No weaseling is necessary or appropriate. That article does nothing to support any claim you have made. It just uses a few words you like, and often in the same paragraphs, even sentences. When will you learn how to read and reason?
Different predictions would result from these premises. Evolution would predict that the convergent features would commonly differ in detail and would in fact show relationships to features in related taxa; creation would predict that “convergent” features would be absolutely identical and would appear in the species as if from nowhere, with no relationships to features in related taxa. Of course we see the former, not the latter, in almost every case.
No, we have enough data already. Separate creation is not tenable.
Considered in isolation, and without regard for the overwhelming evidence that comes from other data, I would say that we would have to discover function for most of them. In theory, they would all be functional, but perhaps we would not be able to find out what some of them did. Obviously that would be too many to examine, but random sampling should be sufficient. Then again, the comparative data tell us this is a stupid thing to look for, because functional sequences should be conserved among species, and neither ERVs nor pseudogenes generally show any such conservation.
I have never heard anyone say that. It’s a strawman. What they actually say is that front-loading is a problem because useless genes won’t wait around for billions of years to become functional in the future. They would tend to be lost and/or evolve beyond recognition. No, convergent evolution doesn’t answer anything, not even the strawman criticism.
This is just a made-up list of parts that your eye has. Octopus eyes don’t even have lids. Do you think at all before you post things?
Only three times, actually. And it’s not the same. The differences in detail are huge, as expected from evolution. Under creation, we would expect them to be identical.
The evidence is against that claim. Different species have somewhat different genes. New ones appear and old ones are lost throughout the history of life. And both appearance and loss follow the same nested hierarchy as do other data. Common descent wins again.
Nothing can support an incoherent hypothesis. Go ahead, prove that Fermat’s last theorem doesn’t support bingo for lasagna purple.
Sorry, makes no sense. Remember that species of viper, which you call a single basic type, are in different habitats, so your expressed criterion would say that they’re all different basic types. Your claims are self-contradictory. But what does “respond differently in different habitats” mean?