At this point you are making no sense and this is obviously a thinly veiled attempt at theory protection. Obviously this was not a requirement prior to the mid 20th century and the rise of molecular biology. And obviously this was not a requirement when evolution and CD miserably failed, and additional mechanisms were called upon. Evolution’s “method,” is that the comparisons of aligned sequences should fall into a CD pattern.
Except when they don’t.
In those cases, a plethora of other mechanisms are called upon, as needed. And all of that is after the prefiltering of sequence data to retain those with a “strong phylogenetic signal.” And the abrupt appearance of designs, both morphological and molecular, are simply ascribed to “accelerated evolution,” or ignored altogether.
Well gee I guess that’s it huh? Oh, but wait, for some reason you didn’t apply that reasoning to Darwin. I wonder why?
Darwin didn’t “plug actual DNA sequences into algorithms,” but that’s OK, because Darwin itches our ears. From a scientific perspective, Lamarck has demolished Darwin. Darwin’s theory is scientifically absurd. Evolution has failed over and over, while suppressing Lamarckian ideas because it offended evolutionary metaphysics. But finally, even some evolutionists are now admitting the science supports Lamarck.
“Can’t you avoid those and simply answer the question about the evidence?”
Well you asked me to explain the evidence, so I gave you a bunch of posts on exactly that topic. The posts cover a lot of journal papers. The scientific evidence covers a wide spectrum. The preponderance of the evidence contradicts the theory in a great many ways. It isn’t a simple one liner answer. For those interested, here is the link: