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

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

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