GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266434887
From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] Considering Anatole's test for complexity
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:28:07 +0100
Thanks to Anatole for the below example.
At least for me I think it clarifies that indeed we should understand the
difference between linear and logarithmic methods as intended to be a test
I think until now, this aspect of Anatole's method has not been discussed. A
method for telling when there is significant complexity of structure would
In a similar way, the Cruciani team have sometimes published age estimates
using several methods, and then expressed more confidence about the cases
where there are no big differences.
I wonder if many other people have considered this aspect of what Anatole is
To Jonathan Day, Anatole wrote
Subject: Re: [DNA] "counting mutations" versus "GD from the modal"
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:44:01 -0500
Let's consider the old Behar's data (2003). They have published a list of
194 6-marker haplotypes, 91 of them had the CMH (Cohen Modal Haplotype).
Hammer, Behar et al claimed that the CMH has a common ancestor who lived
some 3200 years before present. If they would have had a slightest idea on
first-order rate kinetics and on how to treat haplotypes and mutations, they
would realize that 91 base haplotypes out of 194 total, that is almost half
of them, cannot possibly had the TMRCA of 3000+ years. Let's see:
ln(194/91)/0.0088 = 86 generations (I do not have a calculator in my hands
right now, so forgive me if it would be one or so generation off), or 2150
years before present. How about mutations? There were 263 mutations in those
194 haplotypes. 263/194/0.0088 = 154 generations. 3850 years to a common
ancestor. A complete mismatch, 86 vs. 154 generations. End of the story. One
cannot calculate that dataset. Now it is understood why they get that
phantom ancestor of 3200 years bp. It is somewhere in between of 2150 and
|[DNA] Considering Anatole's test for complexity by "Lancaster-Boon" <>|