First, you are not using technically accurate terms. DNA is DNA. RNA is RNA. Different sequences of DNA are possible and have been observed. Same for RNA. To date, however, no substitutes for DNA or RNA have been confirmed.
Your accusation is baseless; I haven't confused DNA and RNA. In fact, I've explained how different types of shadow biospheres might or might not keep the same RNA bases while using different DNA bases.
The notion that different molecules could be used as DNA analogs is certainly testable.
Yes, that's exactly my point. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion.
In fact, if you recall, there was a recent claim that some bacteria used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA... which would make it "not DNA". I am not aware of any reason to believe that "alternate DNA" would be any more or less susceptible to evolution than our known DNA. Therefore this hypothesis is just as testable as the other. The only difference is that it is not currently, actively testable given our state of technology, and we currently know of no examples.
Nobody's suggesting that alternate DNA would be any more or less susceptible to evolution. I'm just pointing out that we couldn't have evolved from creatures using alternative DNA bases. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've explained:
"You’re talking about a shadow biosphere. It’s possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn’t falsify evolution. What I’m talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it’s possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science."
Frankly I am not convinced that your argument "evolution is only compatible with 'all life uses the same DNA'", is any more plausible than the argument that "evolution is possible given a suitable alternative analog of DNA". The only difference I see is that only one of them is testable today. The flap over the "arsenic DNA" in Mono Lake shows that the other idea is at least plausible to many scientists.
Of course it's plausible. That's what I've been saying for years, so you obviously didn't understand my point. If every species in existence had different DNA bases, life on Earth couldn't have had a common ancestor. Again, this is one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've tweeted:
Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc.
Just as, for years, there were no known methods to test for the existence of dark matter. Yet that did not stop many scientists from creating models based on it, nor did it get them ejected from the halls of science.
Here we go again. As I've repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained to you, the first method of testing for the existence of dark matter was developed in 1933. I then tried to explain some of the following tests, but obviously I would've had better luck trying to educate my coffee table. At least it doesn't accuse me of being a "flaming, large-bore asshole"...
I probably won't keep asking you to retract anything, because you obviously don't have the necessary intellectual integrity. But if you're going to keep digging these absurd holes... shouldn't you limit yourself to digging one ridiculous hole at a time?