You did notice that this is a 'deduction', and not a fact didn't you? You do remember that I asked for a fact don't you?
Do you know the difference between a *fact* and an 'interpretations of evidence'?
Obviously not.
Huh? This is the way that ALL scientific theories are tested, by DEDUCING their empirical implications, and comparing those implications to the FACTS. Both deduction (from a theory or other claim rich in empirical implications) AND facts are required.
Facts simply are as they are. They don't bear any significance in and of themselves. They have to be analyzed as consistent or inconsistent with some theory which bears implications wrt their state: that attempts to account for them, and that risks potential falsification in doing so.
The linked material explicitly lays out both the deductions from macroevolution/common descent (including potential falsifications) AND the FACTS which confirm them (and which easily could have -- but don't -- falsify them).
You do remember that I asked for a fact don't you?
No, I don't remember that, because that's not what you asked me, as clicking back through the "To" links will readily reveal.
You asked for evidence that uniquely supports evolution. I gave you a link to the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". You asked me to pick one "which [...] you think uniquely supports evolution and we will discuss". I picked section 4, "The Molecular Sequence Evidence." I invited you to take the section as a whole, or pick a particular example therefrom.
If you've decided you don't want to discuss, then fine. Just say so. Or don't reply. You needn't throw a fit of revisionism.
...however... If all you want is "a fact," then here's one:
I am sitting as I type this.
Also,
There's a pebble in my pocket. It's black.
That's a couple more facts. How many more do you want?
If you ONLY want facts, and don't care about their status wrt to deductions from scientific theories, then of course any facts will do equally well.