GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1145712931


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Genealogy as we knew it
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:35:31 -0600
References: <000701c66607$70892c40$6601a8c0@DH870341>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael L. Hébert" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 6:22 AM
Subject: RE: [DNA] Genealogy as we knew it

> I'm trying to stay away from the word "mutation" since it conjures up
> mutants and using instead something like "variations".

The "variations" are of course what we get because of the "mutations".
There may be a euphemism you can find to replace for "mutation", but don't
go so far with the language to give people a false or poor idea of what is
going on and why the variations are statistically smaller the closer the
common ancestor.


This thread: