This is one of the most important dna on George from Gregg Bonner On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:57 AM, roznewton@juno.com wrote: > Hi Greg: > Since our gggf in Monroe Co. TN /early MO/Ottawa Co OK said he was > born IRELAND in the 1850 census, this is interesting although only our > children are left for DNA since my husband James H. Newton died 2011. > There are other Newton desc. in Warrensburg area of MO from WG Newtons > sons I believe, desc of Harrison > > Sheldon Family Association also has a DNA project underway for our 5 > progenitors and some are showing possible relationship to more than one > progenitor. No surprise as RI,CT,MA, VT,OH, CA, OR descendants came from > them, unknowing "cousins" would intermarry. Dr. Peter Jeffries at: > arnjeff@myfairpoint.net is the SHELDON FAMILY ASSOCIATION DNA Chairman, > in case you guys would check similarities of each others matching family > lines to see if comparisons would help.. Above my head :-) > Sheldons came from England to CT,MA, RI, ME but Sheldon and Newton > groups are using ISAAC,and WILLIAM. Sheltons came in Louisiana with > Lord DeLawarr but DeLawarr had a SHELDON as secretary, these guys built > SHELDON Church Ruins in SC after their home church in ENG. > Rose Sheldon Newton, Sheldon Family Association Genealogist (We have > corresponded before. My husband is of William Gilbert Newton who said he > was b Ireland likely came to VA from IRE and through the Gap to Monroe > Co. TN to MO and early OK..my website for him is back under oocities as > Geocities is being reactivated. > Rose Sheldon Newton roznewton@juno.com or > Genealogist@sheldonfamily.org > ---------------------------- > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:00:27 -0600 newton-request@rootsweb.com writes: >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA (Gregg Bonner) >> 2. Re: Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA (Ryden Julia) >> 3. Re: Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA (Gregg Bonner) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:45:23 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com> >> Subject: [NEWTON] Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA >> To: "newton-l@rootsweb.com" <newton-l@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: >> <1366011923.34619.YahooMailNeo@web163902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> Some time ago, I gave an opinion about whether one George Newton >> (1742) and one Isaac Newton (1735) of subject location may be >> brothers, saying negative, and that based on the 12 marker results, >> they are too genetically remote from each other. However, additional >> markers tested for both lines pretty much all match. So that causes >> me to change my mind and say that based on the DNA, they could be >> brothers. Of course they could also be 1st cousins or something >> else. >> >> One of our existing participants suggested to me that his line >> should be considered equivalently to George/Isaac (Abraham 1760), >> and after looking at the numbers agree that (based on DNA and >> geography and name) it should probably be? considered to be grouped >> together with the existing group that is composed of nodes M,O/O2,W. >> His node is Z, so that is now nodes M,O/O2,W,Z. The node names and >> new common descent claims did not change. >> >> >> The interesting thing about it is that it makes a prediction, based >> on the placements of the mutations in the M,O/O2,W,Z group. It also >> brings up an issue again about the names of the kids of Isaac, the >> son of the above George. Some say he had a child named William >> Isaac, and another named Isaac Milton. It troubled me that someone >> would name two sons Isaac, and after having looked at it, I can't >> find where the Isaac in William Isaac occurs, and I can't find where >> the Milton in Isaac Milton occurs, such that it seems to me that >> they should just be called Isaac (1822) and William (1809). And >> that's good, because that means they are distinguishable. >> >> >> But I digress...the mutations are arranged in such a way that it >> predicts Isaac Milton would be more likely a descendant of Isaac >> (1735) (or some yet-to-be-discovered Newton man) than of George >> (1742). Remember, this is based on the arrangement of the mutations >> alone. Whether the above is plausible considering other information, >> I don't know. It also implies that the 4th marker distinguishes the >> two lines (George versus Isaac). If you are an 11 on that marker, >> then you are from George; if you are a 10 on that marker, then you >> are of Isaac. Only testing of more men from these lines will tell if >> that is really the case. >> >> >> But in any case, it would be a pretty odd thing to happen to have >> two different lines representing the same mutation, not only in the >> marker ID, but also in its magnitude and direction. Mutations by >> themselves are rare, identical mutations in the same tree are very >> rare. >> >> Finally, the data support the notion that Abraham (1760) was part of >> this same Newton family. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gregg Bonner >> Newton Surname DNA Project Group Administrator >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:12:19 -0700 >> From: Ryden Julia <juryden@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA >> To: Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com>, newton@rootsweb.com >> Message-ID: <1E5DCE96-5DB3-4041-93D3-81B847E1A4E9@gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> I have a George Newton born in Essex Co., VA relocated to Meck., VA >> and thence (according to land records) to Orange, NC >> This George had a son named Isaac (according to his will, his >> widow's >> land deal, and her will in Tennessee of 1822). >> >> Are these two totally separate lines? >> I am one of the researchers for the Gale Shelton Newton line. >> Judy Ryden >> >> We cannot change the direction of the wind... >> but we can adjust our sails. >> >> juryden@gmail.com >> oneinchto12@yahoo.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 15, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Gregg Bonner wrote: >> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> Some time ago, I gave an opinion about whether one George Newton >> (1742) and one Isaac Newton (1735) of subject location may be >> brothers, saying negative, and that based on the 12 marker results, >> they are too genetically remote from each other. However, additional >> markers tested for both lines pretty much all match. So that causes >> me to change my mind and say that based on the DNA, they could be >> brothers. Of course they could also be 1st cousins or something >> else. >>> >>> One of our existing participants suggested to me that his line >> should be considered equivalently to George/Isaac (Abraham 1760), >> and after looking at the numbers agree that (based on DNA and >> geography and name) it should probably be considered to be grouped >> together with the existing group that is composed of nodes M,O/O2,W. >> His node is Z, so that is now nodes M,O/O2,W,Z. The node names and >> new common descent claims did not change. >>> >>> >>> The interesting thing about it is that it makes a prediction, >> based on the placements of the mutations in the M,O/O2,W,Z group. It >> also brings up an issue again about the names of the kids of Isaac, >> the son of the above George. Some say he had a child named William >> Isaac, and another named Isaac Milton. It troubled me that someone >> would name two sons Isaac, and after having looked at it, I can't >> find where the Isaac in William Isaac occurs, and I can't find where >> the Milton in Isaac Milton occurs, such that it seems to me that >> they should just be called Isaac (1822) and William (1809). And >> that's good, because that means they are distinguishable. >>> >>> >>> But I digress...the mutations are arranged in such a way that it >> predicts Isaac Milton would be more likely a descendant of Isaac >> (1735) (or some yet-to-be-discovered Newton man) than of George >> (1742). Remember, this is based on the arrangement of the mutations >> alone. Whether the above is plausible considering other information, >> I don't know. It also implies that the 4th marker distinguishes the >> two lines (George versus Isaac). If you are an 11 on that marker, >> then you are from George; if you are a 10 on that marker, then you >> are of Isaac. Only testing of more men from these lines will tell if >> that is really the case. >>> >>> >>> But in any case, it would be a pretty odd thing to happen to have >> two different lines representing the same mutation, not only in the >> marker ID, but also in its magnitude and direction. Mutations by >> themselves are rare, identical mutations in the same tree are very >> rare. >>> >>> Finally, the data support the notion that Abraham (1760) was part >> of this same Newton family. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gregg Bonner >>> Newton Surname DNA Project Group Administrator >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:34:07 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com> >> Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA >> To: Ryden Julia <juryden@gmail.com>, "newton@rootsweb.com" >> <newton@rootsweb.com> >> Message-ID: >> <1366054447.57141.YahooMailNeo@web163903.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> Hi Julia (et al.), >> >> The patriarch George Newton about whom I spoke in my last message >> appears to have married Ann "Nancy" Moore. Without knowing more >> about the George Newton you reference, I can't tell if they are the >> same, but they appear to NOT be the same to me. >> >> The George Newton I am talking about had a son named Isaac who >> married Elizabeth Alderman, according to the descent claims that >> were given to me by the participant(s). He also had a son named >> George who married Mary Robinson. >> >> The earlier Isaac I mention married Jemima Chambers. >> >> You can see more information by going to the project website, and >> clicking on the various claimed descents of the participants as >> shown in the results table and patriarchs table for those with nodes >> M, O or O2 (but not O1), W, and Z. >> >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gbonner/newtondna/ >> >> Best, >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Ryden Julia <juryden@gmail.com> >>> To: Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com>; newton@rootsweb.com >>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 9:12 AM >>> Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA >>> >>> >>> I have a George Newton born in Essex Co., VA relocated to Meck., >> VA >>> and thence (according to land records) to Orange, NC >>> This George had a son named Isaac (according to his will, his >> widow's >>> land deal, and her will in Tennessee of 1822). >>> >>> Are these two totally separate lines? >>> I am one of the researchers for the Gale Shelton Newton line. >>> Judy Ryden >>> >>> We cannot change the direction of the wind... >>> but we can adjust our sails. >>> >>> juryden@gmail.com >>> oneinchto12@yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Gregg Bonner wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> Some time ago, I gave an opinion about whether one George Newton >> (1742) and one Isaac Newton (1735) of subject location may be >> brothers, saying negative, and that based on the 12 marker results, >> they are too genetically remote from each other. However, additional >> markers tested for both lines pretty much all match. So that causes >> me to change my mind and say that based on the DNA, they could be >> brothers. Of course they could also be 1st cousins or something >> else. >>>> >>>> One of our existing participants suggested to me that his line >> should be considered equivalently to George/Isaac (Abraham 1760), >> and after looking at the numbers agree that (based on DNA and >> geography and name) it should probably be? considered to be grouped >> together with the existing group that is composed of nodes M,O/O2,W. >> His node is Z, so that is now nodes M,O/O2,W,Z. The node names and >> new common descent claims did not change. >>>> >>>> >>>> The interesting thing about it is that it makes a prediction, >> based on the placements of the mutations in the M,O/O2,W,Z group. It >> also brings up an issue again about the names of the kids of Isaac, >> the son of the above George. Some say he had a child named William >> Isaac, and another named Isaac Milton. It troubled me that someone >> would name two sons Isaac, and after having looked at it, I can't >> find where the Isaac in William Isaac occurs, and I can't find where >> the Milton in Isaac Milton occurs, such that it seems to me that >> they should just be called Isaac (1822) and William (1809). And >> that's good, because that means they are distinguishable. >>>> >>>> >>>> But I digress...the mutations are arranged in such a way that it >> predicts Isaac Milton would be more likely a descendant of Isaac >> (1735) (or some yet-to-be-discovered Newton man) than of George >> (1742). Remember, this is based on the arrangement of the mutations >> alone. Whether the above is plausible considering other information, >> I don't know. It also implies that the 4th marker distinguishes the >> two lines (George versus Isaac). If you are an 11 on that marker, >> then you are from George; if you are a 10 on that marker, then you >> are of Isaac. Only testing of more men from these lines will tell if >> that is really the case. >>>> >>>> >>>> But in any case, it would be a pretty odd thing to happen to have >> two different lines representing the same mutation, not only in the >> marker ID, but also in its magnitude and direction. Mutations by >> themselves are rare, identical mutations in the same tree are very >> rare. >>>> >>>> Finally, the data support the notion that Abraham (1760) was part >> of this same Newton family. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gregg Bonner >>>> Newton Surname DNA Project Group Administrator >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To contact the NEWTON list administrator, send an email to >> NEWTON-admin@rootsweb.com. >> >> To post a message to the NEWTON mailing list, send an email to >> NEWTON@rootsweb.com. >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com >> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and >> the body of the >> email with no additional text. >> >> >> End of NEWTON Digest, Vol 8, Issue 5 >> ************************************ >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > Unusual Sleep Trick > Scientists in Boston have revealed a natural sleep formula that would have everyone talking. Try it tonight. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/516d4a7ee65504a7e1eecst03vuc > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

All of this DNA business totally goes over my head, but I have gleaned from the below information that the George and Isaac I was researching is NOT the below line. However, I have come to believe that my line is not exactly attached to the George I was researching because even though they both were in NC and emigrated to TN during congruent time frames, I've not found a single connection. Here are the details. My cousin Gale Shelton Newton shared his DNA with the project. His father is Gale Shelton Newton b. 1907 Kansas d. 1990 Arizona Grandfather was Robert Henry Newton b. 1884 Kansas d. 1964 Kansas Gr Grandfather was Periander Carlton Newton b. 1842 TN d. 1903 Kansas Gr Gr Grandfather was Robert Henry Newton b. 1818 NC d. after 1885 Kansas This is what I know for sure. After Gale's DNA sample came back we discovered DNA connected us to a VA Newton family, and the researcher there was going on the assumption that the connection must be through one or her gr gr gr uncles, a George Newton. The researcher had traced her Newtons thus: Living Newton (he was their DNA donor and does not want to be named) His father was Raymond Elwood Newton b. 1942 SC Grandfather was Raymond Blanks Newton b 1907 NC d 1977 VA Gr Grandfather was Henry Bailey Newton b. 1884 VA d 1943 VA Gr Gr Grandfather was William Henry Newton b. 1854 VA d. 1909 VA This is as far as the researcher was sure of. I went further and am fairly certain of the following: William Henry Newton's father was Henry James Newton b. 1824 VA d 1908 VA His father was William Newton b 1800 VA d before 1870 VA Grandfather was Robert Newton b. 1760 VA d 1813 VA Gr Grandfather was probably Henry Newton (the fourth) b. 1738 d unknown This is where it becomes fuzzy. The dates do not match anywhich way I try them, but they all lived in Lundsburg and Mecklenburg Counties, VA At some point brothers Robert, George and another Henry appear in a will being given three neighboring plots of land in Mecklenburg Co., VA. George (of these three) appears to have sold his land and moved to Orange Co., NC I traced his line down through his children who all emigrated to TN (where my Robert Henry Newton & wife had their first child, Periander) However, after chasing all of George's children and grandchildren (all of the ones I could find) NONE appears to have had a son who could have been my Robert Henry Newton. Hence, I am looking for another DNA link that would suggest who my Robert Henry Newton's parents were. Ryden Julia juryden@gmail.com On Sep 28, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Merle Newton wrote: > This is one of the most important dna on George from Gregg Bonner > > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:57 AM, roznewton@juno.com wrote: > >> Hi Greg: >> Since our gggf in Monroe Co. TN /early MO/Ottawa Co OK said he was >> born IRELAND in the 1850 census, this is interesting although only our >> children are left for DNA since my husband James H. Newton died 2011. >> There are other Newton desc. in Warrensburg area of MO from WG Newtons >> sons I believe, desc of Harrison >> >> Sheldon Family Association also has a DNA project underway for our 5 >> progenitors and some are showing possible relationship to more than one >> progenitor. No surprise as RI,CT,MA, VT,OH, CA, OR descendants came from >> them, unknowing "cousins" would intermarry. Dr. Peter Jeffries at: >> arnjeff@myfairpoint.net is the SHELDON FAMILY ASSOCIATION DNA Chairman, >> in case you guys would check similarities of each others matching family >> lines to see if comparisons would help.. Above my head :-) >> Sheldons came from England to CT,MA, RI, ME but Sheldon and Newton >> groups are using ISAAC,and WILLIAM. Sheltons came in Louisiana with >> Lord DeLawarr but DeLawarr had a SHELDON as secretary, these guys built >> SHELDON Church Ruins in SC after their home church in ENG. >> Rose Sheldon Newton, Sheldon Family Association Genealogist (We have >> corresponded before. My husband is of William Gilbert Newton who said he >> was b Ireland likely came to VA from IRE and through the Gap to Monroe >> Co. TN to MO and early OK..my website for him is back under oocities as >> Geocities is being reactivated. >> Rose Sheldon Newton roznewton@juno.com or >> Genealogist@sheldonfamily.org >> ---------------------------- >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:00:27 -0600 newton-request@rootsweb.com writes: >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA (Gregg Bonner) >>> 2. Re: Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA (Ryden Julia) >>> 3. Re: Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA (Gregg Bonner) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:45:23 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com> >>> Subject: [NEWTON] Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA >>> To: "newton-l@rootsweb.com" <newton-l@rootsweb.com> >>> Message-ID: >>> <1366011923.34619.YahooMailNeo@web163902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 >>> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> Some time ago, I gave an opinion about whether one George Newton >>> (1742) and one Isaac Newton (1735) of subject location may be >>> brothers, saying negative, and that based on the 12 marker results, >>> they are too genetically remote from each other. However, additional >>> markers tested for both lines pretty much all match. So that causes >>> me to change my mind and say that based on the DNA, they could be >>> brothers. Of course they could also be 1st cousins or something >>> else. >>> >>> One of our existing participants suggested to me that his line >>> should be considered equivalently to George/Isaac (Abraham 1760), >>> and after looking at the numbers agree that (based on DNA and >>> geography and name) it should probably be? considered to be grouped >>> together with the existing group that is composed of nodes M,O/O2,W. >>> His node is Z, so that is now nodes M,O/O2,W,Z. The node names and >>> new common descent claims did not change. >>> >>> >>> The interesting thing about it is that it makes a prediction, based >>> on the placements of the mutations in the M,O/O2,W,Z group. It also >>> brings up an issue again about the names of the kids of Isaac, the >>> son of the above George. Some say he had a child named William >>> Isaac, and another named Isaac Milton. It troubled me that someone >>> would name two sons Isaac, and after having looked at it, I can't >>> find where the Isaac in William Isaac occurs, and I can't find where >>> the Milton in Isaac Milton occurs, such that it seems to me that >>> they should just be called Isaac (1822) and William (1809). And >>> that's good, because that means they are distinguishable. >>> >>> >>> But I digress...the mutations are arranged in such a way that it >>> predicts Isaac Milton would be more likely a descendant of Isaac >>> (1735) (or some yet-to-be-discovered Newton man) than of George >>> (1742). Remember, this is based on the arrangement of the mutations >>> alone. Whether the above is plausible considering other information, >>> I don't know. It also implies that the 4th marker distinguishes the >>> two lines (George versus Isaac). If you are an 11 on that marker, >>> then you are from George; if you are a 10 on that marker, then you >>> are of Isaac. Only testing of more men from these lines will tell if >>> that is really the case. >>> >>> >>> But in any case, it would be a pretty odd thing to happen to have >>> two different lines representing the same mutation, not only in the >>> marker ID, but also in its magnitude and direction. Mutations by >>> themselves are rare, identical mutations in the same tree are very >>> rare. >>> >>> Finally, the data support the notion that Abraham (1760) was part of >>> this same Newton family. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gregg Bonner >>> Newton Surname DNA Project Group Administrator >>>