Fred. You're confusing the cr*p out of me. I don't see a contradiction anywhere
It's because you don't want to see the contradiction. Do you agree a tree has a trunk and connecting branches?
If it helps, your "protein sequence homology" essentially involves two illusions:
1) It cannot a priori predict a node that favors "evolution" over change within a kind (creation), as the CYC pinned thread proved (ie. showing evidence for small-scale change within a taxonomic family proves nothing in the CvE debate since both agree it occurs).
2) It totally flubs as a "tree" since it has no trunk or major interconnecting branches. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll try to explain this illusion one last time. Evolutionists like you will conveniently try to (quoting roohif) "count the number of unique amino acids at each position in the sequence" as an area "open to mutation" because "sequences with more variation tend to give more accurate results". Yet many of these areas you thought were more open to mutation are actually highly conserved, but they won't show up in your little program (you'll ignore them) because it would stretch your organism horizontally over a large portion of the tree! Its classic cherry-picking.
But even if you refuse to grasp this, anyone with even a thread of intellectual honesty knows your OP "protein sequence homology" as evidence for evolution has been completely refuted
by the citations I've provided. Here they are again:
roohif: Does anyone have any SPECIFIC examples of protein sequence trees that they feel do not give a reasonable approximation of the consensus tree?
"Yes, CYC, and your new example, COX1" - Fred Williams, 2011, EFT Forum (also see http://www.wikigenes.../e/1669524.html
, particularly, "Comparing the presumptive amino acid sequence of the 3' regions of the cox1 genes infungi reveals similarly large evolutionary distances
between [different species of yeast]"
"Even at smaller evolutionary intervals, many individual genes show tree topologies in fundamental disagreement with the organismal phylogeny
" - Genome Evolution at the Genus Level: Comparison of Three Complete Genomes of Hyperthermophilic Archaea - Genome Res. 2001. 11: 981-993
"The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried
" - Michael Rose, evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine.
These citations refute your OP, the question is, will you have the courage to admit it? LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s see how youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve responded so far:
"I'll take actual evidence over quotes any day."
LOL! ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s funny, because just before you said this, you completely misquoted me! You sure donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind using quotes, even erroneous ones, when they suit you? Roohif mis-quoting me: "'fmw: Yea, sure does look pretty close to the CYC tree.'... is an admission that, yes, evolutionists can describe for us which animals are related by common descent?". Here is the post
where anyone can see that roohif completely yanks my comment out of context. You are doing wonders championing the cause for your side of the isle, roohif.