BTW, contrary to what that paper says, there does seem to be a pretty obvious sequence of ALX3 present in chickens. If the annotation is correct it seems to be reduced, so it may not be functional, but the sequence is clearly there:
Another analysis (in mVISTA) confirms it: Chickens have ALX3 (the full sequence), but it definitely seems to have been lost in Lizards and Xenopus. At the very least it’s missing from the “proper” place in the synteny in these organisms.
That’s not very specific. Are you suggesting that the “supposed evolutionary hierarchy” is supposed to be 100% perfect, with absolutely no secondary losses or parallel events? Do you also happen to believe that convergent evolution of body shapes between dolphins and ichthyosaurs is real challenge for evolution?
The criteria is statistical models which incorporate both signal and noise. If there were no signal that rose above the expected noise in biological systems then that would falsify common descent. This is standard scientific modeling that is used throughout the sciences.
I do not expect there to be a perfect correlation between these 2 variables. That does not mean that the statement “there is a positive correlation between the variables” cannot be falsified beyond reasonable doubt.
as far as i aware the figure compare the molecular date with the fossil one. and not for free the paper called “Flying rocks and flying clocks: disparity in fossil and molecular dates for birds”. but evolution is a fact, right?
so first we see that you were wrong with your assumption about me. second: its just show that even when we find something that doesnt fit with evolution- evolution is still fine. and this isnt fine.
the molecular date doesnt fit with the fossil one. its like finding that chimp and human were split off about 7-10 my ago (by the fossil evidence) and the molecular clock point to say 30-40 my.