@farmerman,
farmerman wrote: FIRST, I guess you give up on trying to show us here the article clip even mention DNA. As far as the above comment,I suspect that, once again, you are trying to hide behind a bag of hockeypucks with gibberish.
... and second, you obviously don't have DNA combinatorics confirmation of your 'inferences' based on mumbo-jumbo assumptions ... unless you don't even understand the question.
farmerman wrote: Common ancestry refers to the phenotype, not the genotype
Can you name two species with one and the same genotype and different phenotype ... only.
farmerman wrote: COEXISTING species cannot be common ancestors of each other STILL HOLDS UNIVERSALLY
The co-existence does not exclude one of the species to eat the other and to have some 'common aminoacids' ... which is not necessarily 'break-through discovery of evolution'.
May I ask you something else. If your rule of exclusion is valid and true (of which I doubt), this will exclude for the present day reptiles and the present day birds to have common ancestry, not to speak that it will exclude the possibility for the humans to have anything in common with the chimps as genetics - which is one of the others
mind-blowing 'break-through "discoveries" of evolution'. ... and how did you come to know that it 'holds universally', when you have no living creatures known outside the biosphere of the Earth.