I'm afraid the gospel choir can sit down again, because your analogy does not disprove Crashfrog's point. On the contrary, it is just another example of it.
Well, hey, Parasomnium, that's what I thought. Funny nobody else seems to have noticed that it works. But what it does is prove that the correspondences discovered are trivial, even obvious. The method doesn't produce anything new, only the expected correspondences. It can refine them, but it can't tell us that there is a relatedness for instance, only confirm and refine the pattern of similar characteristics.
Crashfrog's statement basically describes, in very general terms, a way of proving a certain claim by doing measurements in different ways, and understanding that if the different results independently confirm the claim, then that is evidence for it.
Yes, but all it confirms is the similarity of design that is already observed and is not contested. It shows design similarity genetically as well as morphologically, it doesn't prove descent.
Your analogy, albeit more specific, is no different: it describes the process of proving the claim that certain cupcakes are made according to certain recipes. You do this by "measuring" cupcakes in two ways, one of which is an analysis of the actual cupcakes, the other an examination of the recipes. The results of both measurements point in the direction that this cupcake is made according to that recipe, & cetera.
Yes, and in no case could it show that there is any relation between the different cupcakes. All the comparison of observations of the various methods can do is confirm and refine the already observed similarities and differences of design, which is trivial.