peter.  Sincerely Norm Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Peter A. Kincaid <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:53:18 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question I generated a Fluxus graphic based on the 67 marker results to date using reduced median joining with the reduction threshold set to 1 (ie. to reduce parallel mutations).  It clusters samples 4323, 5803, 49289, 4164 and 122441 together as one branch.  Is this not in line with the relationships as understood by Norman? Peter     ----- Original Message -----   From: Norman Kincaide   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:34 PM   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question   Thanks, Sue. Sample 122441 has a 17 at number 30, but has other mismatches with my 4164. 122441 (this line has not been vetted yet) is from a descendant of Martin Kincaid, son of Andrew Kincaid, also brother to my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith and I have a clear paper trail from Martin Kincaid to Andrew and Andrew Kincaid to John Kinkead who died in Union Township, Erie County, PA. Andrew Kinkead of Dubois County, IN, sent a letter in 1832 to the Orphan's Court in Erie County, PA giving his brother, John Kinkead, power of attorney over the estate of their late father, John Kinkead. Samuel Kincaid of Wayne Township, Erie County, PA, brother to John G. Kincaide, my great great grandfather, wrote to Martin Kincaid in reply to a letter in 1866 that concerned Andrew Kincaid's share of John Kinkead's estate that clearly shows a father son, and brother relationship and is in Group A-2a with my sample.   Sincerely   Norman Kincaide   ----- Original Message ----   From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net>   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:55:25 PM   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question   Norman, I think you have to look at the pattern of mutation within our   project as well as the sheer number of mutations between you and Treasa. The   percentage information is all very interesting but is based on averages and   sheer numbers so I don't really think it is anything more than a curiousity.   The important mutation between your and Treasa's samples occurs with the 18   at marker 30. This is because there is a large representation within the   project of those who match Treasa's sample exactly as well as others who   also have this mutation but also have a few other scattered mutations..   Unless there was a parallel mutation in her line, it is unlikely she   connects to your line before she connects to the others in A-2b. In order to   show a parallel mutation she must have a representative from a proven   brother's line for each generation until the parallel mutation is isolated.   The eldest ancestor claims (unvetted) in A-2b (this set is based on the   marker 30 mutation to 18) trace to James/Hanna b 1739 of Rowan Co. NC,   Andrew/Martha Townsley b 1745 of Cumberland Co. PA, and John/Ann Gregory b   1749 of Cumberland Co. PA. In the same generation would be your George/Jean   Mitchell b c1733 of Cumberland Co. PA who does not have that mutation. While   it is POSSIBLE for James, Andrew and John to be brothers, George cannot also   be a brother unless somewhere in your line another mutation occured which   returned the result at marker 30 to 17. You would need a representative from   a brotherly line in each generation to isolate the mutation. The CLOSEST   your George could be with them would be first cousin, i.e. it is their   father (George's father's brother) who had the original mutation at this   marker and all A-2b participants, including Treasa, will ultimately trace to   him.   >The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith   and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John   Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie County,   PA in 1822.<   One of you may have an error in your linkages unless either of you can prove   a parallel mutation.   Sue Liedtke   ----- Original Message -----   From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com>   To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com>   Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:13 AM   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question   Thanks, Don.   So the refinement process doesn't apply to instances of where a paper trail   definitely points to a common ancester within a definite number of   generations based upon the same DNA marker test (in my case 4164, with   Treasa Brookman's sampel 4323).   Sincerely   Norman Kincaide   ----- Original Message ----   From: Don W. Kincaid <donwkincaid@cox.net>   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:43:51 AM   Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question   First of all, the percentages given are simply the likelihood of having a   common ancestor within a certain number of generations but the common   ancestor predictor does not show exactly when a common ancestor will be   found. If you have an 80% chance of having a common ancestor with a dna   match in 8 generations back, a common ancestor could be found in a lesser or   greater number of generations. In this example the 80% means that 80 times   out of 100 that you will find a common ancestor within the 8 generations and   that find could have occurred in any generation from 2nd to 8th. Put another   way it means there will be a common ancestor found some generation within 8   generations 80% of the time.   The opportunity to refine your results is for those matches for whom you   have NOT found a common ancestor and gives you a chance to put in the number   of generations you know there is not a common ancestor and the results will   be refined to show you more precisely how many generations back that common   ancestor will likely be found. It has no value for those matches with whom   you know you have a common ancestor.   "What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper   trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa   Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations."   This simply means that the percentages of having a common ancestor will be   mathematically refined if you know you do not have a common ancestor in so   many generations with a match and input that number of generations. The   refinement results will show a larger number of generations to find a common   ancestor so be sure to watch for the change in number of generations in the   refined results as well as the percentages.   "Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the   box and click on the recalculate button.   (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa   Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in   the box)"   I believe the answer to this question is no. If you know you have a common   ancestor there is no need to use the refinement process since you already   know the common ancestor.   "So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information increase   the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?"   The paper trail information should decrease the percentage of having a   common ancestor within the same number of generations however remember   Family Tree DNA changes the number of generations in the refinement instead   of lowering the percentage for the same number of generations. I wish they   would change the percentage and leave the number of generations the same   since it would make comparison much easier and less confusing!   Here is an example from my personal situation. In looking at the FTDNA   probability information for my # 1427 closest dna match for 67 markers,   James Elliott Kincaid, # 2563, FTDNA shows 85.95% likelihood of finding a   common ancestor within 8 generations before doing a refinement. Since our   documentation shows there cannot be a common ancestor within 7 generations   we put 7 into the box and hit recalculate and see that the refinement shows   a 77.76% of having a common ancestor is for the period of 7 up to 11   generations. It also shows that for 15 generations, the percent is 95.98%.   This does not tell me which generation to expect to find a common ancestor   with 2563, just the odds or likelihood of doing so within a certain number   of generations. In my and Jim's case I personally believe we will find a   common ancestor within 2 or 3 generations beyond each of our most distant   ancestors that are known in early to mid 1700's.   I should note that the refinement opportunity for each match will be for the   highest number of markers dna test used for both participants so in my   example, I cannot use the 37 marker results for anything other than the 4,   8, 12 & 16 generation percentages and if I want to refine my percentages I   have to use the 67 marker results. The more markers a participant has been   tested for the better the mathematical probability will be more meaningful.   Yours aye,   Don W. Kincaid   Kincaid Surname DNA Administrator Team   donwkincaid@cox.net   254 631-5684   ----- Original Message -----   From: Norman Kincaide   To: kincaid@rootsweb.com   Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:40 PM   Subject: [KINCAID] common ancestor question   Does anyone know what this means? It's from the Family Tree DNA website and   I have read it over several times..   Refine your results with paper trail input   The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA   results, which show 2 mismatches.   However, these results can be refined if their paper trail indicates that no   common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa Brookman could have lived   in a certain number of past generations.   If you don't know this information for a fact, do not change the "1" in the   box in the next paragraph. However, if you have the information, please   enter in the box and click on the recalculate button.   What exactly does this mean: These results can be refined if their paper   trail indicates that no common ancestor between Norman Kincaide and Treasa   Brookman could have lived in a certain number of generations.   And then:   If you don't know this information for a fact (does this mean that the paper   trail information does not show a common ancestor) do not change the "1" in   the box.   Then there is: However, if you have the information, please enter in the box   and click on the recalculate button.   (Does this mean that if you are certain that Norman Kincaide & Treasa   Brookman had a common ancestor 8 generations ago you enter that number in   the box)   The paper trail indicates that my John Kincaid who married Elizabeth Smith   and her William Kincaid who married Elizabeth Glenn were the sons of John   Kinkead who married Margaret Miles and died in Union Township, Erie County,   PA in 1822.   So my main question is: Does knowing that paper trail information increase   the percentage of having a common ancestor or not?   Sincerely   Norman Kincaide   To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes   in the subject and the body of the message   To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to   KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes   in the subject and the body of the message   To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotesin the subject and the body of the message   To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message           To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls   -------------------------------   To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Former AHS debate coach dies Tuesday, September 9, 2008 Rosemary Kincaid Local residents are mourning the loss of Rosemary Dodd Kincaid, a former Abilene High School speech and debate teacher and coach who was respected statewide in her field. Kincaid, 57, died Friday in Plano after complications from heart surgery. A memorial service will be at 7 p.m. Thursday at Ted Dickey Funeral Home, 2128 18th St., in Plano. Kincaid herself requested that jeans be worn to the memorial service. She was born in 1951 in California, later making her way to Texas, where she graduated from Abilene Christian High School in 1969. Kincaid earned a bachelor's degree in physical education and speech from Abilene Christian College (now university) in 1973 and a master's degree in communication from ACU in 2006. She also worked on a master's in principalship at ACU. Kincaid was an educator for 30 years, most recently at Plano East Senior High School. Her passion for debate began at Westwood High School in Austin, when she was asked to take over as speech and debate coach in the late 1980s. Since then, she led numerous speech students to state and national victories. Kincaid, and later her husband, Warren, started teaching at Abilene High in 1999. They left in 2007 to teach in Plano. During her time at AHS, Kincaid was elected president of the Texas Forensic Association, recognized as a finalist for Speech Teacher of the Year by the Texas Speech Communication Association and in 2006, received a Citation Award from the National Federation of State High School Associations. The award is the federation's highest honor. School administrators described Kincaid as a dedicated teacher. "She never gave up on kids," said AHS Principal Terry Bull, who was able to see Kincaid at the hospital Friday before she died. "She would take a student who maybe didn't believe in themselves and made them believe they could do it." Bull said she was a tenacious fighter who stood up for her students and didn't like to lose. Royce Curtis, a former AHS principal who now oversees personnel for the school district, said Kincaid was a wonderful teacher. "She loved to compete and had the ability to bring out the best in her speech/debate students," he said in an e-mail. "They excelled under her guidance. It was a privilege working with her.

Thanks Sue for your input, I apologize if I did not let you know that I feel fairly certain that I have a common ancestor with a member of the Kincaid DNA project the Kincaid DNA chart shows in A 1a namely # 80852, Charles David Kincaid, who shows on the Kincaid DNA chart to descend from William Moore Kincaid who is beyond all doubt the son of John Kincaid, son of Captain John Kincaid who is my ancestor. Even though 80852 has not been vetted I feel his lineage information is good considering the fact I spent a lot of time searching documents, census info and etc and finally found him by starting with John, son of Captain John, and researching down the lineage trail and finally determining who his father was and then calling all the Kincaid's in the phone book in that area eventually getting Charles and finding that he was indeed the son of David Lee Kincaid, likely descendant of Captain John. So this creates a mystery as to how his DNA results do not show the 12 on marker 26 like the rest of us who descend from Captain John Kincaid and wife Margaret. We do have another descendant of John, Jr in our project, 83449, John Peter Kincaid who likely descends from Captain John through John Jr. who does show the 12 at marker 26. We are fortunate to also have a descendant of James Kincaid, son of Captain John and brother to John, Jr. and David G. #18496, Douglas Kincaid does show the 12 at marker 26. In light of the above which I have not been able to get adequate answers to explain why 80852 does not have the same result at marker 26 like all the other descendants of Captain John and Margaret. 80852's line could have mutated back to the 11 at marker 26 is the best possibility we have heard. It will be great when 80852 gets his documentation fully developed and presents it for vetting to eliminate the possibility there is an error in my research and his info. In the meantime maybe someone will come up with a different way 80852 has the 11 instead of 12 at marker 26. I fully agree with how great it would be to find a descendant of James & Jean through John/Agnes. We have spent considerable time and effort and have found some female descendants but no direct male line descendants and will continue to look for same. We also look forward to a vetting post or documentation for Deanne and Amon, whose results show the 12 on marker 26 since they believe descent from David, possible brother to the above mentioned James/Jean and my most distant ancestor Joseph. My 2 closest DNA matches remain 2563, James Elliott Kincaid and 8144 Michael William Kincaid who on a 37 marker comparison show a 97.28% probability of having a common ancestor in 8 generations. 2563 shows back to John the Patriarch of the same time frame as my most distant ancestor Joseph however we have not been able to trace 8144's lineage back to that same time frame. We are still working on 8144 lineage in hopes of extending it back to the same time period as said John and Joseph. Because of the extensive research and paperwork we have on Joseph's descendants, we are confident that 8144 does not descend from Joseph however with the 97.28% it looks like a common ancestor with both 2563 and 8144 should be found in 1 or 2 generations above Joseph. My next closest DNA matches based on 37 markers (37 is used since not all have done the 67) show 88 to 89% probability and consist of the 11 participants who make up the Apparent Ancestral Values shown in the Kincaid DNA chart as all in A 1a plus the other descendants of Joseph mentioned above in A 1b and the 2 who trace back to John of Sadsbury, namely 37382 & 119921, also shown in A 1b. Another participant, 11207, in A 1b who has the 12 on marker 26 shows to be more distant. Based on the DNA results and accompanying statistical info outlined here I believe I am just as likely to have a common ancestor with any of the 11 who show the Apparent Ancestral Values as I am to those with the 12 at marker 26 except for 2563 and 8144. I have great faith in the scientific correctness of Family Tree DNA's work. I am concentrating on extending 8144 lineage info more than anything but keeping my eyes open for new info on all the above. Don W. Kincaid #1427, Group A, Set 1b Kincaid DNA Project Eastland, Texas, USA Hugh Alvin Kincaid, died 1989 & Flora Elizabeth Branscum Hugh Allen Kincaid, died 1922 & Louisa Short David Greer Kincaid, died 1798 & Betty Allen William Moore Kincaid, died 1870? & Druscilla David Greer Kincaid, died 1840 & Isabel Rogers John Kincaid d. 1792 & Margaret Jane? Lockhart? Joseph Kincaid/Kinkead died 1774 & ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Liedtke To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Don, I hope the ones you are concentrating on are all in A-1b as all of the mutations except the one at marker 26 (DYS 460) appear to be downline from your common ancestor with them. A connection to someone in A-1a before connecting to your set mates would mean parallel mutations to12 at marker 26 and it doesn't look like that happened. The other line of research that might be fruitful is to spend time pursuing a descendent of John/Agnes because of his burial in the same cemetary as your John in Madison Co. KY and the circumstantial evidence that suggests he was the second son of James/Jean d 1763 Albemarle Co. VA Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don W. Kincaid" <donwkincaid@cox.net> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > The statistical tools provided by FTDNA are the only way I know for sure > to calculate scientifically the weight or value of the various markers. It > has been shown that some markers do not change the likelihood of having a > common ancestor as much as other markers do. We all know the faster > mutating markers do not have as much weight as the slow mutating markers > but there is also a difference in weight between the individual fast > mutating markers as well as the individual slow mutating markers. So if a > participant wants to really zero in on his closest dna matches where the > match is not a 100 percent match, the only tool to my knowledge that will > do this with accuracy is the FTDNA values built into the statistical > percentages for each marker. > > We had movers move our furniture and etc yesterday and still in a rush to > get things in order and in my haste when I mentioned the various DNA tools > I meant to mention the Fluxus chart done by Peter which also has value and > is another way to look at the results. Fluxus may also take into > consideration the different values of the markers but I have not delved > into the mechanics of how it works. > > It has been a good while since I had a college course in statistical > analysis but I do believe if you want to determine the most accurate > assessment of your relationship with other participants, the FTDNA > statistical tools are valuable. For instance in my case I have 15 Kincaid > participants I show to match on 36 of 37 of the markers but the likelihood > of having a common ancestor varies with which marker I do not match on so > for 8 generations the participant with the different marker with the most > weight given to it shows a likelihood of 89.14% while the participant with > the lowest likelihood shows 87.40%. For my 35 of 37 matches the 8 > generation figures vary from a high of 72.77% down to a low of 67.40% > which is a 7.97% difference. I am thus putting more time and money into > research on the participants who are in the higher percentages. Now I > admit I may be a wee bit more Scottish in money matters than some of you! > > Don > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter A. Kincaid > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:04 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > I have never paid much attention to the statistical tools > given by FTDNA, etc. They really don't help much > as you can't prove anything with them. Simply look > to your exact and really close matches and use that > as a guide to where to focus your research. > > Peter > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Your Dad would be the interesting one, in that you may be the originator of the mutation to 11 at marker 4. It seems that some lines mutate much faster than others. A-4 shows quite a few mutations within a little over 200 years while there are participants in A-1a and A-1b who show no mutations in the same time frame. I would also suggest that the rate of mutation at each marker may change depending on where in the range of repetitions possible a particular result is located i.e. if it is the highest or lowest number of repetitions possible it might mutate more readily toward the center of the range than a center value would mutate toward the extreme. A center value may mutate very, very rarily. So is the marker stable or unstable? and what rate of mutation should be assigned to it? This latter could be why we have parallel mutations to11 at marker 4 even though it is supposedly a stable marker. The value of 12 is the top of the range. There is still a lot to be learned. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:29 PM Subject: [KINCAID] mutations Thanks so much, Sue, for your patience and explanation. I have been in contact with another descendant of Martin Kincaid and I have mentioned to him about the DNA test but I have not heard back from him. What I see out of this is that there appears to be more mutations (more or less random) within a ten to twelve generation period than I have understood to be (1 in 30 to 40 generations is what I have read). And there are the fast moving markers and the slow moving markers. It would be interesting to have my brothers, my two Kincaide nephews and my older brother's Kincaide grandsons and my Dad tested to see what the result would be. From the previous discussions I would bet money that there would be mutations within the span of 4 generations within a population of 8 male Kincaides, myself included. Since this process is only about ten years old there is much more to be done toward refining the results and understanding mutations. Sincerely Norman Kincaide To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls-------------------------------To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotesin the subject and the body of the message

Don, I hope the ones you are concentrating on are all in A-1b as all of the mutations except the one at marker 26 (DYS 460) appear to be downline from your common ancestor with them. A connection to someone in A-1a before connecting to your set mates would mean parallel mutations to12 at marker 26 and it doesn't look like that happened. The other line of research that might be fruitful is to spend time pursuing a descendent of John/Agnes because of his burial in the same cemetary as your John in Madison Co. KY and the circumstantial evidence that suggests he was the second son of James/Jean d 1763 Albemarle Co. VA Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don W. Kincaid" <donwkincaid@cox.net> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > The statistical tools provided by FTDNA are the only way I know for sure > to calculate scientifically the weight or value of the various markers. It > has been shown that some markers do not change the likelihood of having a > common ancestor as much as other markers do. We all know the faster > mutating markers do not have as much weight as the slow mutating markers > but there is also a difference in weight between the individual fast > mutating markers as well as the individual slow mutating markers. So if a > participant wants to really zero in on his closest dna matches where the > match is not a 100 percent match, the only tool to my knowledge that will > do this with accuracy is the FTDNA values built into the statistical > percentages for each marker. > > We had movers move our furniture and etc yesterday and still in a rush to > get things in order and in my haste when I mentioned the various DNA tools > I meant to mention the Fluxus chart done by Peter which also has value and > is another way to look at the results. Fluxus may also take into > consideration the different values of the markers but I have not delved > into the mechanics of how it works. > > It has been a good while since I had a college course in statistical > analysis but I do believe if you want to determine the most accurate > assessment of your relationship with other participants, the FTDNA > statistical tools are valuable. For instance in my case I have 15 Kincaid > participants I show to match on 36 of 37 of the markers but the likelihood > of having a common ancestor varies with which marker I do not match on so > for 8 generations the participant with the different marker with the most > weight given to it shows a likelihood of 89.14% while the participant with > the lowest likelihood shows 87.40%. For my 35 of 37 matches the 8 > generation figures vary from a high of 72.77% down to a low of 67.40% > which is a 7.97% difference. I am thus putting more time and money into > research on the participants who are in the higher percentages. Now I > admit I may be a wee bit more Scottish in money matters than some of you! > > Don > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Peter A. Kincaid > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:04 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > I have never paid much attention to the statistical tools > given by FTDNA, etc. They really don't help much > as you can't prove anything with them. Simply look > to your exact and really close matches and use that > as a guide to where to focus your research. > > Peter >