But it doesn’t. You have no clue what a null hypothesis is or how it works.
Let A, B, and C be recognizably distinct species, and for any pair UV (where U\in\left\{A,B,C\right\} and V\in\left\{A,B,C\right\}) of these, let P_{UV} denote the probability that U and V share a common ancestor.
- Any fertile individual of species A could produce viable, fertile, and fit offspring with a fertile individual (of appropriately compatible sex, if applicable) of species B, and many do in the wild.
- No fertile individual of species A can produce any offspring at all with any individual of species C.
enter the rest of your argument here
- Conclusion: Therefore, P_{AB}>P_{AC}.
Bonus challenge: Produce a means of evaluating P_{UU}, where U is some identifiable species, such as species A, species B, or species C, assuming that all of its individuals can produce viable, fertile, and fit offspring with every other individual of species U (of compatible sex, if applicable).
Sure it does. You ‘null hypothesis’ doesn’t rule out a scenario where a creator creates independent populations capable of interbreeding. Your test fails to distinguish between origin between a single created population versus multiple created populations, and thus fails to distinguish common ancestry from independent origins.
Nope, it doesn’t show that. You haven’t even presented any math.