GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266709827
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA assessments
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:50:27 -0500
>From: Robert Stafford <>
>Parallel mutations are not a problem for your TMRCA calculation.
O.K., that is what I was talking about. Done with that.
>The uncertainty in your count is, instead, due to "inline mutations." This
>is something of a misnomer, since they are just deviations from the
>ancestral due to a single mutation. You would overcount the number of
It is always fun (and sadness) to see that someone has no idea what he is
How many times should I demonstrate here that counting mutations and
counting (base) haplotypes produce the same (TMRCA) results. Do you
understand that it means that I do NOT overcounting mutations, since in that
case there would not have been a match between counting haplotypes and
With repeated "inline mutations" originated by a single mutation those
haplotypes form a separate branch in the haplotype tree. Separate branches
are calculated separately, hence, there are no "overcounting" mutations
If you still do not understand, ask me for a concrete example.
n Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Anatole Klyosov <>wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> I still do not get a thing about a significance of "parallel mutations"
> and why to single them out compared to other mutations. Then, I still do
> get why folks here typically mention "back and parallel mutations" in one
|Re: [DNA] TMRCA assessments by "Anatole Klyosov" <>|