Billie Harris - Oct 1, 2008
I've just received notice from FamilyTreeDNA that the person who did the DNA test as a descendant of William Lewelling who died 1799 Randolph County, N.C. (through his son Meshech and Meshech's son Seth born 1820 N.C. and died 1896 Milwaukie Oregon) is an identical match with the descendant of Wiley Lewallen (born 1795 N.C.) As you may recall, Anderson Lewallen's descendant's DNA also matches that of Wiley's. Per the notice from FamilyTreeDNA with the same surname, there's a 99% chance they share a common ancestor.
The question is: Where?
Cindy Lewallen - Oct 3, 2008
Billie: I'm a little confused. The person who recently did the DNA test and who presumes that he is descended from William/Mesach/Seth is a match with a descendant of Wiley? Anderson's descendant matches that of Wiley as well? Perhaps when we get my brother's DNA test it will provide some information, as I believe my family descended from Wiley as well.
John Corn - Oct 3, 2008
I am probably going to step on some toes here but I think this needs to be said.
I would highly suggest that, if you are going to do this with the intent of actually learning anything worthwhile, you all need to stop guessing and take a strictly scientific approach here.
The question is not "where". The 1st question is "How many markers were tested?" From that, we can mathmatically determine how far back we need to look to find that common ancestor.
Assuming the "Standard" mutation rate -
12-marker match: 99% probability means any time within the last 100 generations (read as roughly 3,000 years). As a point of reference, here are a few of the great world events of that era - David became King of Israel - The Olmec Culture (Pre-Mayan) developed the first rudimentary calendar - The beginning of the Chou dynasty in China - etc.
25-marker match: 99% probabilty is achieved at approx. 40 generations (1,200 years)
37-marker match: 99% probaility is within about 30 generations (< 900 years - roughly the middle of the "Dark Ages").
Or, we can look at it the other way - since the William Lewelling discussed above (Meshack's father) was born roughly 1740'ish, we're only talking about 270 years or 9-10 generations.
A 12-marker match provides roughly a 36% probability of a common ancestor within this time period.
A 25-marker match would give us a probability in the area of 60%.
etc, etc, etc.
If you would like to see the calculations used, go to
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftDNA/TMRCA.html
Billie Harris - Oct 3, 2008
Cindy, the answer is yes. At this point the descendants of Wiley (b 1795), Anderson (b 1764) and William (died 1799) all have matching markers. The fellow who tested for the William Lewelling line can easily trace his ancestry back that far. They were a Quaker family and horticulturists (developed all sorts of fruit including the Bing Cherry, Black Republican Cherry, etc.) so there's plenty of documentation.
Wiley Lewallen's descendant's DNA is for 25 markers.
I believe Cindy's relative's test is for 37 markers and he probably descends from Wiley also but we'll wait until the markers are returned before we'll know for certain.
We have another who's a descendant of Anderson Lewallen and he's having a 37 marker test as well and with 12 markers, they match with Wiley's so we'll see what the 37 marker test reveals.
I think with some research, we won't have to go back to the Dark Ages to find the connection and we'll find here in the colonies in the 1600's and 1700's, maybe 1800' on most of these whose markers match. At least I hope that to be the case. Knowing there's a connection, at least we'll know what direction to look and if we can't make that connection, then it will probably mean we will have to go back to the Dark Ages. Research that far back is pretty hard though.
Don't get me wrong though. It's definitely good to have more markers tested, but sometimes it's a matter of funds to pay for them so we have to settle for what we can afford. If anyone does want to have an existing DNA upgraded to more markers though, please let me know and I'll make arrangements and we definitely need more people to test.
John Corn - Oct 4, 2008
Let me start by saying I absolutely agree with everything Billie said above.
In re-reading my previous post, I realize that, although accurate, I did not make my point very well. What I was trying to say was that making a general statement that "all the markers match" doesn't really give us any valuable information without knowing how many markers we are talking about. Also, "99% probablility" is only valid when coupled with a specified time period (typically expressed in generations).By saying that the DNA numbers refer to a person who descends from XYZ, we are implying that XYZ had the same numbers and that may or may not be true. We need to be specific in what we say and how we say it so as to not create any potentially false expectations. That is why we need to document our findings of the current generation and work backwards regardless of where that takes us. Otherwise we are drawing conclusions even before we run the tests. Just because 2 people match today does not necessarily mean that they came from the same family line. IF they have a common last name (disregarding spelling changes) AND IF they have a significant number of matching alelles, then they PROBABLY share a common ancestor at some point in the past.