Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266052545

From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Variance Assessment wrt back and parallel mutations
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:15:45 +0100

Dear Anatole

Thank you for calling me inventive.

In answer to your first question, as mentioned in other posts, your personal
definition of counting mutations is now clear. It means you are estimating
the APPARENT number of mutations. There is a difference.

And yes, to see someone say that there is a difference, you can not find
this yet in your words (which is not a good thing, it is a confusing
distraction). For whatever reason you want to write as if an estimation of
mutation events using the genetic distance (GD) as a "count" of mutation

But, despite the inevitable confusions which come from your insistence on
using words in a different way to eveyone else AND then writing as if there
is no other way possible, still I now believe I have described what you are
doing accurately.

Best Regards

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" < >

>>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

>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?

This thread: