At 01:21 PM 07/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Ok.. for those of us women that have Payne relatives.. >is there a connection to Moses Payne son of John >Payne and Ayres.. John was a brother to Isaac Payne (1790-1849) who married >1814, Charlotte McDaniel. So where would I look for a connection to which >Payne family... >Thank you for your help on this. They simple answer to this is YES. Moses Payne (1806-aft 1850), m. 1827 Elizabeth Walker, in Rutherford County, NC. He was a son of John Payne and Philadelphia Ayres, who was a grandson of Isaiah Payne (1735-1818) of Maryland. A descendant of Isaiah participated in our DNA test (945O). Since Moses and his father were direct descendants of Isaiah, their male descendants would carry the same DNA as Isaiah (and our test participant). Therefore, any descendant of Isaiah Payne would align with our Payne Lineage 1, Ancestral Type 1, as outlined in the report. This same process holds true for any descendant of the ancestors represented in our test. I want to stress to everyone that the Y chromosome is passed from every man to his sons- no matter how many sons he might have had. In the case above, Isaiah had several sons and each would have received his Y chromosome. They, in turn, passed it on to their sons, and they to theirs. The process of passing Isaiah's Y chromosome will continue in this fashion, through ALL of the male descendants from him, until the male lines die out. When the very last male descendant from Isaiah dies, so will his Y chromosome. Having now addressed how the Y chromosome is passed down the chain- we must also realize the there was a reverse process too! Isaiah got his Y chromosome from his father, Isaac Payne (ca. 1713-bef. 1801). The Y chromosome that Isaiah passed to his sons (and their male descendants), was identical to the Y chromosome that he received from his father Isaac- and Isaac received his Y chromosome from his father, and so on. We can take this process (in this example anyway) all the way up to Thomas Payne (d. 1673) of St. Mary's County, Maryland, who married Jane Smallpiece. Thomas Payne began the process of passing his Y chromosome on to his sons and since we have not determined who his father was, the buck literally stops with him, genetically speaking. However, we know that the DNA of Thomas' father would be the same as his- and ALL of his male descendants too. This is how we know that, somewhere along the line, all of those individuals in Lineage 1, Ancestral Types 1, 2, and 3, shared a common ancestor- because they all demonstrate the same DNA signature. This was the easy explanation. It gets a little bit more complicated when we consider the "Mutation" factor. When you look at the result chart (using Ancestral Type 1 as an example- but this holds true for all of the Lineages identified as well), you notice that not every participant shared the same value in all 24 locations tested. For example, when you look at the results for the descendant of Isaiah (945O) and the descendant of Thomas Payne (945J), you see that under DYS389II, the descendant of Isaiah had 29 segments of DNA at that location while the descendant of Thomas had only 28. This is referred to as a "mutation." 29 segments appears to have been the standard in this Lineage as all of the others in it had 29 segments of DNA at this location. Their DNA is the same in all other respects- 23 of the 24 "locations" tested. They only differ at this one location (DYS389II), and it is a "one-step" mutation, meaning that only one segment (or strand) of DNA was removed in the case of Thomas' descendant. This means that beginning with the living descendant of Thomas (the person tested) and working our way up the pedigree, somewhere along the line, this mutation occurred. Thomas Payne (b. 1664) may not have actually had this mutation in his DNA- although it is possible that he did have it. He could have received it from his father, or grandfather, or gr-grandfather, etc... All we can determine from the results is that at some point in his line, a mutation DID occur and one segment of DNA at this location on the Y chromosome was not created. Someone in the line started the process whereby one less DNA segment was created at this location then other males in his line- who got all 29 segments. These "mutations" allow geneticists to determine the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA), because mutations at particular locations on the chromosome occur at fixed rates. This gets into statistics, and I am terrible at math so I won't even attempt to explain it... Suffice it to say that the comparison of DNA signatures helps us to determine when a common ancestor had lived. If there is only one mutation (as in this case) that common ancestor probably lived fairly recently and they can be said to have been close relatives. As the number of mutations increases, the less likely it is that individuals were related. Generally, it is said that separation by 3 or 4 mutations indicates no relationship between people. However, the lab pointed out to me that as the length of the genealogical pedigree increases, the greater the number of mutations allowed to indicate relatedness. So while it may hold true that 3 mutations in a family that has traced their ancestry back to the 17 or 1800s may indicate no relationship, that will not necessarily hold true for a family that has traced their ancestry back to the 1500s, as more mutations can occur over that period of time. It is strictly dependant on the mutation rate for that particular location. Some mutations might occur frequently (say every 100 years). Others occur maybe every 200 or 300 years. I am picking numbers out of the blue here just to illustrate how it works. I don't have any specific knowledge about how often mutations occur at a given location.