Joe says: The only > other donor claiming descendency from Edmund or Edmond is 21419 I say: Although 21419 claims descent from Edmund, this is not the same Edmund. 21419 claims descent from Edmund who is thought to be the son of Stephen Pace. Donor 26541 claims descent from the older Edmund who is thought to be a son of John and Sarah of Surry. Another thought to keep in mind is that it is possible that the family of Richard and Elizabeth Pace of Nash Co could have moved to Surry Co after the death of John's brother Richard as the land sale of Thomas/Keziah/Elizabeth in Nash Co may suggest. If this is true, it may cloud the issue of which Paces in the land records of Surry are sons of John and Sarah and which ones are the sons of Richard and Elizabeth. As far as I am aware, the Stephen Pace mentioned above has not been identified positively as a son of John and Sarah. It is possible he was a son of Richard and Elizabeth. I agree that the results of testee 26541 seem to point toward a linking bridge between groups 3a and 3b; although, we need more tests to determine which generation mutated at marker #6. Encouraging results to say the least. John Pace ----- Original Message ----- From: "Janders 45" <janders45@hotmail.com> To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:39 AM Subject: RE: [PACE-L] Re: New DNA results #26541 > Re: "Do they suggest he is NOT descended from the > claimed Edmund Pace, presumed son of John > Pace/Sarah Burgh?" > > I wouldn't draw that conclusion from the DNA evidence. To me, the results > suggest that 26541 is in fact related to Roy's group 3, but the details of > descendancy can't be determined from Y-chromosome testing. This donor > seems to bridge both of Roy's groups 3a and 3b in that he carries the 3b > allele (12) on marker 6, but he carries the 3a allele (29) on marker 21. > The only other donor claiming descendancy from Edmund or Edmond is 21419 > (Roy has them adjacent in the chart). These two are identical for Roy's > two differentiating markers (6 & 21), but they differ at marker 23. > > These markers do change over time (generations) via mutations. The nature > of mutations is that they are relatively rare, they occur at random and > they are unpredictable. That's why we can't use them to answer specific > questions relative to our family tree (such as the one that you phrased), > but we can use them to answer more general questions. But even these > answers are more properly given in terms of probabilities rather than > certainties. > > Joe Anderson > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "MAC" <olems@bellsouth.net> > Reply-To: "MAC" <olems@bellsouth.net> > To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PACE-L] Re: New DNA results #26541 > Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 16:58:01 -0500 > > Is anyone out there familiar enough with DNA > testing to explain what the new results for #26541 > mean? I have no idea how to interpret these > differences. > > Do they suggest he is NOT descended from the > claimed Edmund Pace, presumed son of John > Pace/Sarah Burgh? > > M.A. Causey > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Johnson" <royj@webster.edu> > To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:23 PM > Subject: [PACE-L] New results 26541 > > >>25 marker upgrade just posted on Results page >>for #26541. I re-organized >>the order of the listings to bring like results >>closer together; note >>interesting combinations in markers 6, 21, 23. >>I will leave it to members >>of those lines to sort out the meaning. >> >>http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/results.htm > >>Roy Johnson >>DNA coordinator > > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > Be sure to check the Pace Family Genealogy Forum at > http://genforum.com/pace/ and the Pace Network at > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace > > > > ==== PACE Mailing List ==== > You can search archived messages from the Pace Mailing List by going to > http://searches.rootsweb.com. If you need instructions just ask me - > gordonpace@comcast.net > >