I’d have to go with Tim on that. The lack of clarity is all inside your head.
We can of course validate universal common descent, and have. We have also validated a great many other hypotheses of common descent of more restricted form. You, however, have refused to agree with or even examine the evidence.
That admission leaves me momentarily speechless, but I applaud the ambition. Let me know when you have done so.
Whatever do you mean by that? I’ll say that the genes in the paleognath paper were randomly chosen from the genome without any prior knowledge of what they would say. The single gene featured in the crocodylian paper was too. And both studies have been confirmed by many additional studies, all using more genes not chosen because they fit. So we have mutually confirming results from a sizable random sample of the genome in each case. How is that not convincing?
A dependency graph is not, as far as I can tell, possible for DNA sequences, only for presence/absence characters. And even for those it’s completely ad hoc, not an alternative explanation.
No, he isn’t. You appear to understand nothing of what he’s doing.