GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-07 > 0994015745


From: "Allan S. Gleason" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Kincaid Surname DNA Project Plan
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 12:29:05 -0700
References: <3.0.6.32.20010701010539.007aca80@pop.nbnet.nb.ca> <3B3E3896.523B8938@wizzards.net> <3.0.6.32.20010630145633.007b1c70@pop.nbnet.nb.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010701144903.007a6600@pop.nbnet.nb.ca>


I know virtually nothing of the statistics involved with DNA and population
studies. However, we have been assured by BYU that:

" I encourage you to add people to your study to answer as many questions as
possible, but with just the five people already involved, [she names them], we
have enough to determine if the Gleason and the Leeson lines are hooked
together."

To reiterate, we are going back about 10 generations (30 year) and then forward
10, of course. I suspect that it will be a yay/nay situation. Now, if the
Leeson representatives are thrown off by that hired hand's participation in the
birthing event, then the result will be a nay for the wrong reasons and we'll
never know unless we are able to find another representative of that particular
line (you see, we know that we are somehow attached to the surname farther back
in time and the lab is aware of that probability.). But what we will also gain
is whether our own individual lines are related even though we have no
documented connections within about 8-10 generations. You see, if any one of us
matches with the Leeson's, we have proven the fact within reason!

In the case of the Kincaid Clan there may be a problem with having a single,
what do they call it, haplogroup? If my understanding of medieval practices are
true, that very often the people of the village took on the surname of the lord
of the manor (as did many black slaves here in the US when freed) - after all,
he owned the land - they all worked and fought for him under his banner - then
you could very well have a plethora of haplotypes within the clan. And since
the poor tend to reproduce more than the better off, then the most common
haplotype might not be that of the "true" Adam Kincaid! I don't know how you
can solve that problem by statistical sampling.

Again, as I stated before, it is much easier for an employer, medical provider,
insurance company or court to get one's DNA than to sift through the files of
some laboratory. The ONLY remedy for that is through anti discrimination
legislation.

Years ago long before the proliferation of computers, I was employed as an
insurance employment and 'skip and locate' investigation firm. Each morning I
would get a packet in the mail giving me the backgrounds on up to twenty
subjects I was to find out about. The backgrounds were gleaned from my
company's files which were kept in folders on every individual whose name was
ever printed by the media (they had girls clipping newspapers all over the
country). If a person had moved from somewhere else, I would receive a report
from that field investigator. My job was a local one: to interview the
neighbors, local banker, employer and court house. I hated the job because I
was discouraged by how much we could know about a person and he/she would never
know why their rates went up or they were declined or not hired! Just think
how easy that task is today! It's not 'big brother' you have to worry about -
he's your only protection!
Allan







"Peter A. Kincaid" wrote:
Thus 10 people will only tell you whether or not two of the participants have a
common paternal ancestor within 30 generations. It tells you very little about
what the true patriarch (i.e.. males directly descended from the founder of a
particular surname) line is! Nor can one say which of the two samples is a
legitimate line (ie. an American Kincaid patriarch could be the real father of
one of his wife's seven children - she having been impregnated by a hired hand
the other six times). Statistically possible!


This thread: