GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266052059
From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Y Tree SNPs can not be counted
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:07:39 +0100
I think things are becoming clear and indeed I think you have been fighting
too hard for what is essentially a strange use of words.
I believe Vincent is correct to suggest that you are calling "genetic
distance" (the APPARENT number of mutation steps between two haplotypes)
your "mutation count" (which implies a real counting of mutations).
Your posts to Sasson, David Ewing and John Marsh seem to make clear that you
see this as a reasonable ESTIMATION in many cases (because of the low
liklihood, you say, of things like back mutations and parallel mutations)
and indeed that is not a particularly strange or controversial statement in
So the real discussion should be about HOW AND WHEN you can be sure that the
chance of things like back mutations and parallel mutations are small, and
how much their possible existence in any set of haplotypes is affecting your
I think this is Ken's point, and I think Ken has been trying to turn
discussion over to this subject. Let me say, because I want to see your
points across more clearly, I think you just haven't been reading people
carefully enough or with an open mind and this is leading to these circular
discussions about words.
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Y Tree SNPs can not be counted
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:09:32 -0500
I suspect that by "counting mutations" you mean something VERY different
compared with, e.g., what I mean.
By "counting mutations" I mean the followng. 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.