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

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 ----- Original Message ---- From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:09:55 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question Your 11 at marker 4 looks very much like a parallel mutation. This is a troublesome marker and shows up within all Group A sets without clear pathways between the sets. Peter has isolated his 11 at this marker to David's son Danial. 49803 in A-2b has what appears to be a more reliable mutation to 18 at marker 30. 28835 and 1255 in A-1b have what appears to be a more reliable mutation to a 12 at marker 26. 33001 in A-1c is vetted to the same individual as 101753 in A-1a has reason to believe he descends from (not vetted). 122441's mutations which differ from yours are at markers 31, 33, and 35. Marker 35 seems to have had several parallel mutations to a 38 as it, like the 11 at marker 4, appears in several sets without a clear pathway between them. There would have had to be parallel mutations in what appear to be more stable markers if this mutation had not occured several times. The same goes for his mutation to 18 at marker 33. He is the only one in Group A with a mutation of any kind at marker 31 so it may be rare and significant but also downline from John. It would be nice to isolate his mutations, and strickly speaking if we were being quite scientific, he should. If the paper trail is excellant, there are no others with the mutation or the mutation occurs in several other sets where apparently more stable mutations would have to have been parallel, I don't know that isolating is really worth the expence and trouble. The exception would be someone in A-1c trying to connect to an A-1a Kincaid. In that case isolation or the 11 at marker 4 is really needed as there are no more stable mutations separating the sets. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:34 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 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

Your 11 at marker 4 looks very much like a parallel mutation. This is a troublesome marker and shows up within all Group A sets without clear pathways between the sets. Peter has isolated his 11 at this marker to David's son Danial. 49803 in A-2b has what appears to be a more reliable mutation to 18 at marker 30. 28835 and 1255 in A-1b have what appears to be a more reliable mutation to a 12 at marker 26. 33001 in A-1c is vetted to the same individual as 101753 in A-1a has reason to believe he descends from (not vetted). 122441's mutations which differ from yours are at markers 31, 33, and 35. Marker 35 seems to have had several parallel mutations to a 38 as it, like the 11 at marker 4, appears in several sets without a clear pathway between them. There would have had to be parallel mutations in what appear to be more stable markers if this mutation had not occured several times. The same goes for his mutation to 18 at marker 33. He is the only one in Group A with a mutation of any kind at marker 31 so it may be rare and significant but also downline from John. It would be nice to isolate his mutations, and strickly speaking if we were being quite scientific, he should. If the paper trail is excellant, there are no others with the mutation or the mutation occurs in several other sets where apparently more stable mutations would have to have been parallel, I don't know that isolating is really worth the expence and trouble. The exception would be someone in A-1c trying to connect to an A-1a Kincaid. In that case isolation or the 11 at marker 4 is really needed as there are no more stable mutations separating the sets. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:34 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 toKINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotesin the subject and the body of the message

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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question See below for comments: From: Norman Kincaide To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question "Don, I think Family Tree DNA's explanation of this is severely misleading. It is not clear to me when I go to the refinement process what I am actually measuring, i.e. if you have the information, plug that number in. Does that mean you plug in the number of generations you think you might find the common ancestor absent a paper trail?" It means to put in the number of generations you know for sure through paper trails that you do not have a common ancestor with the person you are comparing to at the time. Thus you should not put anything in the box if the paper trails prove you have a common ancestor with the person with whom you are comparing your results. Don " I guess what I am getting at here is, how do we reconcile definite paper trail evidence with a divergence in DNA evidence, that is mutations away from or back to the common ancestor value for the samples I listed." To answer your last question above, I believe you would need to test descendants of those ancestors in between yourself and the person you have a divergence with if you want to find when the mutations occurred. Perhaps Sue will give a fuller answer to your last question. Don 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

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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question See below for comments: From: Norman Kincaide To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question "Don, I think Family Tree DNA's explanation of this is severely misleading. It is not clear to me when I go to the refinement process what I am actually measuring, i.e. if you have the information, plug that number in. Does that mean you plug in the number of generations you think you might find the common ancestor absent a paper trail?" It means to put in the number of generations you know for sure through paper trails that you do not have a common ancestor with the person you are comparing to at the time. Thus you should not put anything in the box if the paper trails prove you have a common ancestor with the person with whom you are comparing your results. Don " I guess what I am getting at here is, how do we reconcile definite paper trail evidence with a divergence in DNA evidence, that is mutations away from or back to the common ancestor value for the samples I listed." To answer your last question above, I believe you would need to test descendants of those ancestors in between yourself and the person you have a divergence with if you want to find when the mutations occurred. Perhaps Sue will give a fuller answer to your last question. Don 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

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

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

Dear Don, since I have quite a bit of time on my hands right now. And this is for the benefit of the list as a whole, what books would you recommend to understand the DNA side of genealogical research?  I currently have: The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes and Trace Your Roots with DNA by Megan Smolenyak & Ann Turner. Sincerely Norman Kincaide

See below for comments: From: Norman Kincaide To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question "Don, I think Family Tree DNA's explanation of this is severely misleading. It is not clear to me when I go to the refinement process what I am actually measuring, i.e. if you have the information, plug that number in. Does that mean you plug in the number of generations you think you might find the common ancestor absent a paper trail?" It means to put in the number of generations you know for sure through paper trails that you do not have a common ancestor with the person you are comparing to at the time. Thus you should not put anything in the box if the paper trails prove you have a common ancestor with the person with whom you are comparing your results. Don " I guess what I am getting at here is, how do we reconcile definite paper trail evidence with a divergence in DNA evidence, that is mutations away from or back to the common ancestor value for the samples I listed." To answer your last question above, I believe you would need to test descendants of those ancestors in between yourself and the person you have a divergence with if you want to find when the mutations occurred. Perhaps Sue will give a fuller answer to your last question. Don

Norman, I meant to say that since I have had several questions along the same line as yours I was going to give a longer answer than normal in hopes of helping others in our dna project. The FTDNA probability percentages are only one tool of several we have. Documentation is extremely important as are DNA results which most scientists accept as being foolproof. Sue combines documentation and DNA results in the Kincaid DNA chart. Also anyone viewing the Kincaid DNA chart can easily sort the information to make their own personal chart of closest matches and even add in non DNA participants from their line if they like making it more valuable to distribute to their own kin. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Norman Kincaide 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 to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Dear Don, since I have quite a bit of time on my hands right now. And this is for the benefit of the list as a whole, what books would you recommend to understand the DNA side of genealogical research?  I currently have: The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes and Trace Your Roots with DNA by Megan Smolenyak & Ann Turner. 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

Don, I think Family Tree DNA's explanation of this is severely misleading.  It is not clear to me when I go to the refinement process what I am actually measuring, i.e. if you have the information, plug that number in.  Does that mean you plug in the number of generations you think you might find the common ancestor absent a paper trail.  To me it should read: If you don't know or have the paper trail information that leads to the common ancestor then put the number in the box.  But since I do have paper trail infomation for samples: 4323, 4164, 1263, 122441, I won't benefit from the application that Family Tree DNA shows on the refinement page.  I guess what I am getting at here is, how do we reconcile definite paper trail evidence with a divergence in DNA evidence, that is mutations away from or back to the common ancestor value for the samples I listed. 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

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

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

NOrman, Our numbers all match except for the 4th column You have # 11 and I have # 12, then in the 17th column you have # 17 and I have # 18. I too would like to know what this means. thanks Treasa Brookman A male cousin in Denver was tested for me. My mother's Brother's boy. He's a Kincaid.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:40 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 > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

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

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

Further to my point below, see the following commentary: http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/IRELAND/2007-01/1168712967 I think this will give you more detail on the situation. This leads me to ask with we still read about Joseph Kincaid because of his fame or because of this infamy. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter A. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Stewart & Kincade: Irish Land Agents of 1840's Not so fast about Joseph being a 'considered' a good guy. I know some here who consider him a ruthless land agent more bent on profits for his clients than consideration for the poor average tenant. A huge scandal broke out here when, acting for the powerful Lord Palmerston, he transported a ship load of poor tenants from Palmerston's estate as winter was starting here. An international uproar occurred because it was alleged that they arrived here starving and half naked. They were poorly equipped for what they walked into with little prospect of getting any work for the next several months. I suspect there were political aspects to the scandal but, at the very least, people here were not too pleased to have a boat load of poor immigrants thrust on the charity of the citizens of the City of Saint John and this Province this late in the season. Best wishes! Peter A. Kincaid Fredericton, NB, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Stewart & Kincade: Irish Land Agents of 1840's Kelly, A great read and one that will make us proud to be a Kincaid of any spelling not only because Joseph was a very prominent citizen but because he seemed to be a good man and treated everyone he dealt with fairly. It would be interesting to find why or how the spelling changed from Kinkead for Rev. Joseph to Kincaid for his grandson Joseph. This Joseph Kincaid was also spelled Kincaide once in the article. Don W. ----- Original Message ----- From: lewisjo@junct.com To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Stewart & Kincade: Irish Land Agents of 1840's >Here it is: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ucn/wpaper/200208.html#provider Kelly Kincade-Lewis Thanks for thinking of us Kelly. I have read this paper. > He was the grandson of Rev. Joseph Kinkead of > Killinchy, County Down who was of the Baronscourt, > County Tyrone Kincaids. You can post the link > in case someone else is interested. I did not keep > track of it. > > 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

Not so fast about Joseph being a 'considered' a good guy. I know some here who consider him a ruthless land agent more bent on profits for his clients than consideration for the poor average tenant. A huge scandal broke out here when, acting for the powerful Lord Palmerston, he transported a ship load of poor tenants from Palmerston's estate as winter was starting here. An international uproar occurred because it was alleged that they arrived here starving and half naked. They were poorly equipped for what they walked into with little prospect of getting any work for the next several months. I suspect there were political aspects to the scandal but, at the very least, people here were not too pleased to have a boat load of poor immigrants thrust on the charity of the citizens of the City of Saint John and this Province this late in the season. Best wishes! Peter A. Kincaid Fredericton, NB, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:50 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Stewart & Kincade: Irish Land Agents of 1840's Kelly, A great read and one that will make us proud to be a Kincaid of any spelling not only because Joseph was a very prominent citizen but because he seemed to be a good man and treated everyone he dealt with fairly. It would be interesting to find why or how the spelling changed from Kinkead for Rev. Joseph to Kincaid for his grandson Joseph. This Joseph Kincaid was also spelled Kincaide once in the article. Don W. ----- Original Message ----- From: lewisjo@junct.com To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Stewart & Kincade: Irish Land Agents of 1840's >Here it is: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ucn/wpaper/200208.html#provider Kelly Kincade-Lewis Thanks for thinking of us Kelly. I have read this paper. > He was the grandson of Rev. Joseph Kinkead of > Killinchy, County Down who was of the Baronscourt, > County Tyrone Kincaids. You can post the link > in case someone else is interested. I did not keep > track of it. > > Peter

This John Kinkead of Shelby County, Ky was a private in the 3rd Penn. Continental Line and there are these citations to him. 1783 John Kincaid, [000036] 3rd Regiment Pennsylvania Continental Line received per certificate #71560 39 dollars on Oct. 27, 1783, pay to  November 3, 1783, interest to November 4, 1783. Record proves active duty before November 16, 1783. Pennsylvania State Archives Online  Card File 1783 John Kincaid, [000036] 3rd Regiment Pennsylvania Continental Line received final settlement per certificate #72178 on Oct. 27, 1783.   Gratuity allowed the noncommissioned officers & privates who served to the end of the war.  Record proves active duty before November 16, 1783. Pennsylvania State Archives Online Card File  And this third one I had previously stated as 1824 (I need to new glasses to read 6 point type) but it is really 1834. 1783 John Kincaid, [000036] private, 3rd Penn. Regiment, Continental Line, resided in Shelby County, Kentucky, 1834.   Pennsylvania Archives, s. 5, v. 2, p. 1003; Pennsylvania in the War of the Revolution, Battalions and Line, 1775-1783, Vol. 1, p. 476. But Barb Van Hout has reported that this John Kinkead died in 1816.  I do not know the basis of this citation in the Pennsylvania Archives and the Pennsylvania in the War of the Revolution unless pension payments were continued to his widow. Sincerely Norman Kincaide   ----- Original Message ---- From: Barbara Van Hout <dutchtreat@prodigy.net> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:16:44 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] John Kincaid - father built Kincaid fort The following is from the Thompson list at rootsweb, by Robert W. Thompson, 6 Feb 1999: "I am researching Thompsons of Jessamine County, Kentucky. My ancestor, Joseph Thompson was born in Virginia, married Mary Gibson about 1769/70 and moved his family to Fayette (later to become Jessamine Co) Kentucky in 1787. His children were all born in Virginia before the time of the move. Family tradition is confusing with references to Culpepper and Albermale counties being the Virginia home. Strong evidence suggests that the family actually came from Augusta Count. A Joseph Thompson and wife Mary sold land in Augusta Co in 1787. The 1787/88 tax lists indicate that Joseph Thompson removed to Kentucky, etc. Trying to connect Joseph to other Augusta Co Thompson families. Joseph was probably born about 1745. Joseph died in Jessamine Co in 1809 and Mary died between 1812 and 1815. Joseph and Mary had children as follows: RACHEL b. 1770 m. Archibald Logan d. 1833, lived in Fayette and Jessamine Co's. WASHINGTON SAMUEL b. 1771 m. Jean Lowrey d. 1826 in Harrison Co Ky. MARGARET b. 1772 m. David Dennis d. 1862 remained in Jessamine Co. ELIZABETH m. John Lewis Paul. JOSEPH b. 1781 m. Sarah Paul d. 1845. ALEXANDER m. Rebecca Jackson d. 1822. AGNIS/NANCY m. James Gailey went to Shelby Co Ky then to Montgomery Co, Indiana. MARY/POLLY m. John Kinkead WILLIAM G. b. 1783 m. Elizabeth Shivell d. 1859 (my direct ancestor), lived in Fayette, Jessamine, Campbell and finally Henry Co, Ky." And this dated 1 Apr 2000, sent to the Thompson list by Glen Thompson: Joseph Tompson's estate was settled 1 August 1811 and recorded September 1811. Executors: William Gibson, Samuel Thompson. Legatees: May Thompson (sic) [presumably his wife Mary], James Galey; A. Logan; William Thompson; D. Dennis; Samuel Thompson; John Paul; John Kinkead. Witnesses: Hawkins Kirby; James Norvell; Elizabeth Thompson. Sale of the estate of Joseph Thompson dated 22 March 1810 and recorded Sept 1811. Source: Abstracts of Jessamine County, Kentucky Wills 1797-1813. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <dutchtreat@prodigy.net> To: <Kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] John Kincaid - father built Kincaid fort I believe that David's brother John married Mary "Polly" Thompson and were in Shelby County, KY in the early 1800's.    The names of John Kincaid/Polly Thompson (daughter of Joseph Thompson/Mary Gibson of Jessamine County) match some of the names of children of David Kinkead who went to Boone County, MO. David and John both had daughters named Dorcas and sons named Matthew. John/Polly of Shelby County had a daughter named Elizabeth.  Matthew, son of John Kincaid/Mary Polly Thompson moved to Montgomery County, Indiana with the Galey relatives in the 1820's. MARRIAGES: Performed by Rev. James Crawford, 1786 - 1795, Fayette Co., KY The Rev. John Dabney Shane Manuscript Collection of the Presbyterian Historical Association, 28th Reel, Vol. 5, Papers of James Crawford.. (Crawford, minister of Walnut Hill Presbyterian Church, Fayette Co., KY (and others)) Marriage David Kinkaid & Jane Grimes.(or Gwinn/Guinn/Guynn ?) The information has been transcribed according to the manuscript EXCEPT for the parenthetical question marks "(?)" which were placed where names were extremely questionable. 1786 "April 11th Joined in Marriage David Kinkaid & Jane Grimes.(or Gwinn/Guinn/Guynn ?) "April 13th Joined in Marriage James Young & Mary Grimes.(or Gwinn/Guinn/Guynn ?) "April 20th Joined in Marriage James Black & Elizabeth Grimes.(or Gwinn/Guinn/Guynn ?) "Oct. 5th Joined in Marriage John McDonald & Sarah Kinkaid. 1790 "Augt. 12th John Kinkaid & Mary Thompson. "Jan. 27th 1791. James Gailey & Nancy Thompson. "Mar. 3d Archibald Logan & Rachel Thompson. http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ky/fayette/vitals/marriages/c616-001.txt *********************** Records that name the children of John Kincaid/Polly in Shelby County as posted by descendant Henry Counihan: Recorded Will Book 3, starting on page 450, Shelby County, KY. POLLY KINKEAD Recorded book 3 page 450. Know all men by these presents, that I John Kinkeade of Shelby County(Kentucky) do make over and will to Polly Kinkeade my wifeduring her lifetime a Negrowoman named Molly, to have and Ýo hold her during the time above mentioned to wait on her to which we the under signed do set our hands and af(f)ix our Seals this 20th of July 1816. Signed; JOHN KINKEAD, in the presence of James Neal (Jane),Matthew Kinkead: William Mulliken (Dorcas); James Galey (Polly); Polly Kinkád; Elizabeth Kinkead (her mark); James Neal ************* Shelby County Court August Term 1816 The within instruments of writing purporting to be the last will and testament was presented to the Court and proven by the Oaths James Neal and Jesse Vancleave witnesses thereto and ordered to be recorded. Jno Newland Clk. The John Kinkead Administrative Settlement, Jas Neill Admin Debonis non, was presented at the June 1842 Court Schd Subject to Exception, and in July was ordered to be recorded in Will Book No. 15 page 27, Attested: James S. Whitaker, Clerk Deed Book U of Shelby County, Kentucky, pages 283 & 284 This indenture made this 28th day of September 1825, between James Galey and America his wife, Samuel Galey and Polly his wife, James Neal and Jane his wife. William Mulliken and Diorcas his wife, & Elizabeth Kinkade a part of the heirs of John Kinkead dec'd of the first part and Allen Kinkead of the second part all of oldham Shelby Counties, witnesseth that whereas John Kinkead departed his life leaving a tract of land in Shelby County on the waters of Bullskin containing about one hundred and twenty acres to descend to his children a part of whom are named as above; the boundaries of whisch tract will appear by reference to a deed made by Benjamin Vancleave to the said John Kinkead bearing the date the 27th day of October 1814 and a deed from the said Matthew Kinkead bearing the date the 6th of June 1816, both recorded in the office of the County Court of Shelby and the said John Kinkead also left several slaves to be divided, which slaves with their increase ar e now five in number and the above parties have made the following agreement; to wit James Galey and America his wife, Samuel Galey and Polly his wife, James Neil and Jane his wife, Elizabeth Kinkead, Joseph Kinkead and Adderson Kinkead severally agree to release and convey their undivided interest in said land to the said Allen Kinkead, and the said Allen Kinkead in consideration thereof is to releaseand convey to the parties last named all his interest in the slaves aforesaid, and the said William Mullakin and his wife agree to sell their undivided interest in the land to the said Allen Kinkead for the sum of Eighty Dollars in Specie, now therefore the pary of the first part in pursuance of said agreement and for the consideration in the agreement expressed have granted bargained and sold and by thes presents do convey unto the party of the second part and his heirs forever that interestin said tract of land. T o have and to hold the undivided interest of the party of the first part in and to the said tract of land to him the said party of the second part and his heirs forever and the party of the first part Covenant that they will warrent said undivided interest to the party of the second part and his heirs forever against claim of all persons whomsoever. In Testimony whereof the said party of the first part have hereto set their hands & seals the day first above written, Signed: James Neill; Samuel Galey; Mary Galey; Jane Neill; James Galey: America Galey; Elizabeth Kinkead; William Mullikin; Dorcas Mullikin It appears that the youngest children of John/Polly were Allen, Joseph and Addison.  Allen Kincaid married Susannah Ellis and remained in Shelby County, KY.  Addison Kincaid married Evelyn Waide in 1833 in Hardin County, KY and remained there, with sons John and James. I don't know who Joseph married. There is another deed recorded in Deed Book X, pages 60 &61, of Shelby County, Kentucky, that was made between Addison Kinkead of the county of Jefferson , Kentucky, and Joseph Kinkead of Boon County, Kentucky, both now of Shelby County, Kentucky, made with Allen Kinkead of Shelby County, Kentucky, dated 9 September 1828, in which Addison and Joseph relinquish their interest in the 120 acres on Bullskin Creek for Allen's relinquishing his interest in the several slaves. This was recorded in the Shelby County Court Clerk's office on 9 September 1828. Att. Ja. S, Whitaker Clk Deed Book U, Page 285/286 of Shelby County, Kentucky This indenture made this 28th day of September 1825 between Allen Kinkead fo Shelby County of the first part and James Galey Jun. & America his wife; Samuel Galey and Polly his wife;James Neill and Jane his wife;Elizabeth Kinkead, joseph Kinkead and Adderson Kinkead of the second part Witnesseth that whereas John Kinkead Dec'd left a tract of about 120 acres of land and several slaves which amount at this time to five in number to descend to hiss heirs of whom the above parties and apart and the parties aforesaid have agreed that the party of the first part shal release his title to the slavess to the party of the second part and the partyy of the second partt in consideration thereof and to convey to the party of the first part their undivided interest in the tract of land under which agreement all the party of the second parthave joined in a conveyance of land except Joseph Kinkead and Adison Kinkead who are hereafter to release their Ýitle. Now the party of the first part in pursuance of said agreement and in consideration of the interest conveyed and to be conveyed as aforesaid doth both release transfer & convey to the party of the second part and his heirs forever all his right and title and undivided interest in the slaves aforesaid and will warrent his title hereby released to the pary of the second part and their heirs against all claims of all persons whomsoever. In Testimony whereof the party of the first part hath hereunder set his hand and seal the date first above written. Signed: Allen Kinkead Shelby County Court Office Sct This deed was acknowledged before me in my office on the 28th day of September 1828 by Allen Kinkead to be his act and deed and thereupon the same was duly recorded. Att Ja. S . Whitaker ck In 1842 all male descendents of John Kinkead had moved out of Kentucky according to the Commissioners appointed by the Shelby County Court to settle the estate. See" Will" settlement by June term of 1842. James Neal and presumably his wife Jane still resided in Shelby County. In fact they spent their last days there. In fact Allen Kinkead was living on Shelby County land deeded from his siblings, if he would provide for their mother. He has a will filed in Shelby County Court in 1852. Apparently the Commissioners wer not very thorough See deed bond under Polly Kinkead #146. Deed book U page 285, Shelby County Court records. More records from Henry Counihan here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/kincaid/2006-06/1149827917 Barbara Van Hout ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis House" <dhouse95@earthlink.net> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:25 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] John Kincaid - father built Kincaid fort > 1801 is the year that David Kinkead, s/o Mathew Kinkead(d.1775)/Elizabeth > McTeer, arrived in Ky. His brother John was also around somewhere. David > would have been 37 or 38 at that time, and he is said ti have had 8 > children. > > Who built Kincaids fort? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:48 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] John Kincaid - father built Kincaid fort > > >> Stumbled across the following tidbit: >> >> Death Notices From Callaway Newspapers >> The Telegraph and The Missouri Telegraph >> 1873 >> >> Kincaid >> John Kincaid, an old pioneer, died at his residence in Boone County, Nov. >> 5th, aged 77 years.  He came to Missouri in 1801, and his father built >> Kincaids Fort, in  Cooper's bottom.  Deceased was a pensioner of the war >> of 1812.  Nov. 28, 1873  3/2 >> http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/callaway/Obits/Obits1873..htm >> 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