bananabenana

Tbh I'm here for it. The reboot trilogy is legitimately fantastic and beautifully realised films

Three robust genetics papers using different sequences and genes, each time place it as a sister group to Archosauria:

248 nuclear genes (187,026 nucleotide sites): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3473239/

1145 ultraconserved elements (UCEs) and their variable flanking DNA: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0331

1,113 single-copy coding genes, robustly indicated that turtles are likely to be a sister group of crocodilians and birds: https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2615

This level of genetic evidence is an overwhelmingly strong signal, regarding relationships and recent common ancestry to extant species. I would say it is undeniably strong. You cannot possibly get evolutionary convergence over this many genetic loci.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing? I was thinking about the diapsid debate, where genetic evidence is overwhelmingly strong in favour for diapsid evolution Mitochondrial DNA evidence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC24355/ Micro RNA evidence: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21775315/

Tbh a core multi gene ML tree to all other reptiles would prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, maybe someone's done that already but I haven't been able to find it.

Origin of life matters to a lot of people I think. RNA vs other self-replicating molecules? Moon-based tidal PCR? Cell formation etc.

I think there are so many new and great ideas in this space but you have to consider how science is funded. Funding bodies and reviewers want incremental research that is safe. This has led to our current situation. Phage therapy has been around for so long but is only in the last 10 years gained creditability and treated as a path to take. Ultimately, antimicrobial resistance is incredibly solvable even at a policy level and definitely across many scientific levels. But it requires more cooperation than farms, pharmacies, hospitals, states and countries can muster.

Genomics makes this answerable though? It's just a matter of whether DNA is preserved or not in fossils. Genomics is more reliable than comparive anatomy. Comparative genomics can accurately place turtles in animal phylogeny. Sorry if I misunderstood your post. Or am I wrong here?