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