No it doesn’t. Not one bit. It is a testable idea. For example, this paper which was discussed extensively over in the recent ERV thread found that the class of retroviruses were inserted exogenously (i.e. the genome was bombarded by viruses so to speak) as opposed to through common descent. Some of their reasons were related to the fact that less than 5% of the viral insertions were at homologous spots in the genome. What we see with common descent is 99.9%+ of viral insertions at homologous spots in the genome as is the case with humans and chimpanzees. The notion of common descent is NOT assumed but is TESTABLE.
I’ve also said this before: genes are much much much much more similar than they need to be if common descent is false. I shared a snippet of 90 base pairs that had over 53 million ways they could be arranged and have the exact same function!!! I think that we should start with some basics again for how anyone tests common descent from any genetic analysis through this useful analogy of how we read and analyze ancient texts:
No. No. and No. How about this analogy instead.
If its a coin toss experiment, it would go like this:
If it’s heads: God supernaturally intervened and we will have no natural explanation ever.
If its tails: God supernaturally intervened and we will have no natural explanation ever.
If the coin didn’t fall down: God supernaturally intervened and we will have no natural explanation ever.
Also, it appears you are quoting from: Evolutionary Concept in Genetics and Genomics - Sequence - Evolution - Function - NCBI Bookshelf
You quote mined the authors. It is interesting that you didn’t quote this part:
This view of evolution is clearly inferior to the alternative, whereby all significant similarities observed within a class of proteins are interpreted within a single theoretical framework of divergence from an ultimate common ancestor.