That isn’t an explanation. Nor can most similarities be explained by HGT, and that doesn’t explain why most similarities show a nested hierarchy. Try again.
That paper has nothing to do with universal common descent. And anyway, people have tried to tell you many times that universal common descent isn’t relevant to your hypothesis of separate kinds, unless you claim that the kinds are different domains, i.e. Eubacteria, Eukaryota, Archaea. If you agree that Eukaryota is a single kind, all your other ideas disappear. You really have to decide what the kinds are, and you need some criterion for detecting them. Without that, your ideas are vacuous and can’t be tested at all.
Then you aren’t talking about separate kinds at all. You’re talking about guided evolution. Do you have any clue what you’re talking about?
Your premise is incorrect. The study does support my opinion.
You really don’t know what words mean. Bird wings and bat wings are a case of functional convergence. The convergence in that paper is presumably functional, but not in the same way. It’s better described as sequence convergence. Natural selection seems a reasonable explanation, doesn’t it? There’s no need to invoke special creation.
Possibly, but I would maintain that they will always be a tiny proportion of the data, and that the sample we currently have is indicative of the entire distribution. You would have to argue that the current sample is highly biased in some way, and I bet you can’t think of a reason why that would be so.
Not an answer to my question.
More word salad, showing that you don’t know what words mean. You don’t know what a species is, and you don’t know what a kind is. The orchard hypothesis that’s supported by stasis is that every single species is a separate created kind. I can see why you run away from that conclusion, but that’s what you’re arguing for whether you know it or not. And by the definition of “kind”, there can be no kinds within kinds. So nested hierarchy shows your argument to be false. Again, I can see why you don’t want to face up to the implications of your claims.
Why would we expect that?
No it doesn’t. In fact the only reason we know it’s HGT is that it doesn’t mimic the process of ancestry.
I’ll stop you right there. Quoting Henry Morris is ludicrous. He was a young-earth creationist. Almost nothing he says is true, and nothing in that quote is true. Certainly you can’t claim that unsupported statements from Morris are evidence of anything. You didn’t answer @Michael_Okoko’s question. Incidentally, when you say “Thus” or “Therefore” or any similar word implying a logical conclusion, that almost invariably leads in to a non sequitur. This is even worse, since even the premise is nonsensical.