GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266252805
From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Variance Assessment wrt back and parallel mutations
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:53:25 +0100
I agree that I also have this experience, and I know other projects do too.
People who have been watching this list for a few years will be used to
hearing such experiences on and off, some quite surprising.
Normally, no matter how nice the mathematical model, if anyone's maths is
saying otherwise than reality, then the maths must be wrong. I guess this is
what we are all wondering about.
From: David Ewing <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Variance Assessment wrt back and parallel mutations
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:31:59 -0700
> Any of you that have done very much with network diagrams know that
with surname project data sets of any size you end up with highly
reticulated networks which are essentially impossible to reconcile into nice
consistent, linear sequences of mutations. I think this is because there are
so many parallel mutations, but I still do not understand why this should be
so. The fact remains that we are finding many more parallel mutations than
the mathematics suggests we should.
|[DNA] Variance Assessment wrt back and parallel mutations by "Lancaster-Boon" <>|