GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266040148


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment wrt back and parallel mutations
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:49:08 -0500


>From: "Lancaster-Boon" < >

>>Anatole:
>>There was no assumption except a statistical, random nature of mutations.
The exponential formula for a gradual significance of back mutations with
time is applicable to any single locus, fast" or "slow", and to averaged
loci as well. Back mutations are insignificant being compared to "forward"
mutations during the first 600-800 years, and practically to the first 2000
years (being within 8% for the 2000 ybp mark, that is well within margins of
error).

>Andrew:
>What this apparently means is that you know you are not really "counting
mutations", and it becomes a question of how good your approximation is.
(And of course you may well be right.)


Dear Andrew,

You cannot stop surprising me regarding what is a ground of your comments.
You are very inventive, I must admit. You invent my comments which I never
did, and you comment on "my" comments invented by you.

A quotation above extracted by you shows that I talked on back mutations.
Where did you get that I do not count mutations?

I repeat what I said in a parallel tread:

By "counting mutations" I mean the following. If we have, say, 500 of
67-marker haplotypes, and 14 haplotypes among them are identical to each
other (base haplotypes), and the other 486 mutated haplotypes have
(collectively) 1788 mutations from the base, then those 1788 mutations are
those that we count.

Can you see from the above that I do count mutations?


Anatole Klyosov


This thread: