I can see where the probabilies may assist in determining a direction.  My research is in Pennsylvania forward, basically from 1680-forward and largely westward into the Province of Pennsylvania, later the state and westward and southward from Pennsylvania.  I look for connections to Ireland and Scotland.  But clear cut indications of a place of origin for most Kincaids in Pennsylvania is lacking.  There are a few exceptions: James Kinkead, the watchmaker and David Kinkead who married Martha Sproul.  There is no DNA sample for James Kinkead, the watchmaker, yet.  There is for David Kinkead who married Martha Sproul.  Peter's area is Ireland and Scotland..  He is from Ireland and Scotland forward and back ward.  My research basically stops at the Delaward River and the Atlantic Ocean.  What I see in this is Peter is looking for connections to America from Ireland and Scotland, while I am looking for connections from the other direction.  This is where these probablities may come into play.  I do not extrapolate to Ireland because that area is not my expertise.  My main focus is to sort the Kincaids in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland and if a connection to Ireland or Scotland is uncovered then Peter can interject his expertise of where in Ireland or Scotland a particular lineage originates.   Sincerely Norman Kincaide ----- Original Message ---- From: Larry Kincaid <larryk34@gmail.com> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 9:16:38 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question I probably shouldn't say this, but it's a rainy day outside and I'm in a frisky mood.  So, tongue in cheek and grain of salt. As Don said, 80% means 80 out of 100 times predictions are made.  But wait a minute.  I can only make one prediction, not 100.  Only family tree can make a 100 in its data base.  I've only got one ancestor to predict: Am I in the 80 side or the incorrect 20 side?  Or just some plus or minus region around 250 years?  The generations known is simply adding evidence that one is sure can narrow down the time period further, leading to a new probability. You're still left with a range of probable dates for a common ancestor, and it's questionable whether the new probabilies help that much.  You're still looking for a connection at about the same time period.  The odd thing is, of course, is that if you can supply the new "genertional" link, then you already know more or less when the common ancestor lived!  You already know more than you can get from the refined probability. You have the genealogical data.  So, I always thought that was a bit funny. So, I'm with Peter on this one.  The sets of say 5 or even our 100 member data base can make great use of manual or computer clustering of the 25, 36, or 67 DNA markers to cluster known related members and therefore restrict the genealogical search to the right place, time, and related ancestors.  This is exactly what we use the DNA evidence to do and it does not require probabability estimates of time of common ancestor.  More useful in this respect is the scientific knowledge about how easily or often particular markers mutate.  If I'm not mistaken, these probabilites can be entered into the clustering routines in the computer to get a "weighted" cluster result.  The mutation knowledge allows a more precise clustering. Once you know this, then the two or three of you who cluster the closest in the group can search for the common ancestor.  By then I think you'd already have a good idea yourself about the age of the common ancestor. Unfortunately, it's somewhere in Ireland or Scotland just beyond everyone's known ancestors. What I'd really want to learn is how Family Tree arrives at its probabilities in the first place.  Knowing the two or thre markers that mismatch seems more useful.  So, in my opinion we're already using the DNA data the right way.  Moving from 80% to 90% or from 300 years to 250 years doesn't seem much of an improvement over the "distance of 35 out of 27 markers." This all reminds me of the two statisticians who went off to war together. In the first battle they were charged by the enemy and one shot about 5 feet to the left and the other shot 5 feet to the right.  They looked at each other and said "Got him!"  I suppose that was their last accomplishment.  So . . . this is how probabilities work?  Neighborhoods or regions of probability where something may or may not be.  Can anyone give us as good a probability of the US banking system failing if it's not given 700 billion dollars in one week?  Not even close to 80%.  Don L Kincaid, clustered in group C-2. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> wrote: > I don't think 4323 fits with 4164 and 122441. He has the mutation you do > not. You will need to show that the mutation to 18 in his line was parallel > before he can be included in John/Margaret Miles line. John did not have > the > mutation per your test and 122441. Note that I erred in listing 122441 as > from another son of George. It is John who (when 122441 is vetted) will be > known not to have the mutation. It still works out the same as > contemporaries of George/Jean do have the mutation. Otherwise your grouping > is feasible. > > There is a vetting post about to be made by Marcelle for 130629 whose test > is at the lab. There is some indication that his results could come back as > A-2b. I do hope all will take the time to go through the post and comment. > > Sue Liedtke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Kincaide" <norman.kincaide@yahoo.com> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> >  Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:01 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > > Thanks, Sue. > George Kinkead & Jean Mitchell had two sons: Andrew & John. John Kinkead & > Margaret Miles had at least 3 sons, William, 4323, John 4164 & Andrew, > 122441 all of which are now represented by DNA samples. I had contacted a > descendant of Andrew, son of George, about being a DNA donor but never > heard > back. This was Jack Kinkead of Cambria County, PA. My theory now is that > the > Carlisle, Middleton Township, Tyrone Township, Toboyne Township, Cumberland > County, PA Kincaids: George, John the Merchant, Andrew the Carpenter, and > James, who I believe is the James Kinkead of Rowan County, NC, were at the > closest brothers or if not then cousins. I also believe that Andrew > Kinkead, > carpenter, was the father of Andrew and Archibald. As for sample > 5803, I have tried to figure out where he belongs and one of the few > logical > explanations attractive to me is that he may be a grandson of John Kinkead, > the merchant, through his son, Andrew. But the only heir ever mentioned for > Andrew, son of John, the merchant, was John who eventually interited the > Middleton Township plantation and died in 1822 in Carlisle. Then there is > still sample 15550 who I still believe descends from James Kinkead of West > Pennsborough/ Dickinson Township, who was a weaver, and William Kinkead > 5803 > of Rye Township was also a weaver, so he could be from James Kinkead of > West > Pennsborough as well. So what I am seeing is not only a tighter social > cluster, but a tighter DNA cluster as well. I have tried to find surveys > for > James Kinkead of West Pennsborough/Dickinson Township, and William Kinkead > of Rye Township, but so far have been unsuccessful, even to find them as > adjacent landowners. James of West Pennsborough was a >  freeman in 1774 so he was born about 1750 and would be contemporary of > Archibald & Andrew and their cousins. > > Sincerely > Norman Kincaide > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Sue Liedtke <seleaml@actionnet.net> > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 10:38:24 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] common ancestor question > > Only if the 18 at DYS 456 was a mutation from early 1700's and all 2b can > trace to the same source, (perhaps a brother to George/Jean b c1733?). I > really don't think this will prove to be a troublesome marker with parallel > mutations gumming up the works. As Norman is pretty sure that 122441 is > from > George/Jean through a different son, we know that George/Jean didn't have > the mutation and that lines with the mutation believe they can trace to > ancestors b 1739, 1745 and 1749 (which would be the same generation as > George/Jean), therefore anyone with it is not a descendent of George/Jean. > > Sue Liedtke > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:53 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 > > 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-------------------------------Tounsubscribe 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