The original value at this marker may have been an 11 4000 yrs ago but the value for Group A's first common ancestor (whether or not he had the surname Kincaid) appears to have been a 12. The 12 is the highest number this allele reaches. It is rare and from evidence in our project appears to be unstable. We have numerous incidences (including in your line) where the 11 has been isolated downline from a reading of 12 but no incidences that I am aware of where a 12 has been isolated downline from an 11. In order to follow your idea, multiple parallel mutations from an 11 to a 12 would have had to occur. Using an 11 as the AAV would not change the sets only the background color for the 11's and 12's. Multiple parallel mutations at one allele are not useful in predicting relationship beyond a few generations. If you use 11 as the AAV and treat the 12 as a primary significant mutation every other identifiable significant marker within Group A would have had to have had parallel mutations. What now appear to be clear pathways between sets would be erased and we would have a useless hodge-podge. Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [SPAM]Re: [KINCAID] DNA results for 241829 > Sue, I keep having to say that 2562 does represent > the ancestral values, but you simply won't accept it. > First of all, the Kincaid ancestral value for marker > DYS391 has to be 11 and not 12 as you keep saying. > You have to take in account the history prior to our > the person founding our surname. > > Group A Kincaids are of the Z346+ branch of U106. > Looking at the DYS values of our clade we were > a 11 at DYS391 back to the Z9 SNP (which some > estimate to be over 4000 years old). The evidence > is that we are mutating from an 11 to a 12 and not the > other way around. > > I realize that early on ancestral values were hard to > pin down. I also realize that one group is dominant > in our project and that is skewing your views. Just > because a couple of lines have been more successful > at reproducing male offspring does not change what > the ancestor must have been. The choice of ancestral > values is messing up your groupings. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sue Liedtke > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:08 PM > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Subject: [KINCAID] DNA results for 241829 > > The entire 67 marker order has now been returned for #24189. There are 4 > mutations from the Group A AAV: > marker 4 mutation to 11 mentioned below (common mutation) > marker 34 (CDYa) is a 38 instead of a 39 (common mutation) > marker 36 (DYS 442) is a 13 instead of a 12 > marker 60 (DYS 446) is a 14 instead of a 13 (1st instance in A-1, several > in > A-2b) > > The marker 36 mutation to 13 is shared by #59442 who is vetted to William > 1785-1850 m 1807 Martha Estill whom it is believed is the son of > William/Ann > Elliot (died on the Jackson River Augusta Co. VA in 1795). This would be > interesting except that #87718 and #171204 who believe (with reason) > descent > from William/Martha have the AAV 12. All of William/Martha's children have > been identified including son John Martin. It would appear that the > mutations to 13 are parallel. > > I have placed him in A-1c until a suspected tie to Augusta Co. VA is > established. > > Sue Liedtke > > > > For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, > including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: > > www.kincaiddna.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

We have only one confirmed line back more than 300 years. The oldest is 23547 and they have an 11 have DYS391. We do not know the DNA signature of any of the old Kincaid houses other than that one. We do know the DNA signature of close families of our surname and they have an 11 at DYS391. That is what is confirmed. For you to say that our patriarch had to have a 12 and all the 11s in our project are a back mutation is a view based on negative evidence. I am saying it has been positively confirmed that 11 was in our tree before 12. DYS391 is a very stable marker. I am not sure how you can also hold your position that it had to be a 12 because you will have multiple parallel mutations from an 11 to a 12. Either way we have multiple parallel mutation - whether it is a 11 to 12 or a 12 to 11. This is happening so it is no argument. You use my line as an example of isolating the mutation. You view is simply based on preconceived notion about what the value should be. One can easily say that for our group the 11 was ancestral for me and the 12 mutation occurred in the other lines. Setting what the ancestral value will determine the interpretation of the relationships. Again this is no argument. I am not saying this based on my views. I am saying this based on clear results. This is a positive evidence argument. If you can show one 12 result that clearly goes back before the 11 result then I would be more than happy to accept that our patriarch was a 12. As it is, we have to stick with the results that are confirmed rather than what one thinks should be there. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Sue Liedtke Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:59 PM To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [KINCAID] [SPAM]Re: DNA results for 241829 The original value at this marker may have been an 11 4000 yrs ago but the value for Group A's first common ancestor (whether or not he had the surname Kincaid) appears to have been a 12. The 12 is the highest number this allele reaches. It is rare and from evidence in our project appears to be unstable. We have numerous incidences (including in your line) where the 11 has been isolated downline from a reading of 12 but no incidences that I am aware of where a 12 has been isolated downline from an 11. In order to follow your idea, multiple parallel mutations from an 11 to a 12 would have had to occur. Using an 11 as the AAV would not change the sets only the background color for the 11's and 12's. Multiple parallel mutations at one allele are not useful in predicting relationship beyond a few generations. If you use 11 as the AAV and treat the 12 as a primary significant mutation every other identifiable significant marker within Group A would have had to have had parallel mutations. What now appear to be clear pathways between sets would be erased and we would have a useless hodge-podge. Sue ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [SPAM]Re: [KINCAID] DNA results for 241829 > Sue, I keep having to say that 2562 does represent > the ancestral values, but you simply won't accept it. > First of all, the Kincaid ancestral value for marker > DYS391 has to be 11 and not 12 as you keep saying. > You have to take in account the history prior to our > the person founding our surname. > > Group A Kincaids are of the Z346+ branch of U106. > Looking at the DYS values of our clade we were > a 11 at DYS391 back to the Z9 SNP (which some > estimate to be over 4000 years old). The evidence > is that we are mutating from an 11 to a 12 and not the > other way around. > > I realize that early on ancestral values were hard to > pin down. I also realize that one group is dominant > in our project and that is skewing your views. Just > because a couple of lines have been more successful > at reproducing male offspring does not change what > the ancestor must have been. The choice of ancestral > values is messing up your groupings. > > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sue Liedtke > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:08 PM > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Subject: [KINCAID] DNA results for 241829 > > The entire 67 marker order has now been returned for #24189. There are 4 > mutations from the Group A AAV: > marker 4 mutation to 11 mentioned below (common mutation) > marker 34 (CDYa) is a 38 instead of a 39 (common mutation) > marker 36 (DYS 442) is a 13 instead of a 12 > marker 60 (DYS 446) is a 14 instead of a 13 (1st instance in A-1, several > in > A-2b) > > The marker 36 mutation to 13 is shared by #59442 who is vetted to William > 1785-1850 m 1807 Martha Estill whom it is believed is the son of > William/Ann > Elliot (died on the Jackson River Augusta Co. VA in 1795). This would be > interesting except that #87718 and #171204 who believe (with reason) > descent > from William/Martha have the AAV 12. All of William/Martha's children have > been identified including son John Martin. It would appear that the > mutations to 13 are parallel. > > I have placed him in A-1c until a suspected tie to Augusta Co. VA is > established. > > Sue Liedtke

We have a new DNA participant by transfer. The donor was born Aug 1942 in Seattle, WA to an unwed Shoemaker who gave the name of the father as John Bush. The closest matches for his results at the 37 marker level are Kincaids which is what brought his son, the researcher, to our project. The results differ from our C-2 Kincaid AAV at these alleles At marker 4 (DYS 391) he has an 11 instead of a 12. At marker 12 (DYS 389-2) he has a 29 instead of a 30 At marker 29 (YCAlia) he has a 23 instead of a 24 This is a lot of mutation for this mostly harmonious set where the AAV or a single mutation is the norm. I will temporarily place him in that set with the hopes that he can upgrade to 67 markers which may bring more clarity. This is a shot in the dark as there is no guarantee that the father was a John Bush or was in Seattle much prior or after conception but every avenue is worth exploring. Does anyone know of a Kincaid-Bush cross somewhere along the line? Also were there C-2 Kincaids in the Seattle area during late 1941? Sue Liedtke

I have been ill so am catching up on email. Does anyone know the name of this Shoemaker? Shoemaker is my maiden name and I have done research. Tootsie wife of late Ted 47327 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue Liedtke" <seleaml@actionnet.net> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 11:03 AM Subject: [KINCAID] New join. 237325 > We have a new DNA participant by transfer. The donor was born Aug 1942 in > Seattle, WA to an unwed Shoemaker who gave the name of the father as John > Bush. The closest matches for his results at the 37 marker level are > Kincaids which is what brought his son, the researcher, to our project. > > The results differ from our C-2 Kincaid AAV at these alleles > At marker 4 (DYS 391) he has an 11 instead of a 12. > At marker 12 (DYS 389-2) he has a 29 instead of a 30 > At marker 29 (YCAlia) he has a 23 instead of a 24 > > This is a lot of mutation for this mostly harmonious set where the AAV or > a > single mutation is the norm. I will temporarily place him in that set with > the hopes that he can upgrade to 67 markers which may bring more clarity. > > This is a shot in the dark as there is no guarantee that the father was a > John Bush or was in Seattle much prior or after conception but every > avenue > is worth exploring. Does anyone know of a Kincaid-Bush cross somewhere > along > the line? Also were there C-2 Kincaids in the Seattle area during late > 1941? > > Sue Liedtke > > > > For complete information about the Kincaid of all spellings DNA project, > including a chart, lineages, and how to participate, go to: > > www.kincaiddna.org > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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