No. I'd answer encyclopedia. Each of the word is related to 'encyclopedia' by a one letter change.
Otherwise you are assuming what you are trying to prove.
If I list those five versions of 'encyclopedia', and say they look like they're all copies of a single word with a small number of errors, what am I assuming?
I see similarity and see similarity.
You see similarity and choose to look no further. Fine. But don't say we have no evidence, because similarity is evidence. It's one thing to decide not to look at it. That's a choice. It's another to claim there is none. That's a falsehood.
Nor do I see how this gets you to a creature which you have no genetic information for?
But I gave you the eyecolor - which is genetic information - for a creature - your grandfather -for which you had no genetic information. All I had to do was look what was common to his descendants. Is it really for hard for you to see that if we have gigabytes of genetic information - not just one characteristic- for hundreds of different descendants, we can piece together what the genome of the ancestor looked like, even though we don't have any direct information about it?