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

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

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 > > > >