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
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
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