GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266709827


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA assessments
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:50:27 -0500
References: <mailman.5436.1266449280.2099.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


>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
>mutations.

:-)))))))

It is always fun (and sadness) to see that someone has no idea what he is
talking about.

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
counting mutations?

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
there.

If you still do not understand, ask me for a concrete example.

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov


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
> not
> get why folks here typically mention "back and parallel mutations" in one
> sentence.


This thread: