Yes, unfortunately I wasn’t more clear in my statement - I didn’t state the obvious. I understood the scientists thought the unexpected differences were errors.
This doesn’t seem to be the case. When I read through his paper again recently I noticed that he does some kind of analysis of the father-son differences he measured in the screenshots. I have no understanding of these methods, of course. I don’t think I have seen any discussion or analysis of this part of the paper, so if anyone wants to feel free.
These 17 nucleotide differences we then statistically tested for normality using the statistical software SPSS—both as raw values, and as results rounded to the nearest ones place. Both groups of data were a modest fit to a normal distribution based on visual inspection of histograms and Q-Q plots (Supplemental fig. 2) and based on statistical tests for normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro- Wilk; see Supplemental table 2). Given these results, we calculated 95% confidence intervals using the t-distribution, and 95% confidence intervals based on bootstrapped analyses (see Supplemental tables 1 and 2), with 1,000 replications. We chose to use the t-distribution confidence interval since it was wider, and thus more conservative, than the bootstrapped confidence interval. Since mutations occur as whole units and not as decimals or fractions, we used the rounded values for further analyses.
Respectfully, this is the second thread of 3 I’ve been interacting with on this topic recently, and Turkic migrations were only the more recent part of this discussion - I just followed it where it went. So I don’t think your characterization is accurate at all. I’ve already discussed some of what I thought of ancient DNA. I didn’t take the time to respond to @Tim on it yet so I may as well now.
You missed what I was trying to point out. AFAIK the choices are either you can believe that a Lenz/Lentz (a common surname) is the only descendent of certain Yamnaya to join a Family Tree DNA subclade project besides a few Turkic people and someone from Iraq (which seems very improbable after 5000 years because of the extreme drift of the y-chromosome)…or mutations are common enough that they drift out of the population but occur again at the same position. I would hypothesize that it’s likeliest none of these people/kits shown in the blog figure are male-line descendents of the Yamnaya, and instead that the Turks and the Europeans in the subclade project have a common ancestor sometime in the last two millennia and then accumulated some of the same mutations in their lineages at different times.
Hard to make an inference without the sample size to back it up. Get a huge sampling of Turkic people. I’d enjoy researching the history and figuring out that puzzle. 
I never said it was predominate. I doubt there was any one ancestral Turkic lineage - just noticed that it’s curiously higher in Turkey than elsewhere in the region.
There’s no lack of indignation in the forum no matter what when it comes to creationism, whether I’m involved in the discussion or not. It’s part of the territory around here. So much so it’s hard to distinguish whether it’s more or less legitimate at certain times.
Thank you. 