Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Marmaduke Coats
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 08:13:25 -0700
From: "Kathleen Woodrow" <woodrowk3(a)cox.net>
To: "John W. Coats" <jwcoats(a)htc.net>
MARMADUKE COATS b 13 JUNE 1733, Hunterdon, NJ; d 25 Sept 1823,
Newton Twp., Miami Co., Ohio, m Mary Jane Coppock ca 1764, SC, dau of
Moses Coppock and Martha Lester. MARMADUKE ? was son of HENRY COATE and
ESTHER WILSON or WILLIAM COATE who possibly married RACHEL ANN BUDD. In
either case, MARMADUKE is the grandson of SAMUEL and MARY SAUNDERS COATE.
MARMADUKE of Miami Co. left a will dated 2 Oct. 1817, naming his
wife MARY, sons MOSES, HENRY, SAMUEL, JAMES, WILLIAM, JOHN and JESSE,
and daughter SARAH HALL.
"In 1914 descendants of MARMADUKE COATE and MOSES COPPOCK met in Ludlow
Falls, Ohio, to lay plans for a legal battle for a supposed vast
estate in Pennsylvania valued between forty and two hundred million at
the time. The claim was not proven in court and one of the promotors
was brought to trial by the U S Government.
Just wanted to give you a "heads-up" that RootsWebs/Ancestry message boards
will be down for a while today, Wednesday, April 16. The shutdown will
occur at 9am Eastern Daylight time, 8 am Central, 7 am Mountain and 6 am
Pacific (all daylight savings times). They hope the shut down will last no
more than an hour.
Derrell Oakley Teat, List Mom
List: Just got off the phone w/Max at ftDNA. (30 minutes). Here is
what I found.
1. I was sent two kits by mistake: #7303 and #7304. Since the lab
doesn't know where the kits come from, they tested both kits. The reason
this took so long is they tested both kits. The results match exactly.
2. The Y tests we all took will reveal our relationships. My test looks
to be an "outlyer" except for the 10 of 12 match w/Char.
If Michael is doing the 25 marker, we will know more.
3. If you are as interested as I in your recent ethnic origins, you need
to do the DNA Print test. This is supposed to tell you what % of each
are in your DNA. If you have a NA in your line up to 7 generations ago,
this may show up as a %. If before that, it may not show up.
4. Max said a new answer on the FAQ section of the ftDNA webpage may
help explain all these East Asian results. Remmember, we're going back
1,000 to 10,000 years ago. Out of all the tests I ordered, I only got a
certificate for the mtDNA 12 test. Max says I will get another
certificate w/explanations when I get the results for the DNA print.
Conclusion: I guess I am reasonably satisfied. If I'd known more about
this before I started, it would have simplified matters considerably.
The only thing that bothers me is I got two kits in the mail. However,
the positive part is, tests from both kits matched. Mad Max says I will
get DNA print results back by the end of the week. I hope they confirm
what I already know.
John Wayne Coats
P.S. Charlotte: I've never seen your line on the list showing all your
proof including siblings, children, etc. An address and phone # would
be nice too. I could send you hard copies of what I have.
Ernie; Just a note to let you know I agree w/you totally. I waited 3
months for my results, as they said they had to run the tests over again
because of a "double peak" or some such malarky. When I got the tests
back, they said I had one exact match in our list group; "John Wayne
Coats", that is me. My ancestors were English, Irish, Scottish, and 60%
German. These tests show my 12 marker Y test as only matching one in
their base, who had "unknown" ancestry. They say my Haplogroup is H1a,
which is relatively rare. I have one step mutations (12 marker Y)
w/people from Hungary 1, Sri Lanka 1, China 2, India 3, Kyrgyzstan 1,
Mongolia 2, Russia 5, and Tadjikistan 1. Now this is just plain
rediculous. I am awaiting tests for NA and what they call an
Anthropologic blueprint. Based on what I've received so far, those tests
will turn out just as ludicrous. These tests were done through ftDNA at
the University of Arizona. I'm thinking they have never discontinued
their tradition of eating those funny mushrooms out there. I plan to be
tested elsewhere, showing them these results, and comparing. I'm pretty
much convinced these tests, (for the purpose of proving your ethnic
ancestry), are WORTHLESS. There are too many people on this geneology
list saying the same thing as me, such as one woman knowing her line
back to the 1600's showing 17% African American. Thanks for continuing
to question.
John Wayne Coats
ernest hurst wrote:
>I just wanted to say thanks to David, Ann & others who provided
>input/opinions/answers to my concern. All have been helpful in my
>understanding of the AncestrybyDNA/DNAPrint testing. I guess my main issue
>with this whole deal is that it took and is taking a long time and a lot of
>effort by David and others to get their "unexpected results" ironed out.
>This was supposed to be, and advertised as, a "finished product" when it
>was introduced about six months ago. It appears that those of us who
>committed to the initial "reduced price test" were, in reality,
>participating in a "beta test". My only other experience with any kind of
>beta test was a number of years ago when a couple of the guys in the group
>I managed participated in Microsoft's testing of "Chicago" (later known as
>Windows 95) and we did NOT have to pay for the beta versions. I'm sure
>there are other business examples that could be quoted - like recalls on or
>retrofits to products that didn't work, etc. I don't really believe it is
>the responsibility of the "customer" to expend a ton of time & effort, as
>has been done in this case, to rectify initial problems with a product,
>which really should have been addressed in the pre marketing or testing
>phases.
>
>I certainly hope that AncestrybyDNA will provide individual contact to each
>of their customers (not by e-mail, which may have changed, but by phone or
>snail mail) once some satisfactory answers have been found - but I'm sure
>not going to hold my breath till that happens.
>
>Thanks again for helping this old "DNA Dummy" understand this a bit better.
>
>Regards
>
>Ernie Hurst
>
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: David Faux <fauxdk(a)yahoo.com>
>>To: <GENEALOGY-DNA-L(a)rootsweb.com>
>>Date: 4/12/2003 2:09:33 PM
>>Subject: Re: [DNA] Asiatic peoples/Original concern
>>
>>
>>ernest hurst <ernie5823(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>It seems to me that, if the
>>DNAprint test "works" as advertised, you would stand a much greater chance
>>of "detecting" a "minority ancestry" within the last eight generations
>>
>>
>than
>
>
>>you would within thirty to eighty generations. If that's not the case,
>>
>>
>then
>
>
>>I really do question the validity of the tests. If someone can offer some
>>suggestions to help me understand this a bit better, without getting too
>>technical, since I am not a geneticist or statistician, I'd really
>>appreciate it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Ernie: Believe me, I have been putting the good folks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>at AncestrybyDNA through their paces with questions such as you are asking
>above.
>
>
>>As to the East Asian matter, the only thing that makes sense to me is
>>
>>
>that any person with a 100% European genealogically proven ancestry who
>emerges with a 20% East Asian score on the DNAPrint test (such as Charles),
>likely comes from a close knit community with ties to a part of Eastern
>Europe where Asiatic genes are found at relatively high levels (I have
>requested that they drop the "East Asian" terminology). This hypothetical
>community would likely have been very endogamous (if I remember the meaning
>of the term correctly), only marrying within their own group. This does
>seem to describe what Charles has said about his ancestors both in
>Pennsylvania and in Germany. Assuming this to be true, then, as I have
>said before - there should be a certain percentage of males in the said
>community who have a Y chromosome signature that shows a resemblance to
>some Asiatic group (and possibly the same re mtDNA that is found among an
>Asian population) - if not, then I don't know w!
>
>
>>hat to make of the findings.
>>
>>As to your question about detecting low levels of NNA or African
>>
>>
>ancestry, have you been following the "Number of Markers" thread re
>AncestrybyDNA testing? Embedded in all this is my effort to get answers
>about detecting low levels of NNA or African alleles. Much of the
>discussion on the List, and between myself and Drs. Thomas and Frudakis at
>AncestrybyDNA, has centered around whether increasing the number of markers
>measured (e.g., increasing the number from 70 to 140 and ensuring that each
>of the autosomes is sampled) would improve the ability of the test to
>detect low levels of alleles. The ins and outs of all this is in the
>archives, but suffice it to say that the test is incredibly complex, and
>that the results will depend on many factors - especially when it comes to
>results emanating from ancestors who lived 7 generations or more in the
>past.
>
>
>>The fact is that probably by virtue of chance factors operating through
>>
>>
>known genetic principles, you did not receive a clear genetic contribution
>from any of your NNA or African ancestors at the "ancestral informative
>markers" they are testing. Even if you received a result of 100% European,
>all is not lost in the quest to detect the alleles you may have inherited
>from 7 generations past. Due to the type of testing (multiple comparisons,
>comlex mathematical algorisms) there are what one might call "quirks" of
>the test. Although it defies common sense, it is possible for someone to
>have both parents test 100% European, and yet they have a few percentage
>points of NNA, for example. In other words, quite by chance the person
>with very low levels of NNA (that shows 100% European) could have a child
>that tests non - zero for these alleles; but if they had married another
>person, that person's configuration of alleles may have been insufficient
>to amplify the scores coming fr!
>
>
>>om the parent with a small amount of NNA ancestry. This effect only
>>
>>
>operates when the scores are very low - it will not make a difference
>beyond say 10% NNA.
>
>
>>Another consideration is that two parents may test 100% European, but
>>
>>
>their children have small amounts of NNA because each parent had scores too
>low to call as non - zero, but with the contribution from each, the child
>shows 3% or whatever. The only reason why the above findings will occur is
>due to the particular nature of the measurement algorithm they use to
>compare a person's set of alleles at 70 sites with those from known, for
>example, African populations. Taking this information to the next logical
>step means that if a person is truly convinced that they have NNA or
>African ancestry, they may need to test not just parents, aunts and uncles,
>but also children and siblings.
>
>
>>Another comment I would like to make is that perhaps we (myself included)
>>
>>
>are expecting too much of this test. If we expect that genetic signals are
>going to be detectable from each gggg grandparent, then perhaps our
>expectations are unrealistic. It is a gamble. Some gggg grandparents, due
>to well - established genetic principles, may have literally made a zero
>contribution to our actual genetic make up - although they were in fact our
>true ancestors. The test can only detect what is present.
>
>
>>I am currently exploring three hypotheses in relation to my low levels of
>>
>>
>NNA and East Asian with the folks at AncestrybyDNA. Three people there,
>after closely examining the results, have independently said that the
>findings are not an error - that if I submitted another sample I would get
>exactly the same results. Both my parents test 100% European. Mom has
>well documented NNA ancestry, Dad does not but his gg grandmother is a very
>definite candidate. Their Senior Scientist will scrutenize the results of
>myself in relation to those of my parents and offer an opinion on Monday.
>
>
>>It is a bit odd, however, that if I had only tested Mom on the assumption
>>
>>
>that she is the one with the documented NNA heritage, and would have a
>higher amount than myself (as the child one more generation removed from
>the source), I would have obtained a result of 100% European and been in
>the same position you are now. However, testing myself first resulted in
>NNA and East Asian findings that beg for a detailed explanation. My Mom's
>brother is being tested presently, and I will have my sister tested in due
>course. I am bound and determined to ascertain whether the test does have
>the ability to detect low levels of alleles from all Biogeographical groups
>- realizing that there will be a limit, and that as you get beyond 7
>generations ago the chances of any test showing the contribution of any
>particular gggg grandparent is slim to none.
>
>
>>David.
>>
>>
>>Dr. David K. Faux, 4028 Larwin Ave., Cypress, CA, 90630, USA
>>
>>fauxdk(a)yahoo.com
>>fauxd(a)hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
>>
>>
>>==============================
>>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
>>
>>
>go to:
>
>
>>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>>
>>
>
>
>
>==============================
>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>
>
>
>
>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [DNA] Asiatic peoples/Original concern
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 08:09:06 -0600
Resent-From: GENEALOGY-DNA-L(a)rootsweb.com
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 10:09:10 -0400
From: "ernest hurst" <ernie5823(a)earthlink.net>
Reply-To: ernie5823(a)earthlink.net
To: GENEALOGY-DNA-L(a)rootsweb.com
I've really enjoyed the discussion of Mongols, Huns & others from Asia.
There has been a lot of info presented that I sure wasn't aware of and, as
I have time, I'll do some more reading on this since it is very
interesting. Now I'd like to see some more discussion on the subject that
got all of this started - that is, the apparent inconsistency of the
testing done by DNAprint (AncestrybyDNA).
I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but here are the facts as I
understand them, which illustrate this inconsistency.
1. Several on the list, who have done the test, have received results
indicating high percentages (20% +/-) of Asian ancestry & most of those
folks HAD NO such ancestry that they knew of within the last ten or so
generations. Somehow or another, possibly due to comments/answers from
DNAprint/AncestrybyDNA, the subject of Mongol or Hun influence on European
population was interjected. Any way you look at it, this "influence"
occurred somewhere between 750 and 2000 years ago, or, based on 25 years
per generation, 30 to 80 generations distant from today. As I see it, the
likelihood that "Asian genes" from these events are the cause of the high
percentages today seems "slim to none & Slim left town".
2. There are others on the list (myself included) who had reasonably
certain 100% African and Native American ancestry (from one XX great
grandparent) at the 4th to 6th great grandparent level (in my case, within
the past 210 to 300 years, depending on which line) and their results came
back as 100% European. Do you see the inconsistency that I'm talking about?
Is it possible that the test is much more accurate at "detecting" Asian
than it is at detecting African or Native American? Is it possible that
they have tested many more folks with Asian and the accuracy will improve
as more of the other groups are tested? Or maybe the tests are not really
very accurate for anyone?
I'm not basing my opinions on any scientific or statistical facts, just on
what I consider to be logical common sense. It seems to me that, if the
DNAprint test "works" as advertised, you would stand a much greater chance
of "detecting" a "minority ancestry" within the last eight generations than
you would within thirty to eighty generations. If that's not the case, then
I really do question the validity of the tests. If someone can offer some
suggestions to help me understand this a bit better, without getting too
technical, since I am not a geneticist or statistician, I'd really
appreciate it.
Regards
Ernie Hurst
==============================
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237