This is the last of my 5 evaluations relating to YDNA. It is the simplest, and in some ways, the most challenging. General Statement: A living, breathing Queen male can have a YDNA mutation from the "norm" and be even "nearer" an early ancestor than someone with zero mutations from that early ancestor. Donor of kit 72192 was born in 1941. He is the G.G. Grandson of Alfred Queen of 1810. At the 37 marker level, the donor has ZERO mutations from that of Alfred. Donors of kits 34392, 38162 and 23313 are grandsons of William Monroe Queen (b. 1877) down two different branches. Each donor has two mutations from the norm at the 37 marker level. Thus, William Monroe Queen of 1877 had these two mutations. Here the Grandson of Alfred of 1810 would had TWO mutations from that of Alfred, while the G. G. Grandson noted above had ZERO mutations. Conclusion: We must not look at a mutation, alone, and draw a conclusion regarding the distance in generations from a common ancestor when compared with another donor with zero mutations. The genetic wizards, in their own way, tell us this. Mutations are random and can occur at different locations on different branches of the greater family tree. Down one branch a mutation may hit at the first generation, down another branch a mutation may not hit for any number of generations. So....of what benefit is YDNA evidence to family research? Gosh, how to answer my own question here? 1. It has split the "Queens" into 4 or 5 groups. 2. It has split the "old William" group into two sub-groups. 3. It has nailed John Queen of 1853 as being a son of my Alfred (he was missing from one census report). 4. It has narrowed the focus of all of us in seeking to break thru that brick wall of ours. It has enriched the stockholders of the YDNA testing companies. ...............Now, hit me with challenges, disagreements, other opinions, the kitchen sink, etc. But, please don't throw any rotten 'taters at me. Gene