According to Daro@aol.com:
> Dvir Oana Btau Egib Ggeo Cmyd Ccar
> Dvir 0
> Oana 12.4 0
> Btau 17.0 20.3 0
> Egib 17.0 19.0 13.7 0
> Ggeo 29.4 30.1 31.4 32.0 0
> Cmyd 30.7 31.4 32.0 33.3 6.5 0
> Ccar 30.1 30.7 32.0 32.7 5.2 1.3 0
>
> The three turtle sequences are a part of a study I am doing to test Kurt
> Wise's hypothesis that there are 4 Testudine holobaramins. According to
> Kurt, Ggeo should be in one holobaramin and Cmyd+Ccar in a separate
> holobaramin. Note that only a 5-6% sequence difference separates these
> groups, and if Kurt is correct 5-6% would be enough difference to separate
> baramins. Thus, the mammal sequences Todd presented would not be
"extremely
> similiar".
The critical phrase being "if Kurt is correct." If 5-6% is
enough to separate baramins, then what do you say to the
following matrix?
P_trog G_gori
H_sapi 0.67% 0.67%
G_gori 1.32%
These percent differences were computed from an alignment of
human (H_sapi), chimp (P_trog), and gorilla (G_gori) myoglobin
sequences. We would have to say that a mere 0.67% protein
sequence difference is enough to separate baramins. This would
mean that your turtle samples are not in the same baramin. My
point is this: sequence information is not widely applicable.
Different baramins have speciated differently. Some have
literally exploded (the insects) while others have produced
only a few species (human, platypus, and aardvark). We have to
use the sequence information in conjunction with other
characteristics. I stand by my claim that sequence information
alone is insufficient to determine baraminological
relationships.
I do want you to know that I appreciate the work you are
doing. We definitely need more creationist molecular
biologists.
Todd Wood
tcw3r@virginia.edu