[AndrewC]

but we cannot rule out the hypothesis that they are related somehow. What did you expect?

I would make a stronger statement, there is a relationship, presently unknown. We can rule out the no relationship verdict.

I did not expect anything until the numbers were shown. If the expectation were 1.0, I would not make my first two statements.

[general_re]

Actually, I meant "what did you expect me to say?" rather than "what did you expect to find?" ;)

I would make a stronger statement, there is a relationship, presently unknown. We can rule out the no relationship verdict.

I would agree. As I said before, we can try to make some educated guesses about the relationship by using the degrees of difference to try and place them in a relative taxonomy. That's not conclusive, of course, but it can point us in a productive direction. And we can compare our results to morphological/cladistic taxonomies, to give us another factor in deciding the relationship.

And eventually, we can accumulate enough evidence to begin to lean in one direction or another about what the relationship is - do they share common ancestry? Did one of them just scarf up the genes from the other? Maybe they both obtained the same gene from a third source?

We'll make a materialist out of you yet.... ;)