Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 214
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    528
    :bananajump:Very exciting news, indeed!

    I've got alot of catching up to do!
    Please read about Terry and Darleen Anderson at AMW!

    Terry & Darleen Anderson Case File at AMW

    Terry & Darleen Anderson WS Forum

    Justice for Terry & Darleen!


  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,000

    Help understanding the YDNA Test...from Mr. Kyle

    This is a copy of one of the informational pages from Family Tree dot com. I highlighted some pertinent sentences at the bottom. It seems to me that it is far too soon for everyone to be making the assumption that my last name is Powell since we do not know what my last name is. Matching surnames seems to be a major part in concluding who a person is related to. Respectfully yours,
    Benjaman Kyle
    Understanding Matches

    Just as there are surnames which are very common, (such as Smith and Jones), and surnames which are uncommon, there are Haplotypes (a set of results that characterize you on the Y-Chromosome) with a high frequency of occurrence (aka common), and Haplotypes with a low frequency of occurrence (aka uncommon). The 12 Marker result from the Y-chromosome test is called a Haplotype, and can help determine if your DNA sample is common or uncommon.
    When you compare a 12 Marker result to another 12 marker result of someone with the SAME surname, and the results match 12/12, there is a 99% probability that you two are related within the time frame included in the MRCA tables. If the match is 11/12, there's still a high probability that you are related IF the 11/12 match is within the same surname. If you compare a 25 Marker result to another 25 marker result for the SAME surname, and the results match 25/25, then there is also a 99% confidence that the two individuals are related…and at a much closer time interval than with the 12 marker test.
    If you compare the 12 marker result to someone else who does not have the same surname, but the scores match, you are most likely NOT recently related. When we use the term recently related, we are talking about a time frame within the last 1000 years or 40 generations, a time depth that accommodates the earliest known use of surnames.
    According to current theories, we are all related. The degree of relatedness depends on the time frame, or the number generations between the participants and the common ancestor.
    We all descend from one single person, but of course the DNA test that we do is not to tell us this obvious fact.
    Since we all descent from one person, and then from a few families, and as times goes by those families keep branching out up to the point where we get to our own family nest, it would be natural that when we check our DNA, the less markers we check, the less unique they are, and the more markers we test, the more unique the whole string of markers is. In other words, to go to extremes, if we tested only one marker, we would most certainly match with millions of individuals that shared that marker for thousands of years. But if on the other hand when we test many markers, we will match very very few people that share those same markers. Those would be the ones that are closely related to us.
    This is valid when checking our matches on 12, 25 or 37 markers. The likelihood that we will match other individuals with 12 markers is far greater than matching on 25 or 37. Especially if our family descends from a populational group that came from one or a few prolific families thousands of years ago (which is the case for Western Europe). Dr. Luigi Lucca Cavalli-Sforza, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, in his fascinating book: The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolutions says that the total population of Europe was 60,000 people at the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago. Now Europe has a population of 300 million people. This increase is almost entirely due to a natural increase in population rather then immigration from other continents. Keeping this in mind it is reasonable that many people alive today in Europe will match with other Europeans from BEFORE the time that our ancestors began the adoption of surnames, and when you match someone who has a different surname your first thought should be that the ‘connection’ is distant rather then recent.
    Our bodies work as copy machines when it comes to the Y-DNA. You can have a copy machine doing 1,000 copies without a problem, and then, the 1,001 copy may have an "o" that looks more like an "e". And when we use this copy to make additional ones, all the new ones will now have an "e" instead of an "o". This is a simple way to explain how mutations occur in our Y-DNA when it's transferred (copied) from father to son. Mutations don't happen frequently, on the contrary, very seldom, but they can happen randomly in time, which means that I could be one mutation off of my father. That is why all those matches or close matches on 12 markers will in most of the cases go away when they happen between different surnames, and we increased the numbered of markers that are compared: more mutations showing up, which means way back in time when the common ancestor lived.
    The only exceptions to this are if an unannounced adoption or false paternity has taken place, but that is difficult to prove, although certainly not impossible.
    If two 12 marker results match for two participants with the same surname, and the genealogy research shows a common ancestor in 1835, the DNA test has validated the research and proven that the two descendents are related. In this example, you have two items of evidence to support that the individuals tested are related…a documented paper trail and the DNA results. In addition, the research provided a precise time frame for the common ancestor.
    Without the genealogy research, and where 2 participants with the same surname match on the 12 marker test, then the scientific answer to the degree of relatedness is that 50% of the time the common ancestor would have occurred within 7 generations, or within approximately 150 years. The range of generations for the common ancestor extends to 76.9 generations, or almost 2000 years for those cases where there is not a surname in common. Therefore the importance of a surname link is paramount to provide a comfortable conclusion of relatedness. Most of the time random matches with people with different surnames do not stand the test for extended DNA testing.
    While the MRCA tables will give you the general probabilities for relationships on different levels of matching, the FTDNATiP found in your personal matches page will give you probabilities that are specific to others that you may be related.
    email me


    Long Lost Love: The Bob Harrod Story Disappeared/ID Network
    Amazon: Purchase Long Lost Love $1.99


    Bob Harrod SAR


    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
    ― Maya Angelou


  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    426
    Re: the surname variations, Powell I think is the most common.

    Ap Howell (or Ap Hywel) is going to be very, very rare outside Wales, where I'm from - it is the original version of Powell and means "Of Howell" with the A dropping off in English use over time. You also see this with some other "P" surnames like Pugh (Ap Huw), Pritchard (Ap Ritchard) and Preece (Ap Rhys).

    There are 231,000 Powells (approximately) in the US; zero Powels or Powells's (I hate that apostrophe but it had to be done) and Pauwel doesn't even appear on the list of surnames I researched. Now those figures may be inaccurate but even if there are 10 of each of the variant surnames, the chances are only 1 in 3000 that, if he is part of a Powell group, the surname is not Powell but one of the linked ones.

    Obviously he could be related by marriage, adopted, or not related at all in any meaningful sense - but the likelihood is very high that, if he is a "Powell" then that is exactly how he spells it.


  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    426
    Oh and WRT to BK's link on interpretation, I am rather more confident than that:

    http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic...7-markers.aspx

    My understanding (and I am happy to be corrected) is that there is a 37-point match with members of the Joseph Powell family group. If that is the case, the likelihood is high that there is a common male ancestor within a much shorter time frame and this family needs to be looked into.

    It may not show up anything of course but the article that BK has provided seems to focus only on 12-point markers, which are much, much less likely to show a link and, without the surname, appear to be meaningless. Even with a surname, a common ancestor within the last 500-600 years probably doesn't bring us much further forward.

    A 37-point match however is a 50% probability of a common male ancestor within 5 generations and 90% within 16 generations. (Admittedly this could get us from Barack Obama to Dick Cheney). Those confidence levels are with the same surname of course, whereas a 12-point match is, as BK states, a very low level indicator of common ancestry.


  5. #20
    SewingDeb's Avatar
    SewingDeb is offline "Sorry, I'm not qualified to land the plane."
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,985
    Do you all think it would be a good idea to post his information and picture at all of the Powell pages on genealogy sites?


  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by believe09 View Post
    This is a copy of one of the informational pages from Family Tree dot com. I highlighted some pertinent sentences at the bottom. It seems to me that it is far too soon for everyone to be making the assumption that my last name is Powell since we do not know what my last name is. Matching surnames seems to be a major part in concluding who a person is related to. Respectfully yours,
    Benjaman Kyle
    Understanding Matches

    Just as there are surnames which are very common, (such as Smith and Jones), and surnames which are uncommon, there are Haplotypes (a set of results that characterize you on the Y-Chromosome) with a high frequency of occurrence (aka common), and Haplotypes with a low frequency of occurrence (aka uncommon). The 12 Marker result from the Y-chromosome test is called a Haplotype, and can help determine if your DNA sample is common or uncommon.
    When you compare a 12 Marker result to another 12 marker result of someone with the SAME surname, and the results match 12/12, there is a 99% probability that you two are related within the time frame included in the MRCA tables. If the match is 11/12, there's still a high probability that you are related IF the 11/12 match is within the same surname. If you compare a 25 Marker result to another 25 marker result for the SAME surname, and the results match 25/25, then there is also a 99% confidence that the two individuals are related…and at a much closer time interval than with the 12 marker test.
    If you compare the 12 marker result to someone else who does not have the same surname, but the scores match, you are most likely NOT recently related. When we use the term recently related, we are talking about a time frame within the last 1000 years or 40 generations, a time depth that accommodates the earliest known use of surnames.
    According to current theories, we are all related. The degree of relatedness depends on the time frame, or the number generations between the participants and the common ancestor.
    We all descend from one single person, but of course the DNA test that we do is not to tell us this obvious fact.
    Since we all descent from one person, and then from a few families, and as times goes by those families keep branching out up to the point where we get to our own family nest, it would be natural that when we check our DNA, the less markers we check, the less unique they are, and the more markers we test, the more unique the whole string of markers is. In other words, to go to extremes, if we tested only one marker, we would most certainly match with millions of individuals that shared that marker for thousands of years. But if on the other hand when we test many markers, we will match very very few people that share those same markers. Those would be the ones that are closely related to us.
    This is valid when checking our matches on 12, 25 or 37 markers. The likelihood that we will match other individuals with 12 markers is far greater than matching on 25 or 37. Especially if our family descends from a populational group that came from one or a few prolific families thousands of years ago (which is the case for Western Europe). Dr. Luigi Lucca Cavalli-Sforza, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, in his fascinating book: The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolutions says that the total population of Europe was 60,000 people at the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago. Now Europe has a population of 300 million people. This increase is almost entirely due to a natural increase in population rather then immigration from other continents. Keeping this in mind it is reasonable that many people alive today in Europe will match with other Europeans from BEFORE the time that our ancestors began the adoption of surnames, and when you match someone who has a different surname your first thought should be that the ‘connection’ is distant rather then recent.
    Our bodies work as copy machines when it comes to the Y-DNA. You can have a copy machine doing 1,000 copies without a problem, and then, the 1,001 copy may have an "o" that looks more like an "e". And when we use this copy to make additional ones, all the new ones will now have an "e" instead of an "o". This is a simple way to explain how mutations occur in our Y-DNA when it's transferred (copied) from father to son. Mutations don't happen frequently, on the contrary, very seldom, but they can happen randomly in time, which means that I could be one mutation off of my father. That is why all those matches or close matches on 12 markers will in most of the cases go away when they happen between different surnames, and we increased the numbered of markers that are compared: more mutations showing up, which means way back in time when the common ancestor lived.
    The only exceptions to this are if an unannounced adoption or false paternity has taken place, but that is difficult to prove, although certainly not impossible.
    If two 12 marker results match for two participants with the same surname, and the genealogy research shows a common ancestor in 1835, the DNA test has validated the research and proven that the two descendents are related. In this example, you have two items of evidence to support that the individuals tested are related…a documented paper trail and the DNA results. In addition, the research provided a precise time frame for the common ancestor.
    Without the genealogy research, and where 2 participants with the same surname match on the 12 marker test, then the scientific answer to the degree of relatedness is that 50% of the time the common ancestor would have occurred within 7 generations, or within approximately 150 years. The range of generations for the common ancestor extends to 76.9 generations, or almost 2000 years for those cases where there is not a surname in common. Therefore the importance of a surname link is paramount to provide a comfortable conclusion of relatedness. Most of the time random matches with people with different surnames do not stand the test for extended DNA testing.
    While the MRCA tables will give you the general probabilities for relationships on different levels of matching, the FTDNATiP found in your personal matches page will give you probabilities that are specific to others that you may be related.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Glad that Benjaman Kyle responded. That is good to hear.
    I do understand how the more markers match, the more probablity of a connection with a close relative.

    And I think I understand that Benjaman Kyle does not want us here at Websleuths to run hog wild tracking down every Powell around.
    But it has narrowed down the search for his identity.
    And there is a faint possibility it could lead to a discovery of a missing Powell relative.
    Maybe.

    Question: Will BK be doing extended dna testing?
    God has a plan to help bring justice to the world -- and his plan is us.
    Gary Haugen
    Source: Founder, International


  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Western, MA
    Posts
    161
    I understand the hesitance of BK not want anyone to go harassing Powells but matching 37 markers seems not only hugely significant but the closest factual lead that this case has ever had. Am I not understanding this correctly....or is this as big of a break as it seems?


  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by DBinMA View Post
    I understand the hesitance of BK not want anyone to go harassing Powells but matching 37 markers seems not only hugely significant but the closest factual lead that this case has ever had. Am I not understanding this correctly....or is this as big of a break as it seems?
    =====================================

    I think it is a big break. Maybe BK does not want to get his hopes up and does not want us to either. ? Be cautious, I guess.
    God has a plan to help bring justice to the world -- and his plan is us.
    Gary Haugen
    Source: Founder, International


  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    6,105
    Quote Originally Posted by SewingDeb View Post
    Do you all think it would be a good idea to post his information and picture at all of the Powell pages on genealogy sites?
    -------------------------------------------------------

    Yes, I think it is a good idea.
    But I would want believe09 or christine 2448 to give the go ahead.

    I don't know if we would need genealogy site permission or if it is appropriate to do that.

    But, I would want one of the moderators to say yes or no.
    God has a plan to help bring justice to the world -- and his plan is us.
    Gary Haugen
    Source: Founder, International


  10. #25
    beckaroozie's Avatar
    beckaroozie is offline There sure are a lot of nuts in the Ant Family Tree. Must attract a BUNCH of squirrels.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,603

    Bobby Eugene Powell?

    Hi Everyone - I got excited when I found this. I think it bears checking into. Could this be BK? Bobby Eugene Powell was severely injured in the incident, but his body has never been found. From Moultrie, GA...let me know what you think.

    Bobby Eugene Powell, Brandi Drive, was 46 when he was last seen in the Colquitt County area Aug. 17, 2000

    http://www.moultrieobserver.com/loca...yword=topstory

    http://www.moultrieobserver.com/loca...247232642.html
    KC found her pot of gold in others pockets.


  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beckaroozie For This Useful Post:


  12. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    426
    Seems unlikely:

    http://www.moultrieobserver.com/loca...247232642.html

    Even if the bones are not his, it seems that Bobby Eugene Powell's prints and DNA would have been in the system.


  13. #27
    beckaroozie's Avatar
    beckaroozie is offline There sure are a lot of nuts in the Ant Family Tree. Must attract a BUNCH of squirrels.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,603
    He wasn't arrested...just fyi...or do you mean from missing person flyer? I haven't found him on any. I've been looking for a photo, but haven't found that either, which I thought strange.
    KC found her pot of gold in others pockets.


  14. #28
    AdoraBlue is offline I've been known to be a little too "woo-woo."
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ya-Ya Land
    Posts
    386

    Smile Wow, (two of) my obsessions intersect

    Light bulb moment for me. Doh!

    I know nothing at all about this particular case. But the idea of using genealogy databases to identify unidentified people or remains has a lot of potential IMO.

    It is my understanding that genealogy DNA databases are private but in the case of a missing person, the information could be compared and/or tested without compromising security. After all, LE would be comparing unidentified samples with known samples, not broadcasting their findings (unless they found a definitive match or something).

    IMO most felons/perps/fugitives wouldn't willingly enter their DNA in any database.

    I am going to get my husband and father to submit to compare in one of the genealogy databases. In genealogy circles, I am fairly lucky cause they are both direct male descendants for seven generations back (at least). I am saving up for these tests.


  15. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,000

    This about sums up the significance of the YDNA...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cymro View Post
    Oh and WRT to BK's link on interpretation, I am rather more confident than that:

    http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic...7-markers.aspx

    My understanding (and I am happy to be corrected) is that there is a 37-point match with members of the Joseph Powell family group. If that is the case, the likelihood is high that there is a common male ancestor within a much shorter time frame and this family needs to be looked into.

    It may not show up anything of course but the article that BK has provided seems to focus only on 12-point markers, which are much, much less likely to show a link and, without the surname, appear to be meaningless. Even with a surname, a common ancestor within the last 500-600 years probably doesn't bring us much further forward.

    A 37-point match however is a 50% probability of a common male ancestor within 5 generations and 90% within 16 generations. (Admittedly this could get us from Barack Obama to Dick Cheney). Those confidence levels are with the same surname of course, whereas a 12-point match is, as BK states, a very low level indicator of common ancestry.
    IF we had two common surnames between someone in the Joseph Powell group and BK, we would have the probabilities listed above. If we do NOT have two people with the same surname, it is much less significant.

    We do not know what we have for surnames with BK-the Powell side is all set.

    As with most things that have to do with BK, this is a lightning strike in a manner of speaking. What it might mean in the future is far more significant then now.

    Yes, he is having the extended testing. It will be a while before that is completed.

    FWIW, and strictly my opinion-I don't find this compelling the way you all have. It is like having a DNA profile with no suspect to match it to. Again, JMO.
    email me


    Long Lost Love: The Bob Harrod Story Disappeared/ID Network
    Amazon: Purchase Long Lost Love $1.99


    Bob Harrod SAR


    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
    ― Maya Angelou


  16. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Western, MA
    Posts
    161
    [/quote]FWIW, and strictly my opinion-I don't find this compelling the way you all have. It is like having a DNA profile with no suspect to match it to. Again, JMO.[/quote]

    Well it's compelling in the way that DNA is factual unlike the info that we have that is more subjective like linguistics, memories (maybe). It's the only link that we have to BK that is indisputable. True that without anything to compare it to it's not exactly a smoking gun but it is factual and unbiased raw data.


Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New DNA testing thrown down
    By PassTheMotrin in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 12:28 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •