[continued from previous message]   
      
   You'd likely need to implement some type of transition/transversion   
   analysis to estimate double hits, and have some estimate for the rate of   
   change for nonconserved sites relative to the conserved sequences.   
      
   Divergence estimate between mice and humans is around 90 million years,   
   and between chickens and pigeons is around 89 million years (estimates   
   that I got from google).   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   >>>> The additional sequence that Luskin is beefing about was sequence   
   >>>> that we could not obtain in all taxa, and it is still sequence that   
   >>>> can't be accurately compared between the taxa with complete genome   
   >>>> sequences because of the repetitive nature of the sequence and the   
   >>>> rapid copy number variations between species and the rapid evolution   
   >>>> of the sequence of the heterochromatin repeats.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Luskin is literally beefing about something that never mattered, and   
   >>>> still does not matter.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The mitochondrial DNA sequence is 8.9% different between chimps and   
   >>>> humans and still indicates that chimps are the most closely related   
   >>>> species to humans.  In the 1980's mitochondrial DNA was the first   
   >>>> sequence used to determine that of the other great apes chimps were   
   >>>> our closest relative.  It wasn't the 1% genomic coding sequence   
   >>>> difference. For the tyrosinase sequence that I used in the above   
   >>>> analysis both gorilla and chimps are 99% similar (16 mismatches with   
   >>>> Gorilla and 20 mismatches with chimps) by blast alignment.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)