Fine, discuss why molecular sequence data uniquely supports common descent.
I responded with a link that laid out explicitly why the molecular sequence data did not uniquely support common descent.
Your statement that birds 'share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles' is itself a deduction, not a fact. You cannot tell the difference.
Go ahead, provide some *facts* or tell me how my link was refuted. Just claiming it is so doesn't make it so.
But I see that you acknowledge that there are no such facts. That's good, because that is true. And whether you and the author of the page reject my position is just as relevant to me as it is that the author of my link and I reject your position is relevant to you. You gettin the idea here?
OK, so now you have moved from claiming that I didn't ask for a fact to that I didn't ask for a fact 'in this chain of posts'. The request was to you, I did make it, but you make some lame excuse. Good job.
And it wasn't me that chose the subject. It was you. If you have a better one. Let's hear it.
Again, the molecular sequence data doesn't uniquely support common descent. A common designer works just as well as an explanation.
And you are fooling yourself if you think that common descent could have been falsified through the molecular sequence data. There are plenty of areas where genomes don't match well. Guess what. The claim then becomes that these areas 'evolved separately'.
The common descent data is only used where it supposedly agrees. When it doesn't agree, it is ignored as having evolved after the reputed split.
See how easy it was to make the theory unfalsifiable?
Yes. It's a deduction or inference from (historically) fossil evidence and comparative anatomy of living organisms. BUT it was one made many decades before ANY molecular sequence data was available. Therefore it separately carries implications wrt to the sequence data and that data can be used to independently test the claim.
You WERE told this, in point by point detail. Your response was to refuse to even read the refutation, much less address it, for the purely ad hominem reason that you didn't like the FReeper who posted it (linked one systematic refutation, and wrote another himself).
Fine. Then give me ONE gene, or similarly sizable genetic sequence, that is more similar in Birds and any non-ruling reptile, or other animal whatsoever, than in Birds and Crocodilians. Or give me any comparable anomaly. Say more similar in Humans and Horses than Humans and Chimps. Whatever.
BTW, that's exactly how a presented it. As a deduction, not as a fact:
Except of course as they may lead to deductions from common descent. For instance [i.e. as an instance of such a deduction] birds share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles, or than with any other animal.
Keep working on those reading comprehension skills. We'll get there! In the mean time I'll continue to help when I can.