HAVE you ever seen a gambrell and a nowton geting married in nc. i have a john nowton gambrell in south carline, AND we think that his dad was william gambrell and he lived close to newton family and with john gambrell having nowton as a middle name i think she could been a nowton. LaVera Jones cjones05695@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com> To: Ryden Julia <juryden@gmail.com>; newton <newton@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 2:37 pm Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Duplin Co., NC / Hanover Co., NC DNA Hi Julia (et al.), The patriarch George Newton about whom I spoke in my last message appears to ave married Ann "Nancy" Moore. Without knowing more about the George Newton you eference, I can't tell if they are the same, but they appear to NOT be the same o me. The George Newton I am talking about had a son named Isaac who married Elizabeth lderman, according to the descent claims that were given to me by the articipant(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 he various claimed descents of the participants as shown in the results table nd 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 ne Isaac Newton (1735) of subject location may be brothers, saying negative, nd that based on the 12 marker results, they are too genetically remote from ach other. However, additional markers tested for both lines pretty much all atch. So that causes me to change my mind and say that based on the DNA, they ould 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 onsidered equivalently to George/Isaac (Abraham 1760), and after looking at the umbers agree that (based on DNA and geography and name) it should probably be onsidered to be grouped together with the existing group that is composed of odes M,O/O2,W. His node is Z, so that is now nodes M,O/O2,W,Z. The node names nd new common descent claims did not change. > > > The interesting thing about it is that it makes a prediction, based on the lacements of the mutations in the M,O/O2,W,Z group. It also brings up an issue gain about the names of the kids of Isaac, the son of the above George. Some ay he had a child named William Isaac, and another named Isaac Milton. It roubled me that someone would name two sons Isaac, and after having looked at t, I can't find where the Isaac in William Isaac occurs, and I can't find where he Milton in Isaac Milton occurs, such that it seems to me that they should ust be called Isaac (1822) and William (1809). And that's good, because that eans they are distinguishable. > > > But I digress...the mutations are arranged in such a way that it predicts saac Milton would be more likely a descendant of Isaac (1735) (or some et-to-be-discovered Newton man) than of George (1742). Remember, this is based n the arrangement of the mutations alone. Whether the above is plausible onsidering other information, I don't know. It also implies that the 4th marker istinguishes the two lines (George versus Isaac). If you are an 11 on that arker, then you are from George; if you are a 10 on that marker, then you are f Isaac. Only testing of more men from these lines will tell if that is really he case. > > > But in any case, it would be a pretty odd thing to happen to have two ifferent lines representing the same mutation, not only in the marker ID, but lso in its magnitude and direction. Mutations by themselves are rare, identical utations in the same tree are very rare. > > Finally, the data support the notion that Abraham (1760) was part of this ame 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 ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message ------------------------------ o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message