I can copy them, but they don’t copy themselves. Also, we can directly observe them being written. The differences between the two operating systems is not on the list of evidence for their separate origin.
I would also like to see the criteria you use for determining the number of differences needed before you decide that they have separate origins.
Intuition is never used to support a theory. Facts are used for supporting theories. You need facts.
Once again this malformed question seems to be built on the premise that the nucleus sort of just popped up out of nowhere and then the rest of the cell had to adapt to it instantly, instead of the nucleus gradually evolving for other reasons.
Yeah, you believe a lot of things. Demonstrating those beliefs are true? Not so much.
Anyway, that useless meeting has already faded into obscurity, with only creationists clinging to the belief that any worthwhile new ideas came from it.
What other reasons? Something built for function X is rarely works for function Z.
Whats happening is that people are fading away from Neo Darwinism.
This is a rather pointless argument on your part. No one is denying that things that are very different from one another could have arisen from different origins. This does not support your claim that prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common origin, because it fails to acknowledge the evidence in favour of their common origin.
Yes, and replacing it with modern evolutionary theory. That had already happened 30 years ago. The people presenting at that Royal Society meeting, most of whom were not even evolutionary biologists if they were biologists at all, were not aware of this.
Read the paper I linked earlier. It actually gives some really good reasons based on known facts about how splicing and protein biosynthesis occurs.
There is evidence for both cases. As a bicycle and an airplane both have wheels. It’s the degree of differences that starts to bring doubt to common origin.
You need positive evidence for separate origins. A Designer of the Gaps is not a winning strategy.
The spliceosome
The nuclear pore complex
Chromosome structure
Golgi apparatus
endoplasmic reticulum
Remove any one of these what happens 
See, that’s your problem right there. “Degree of difference” does not even enter the discussion. Evolution is a theory that accounts for how organisms as different as an E. coli bacteria, banana plants, a Shitake mushrooms and a human beings all arose from a common ancestor. The differences between them is part of the theory, not something that the theory must elide.
Exactly. The theory is trying to claim common origin of very different things based on marginal similarity.
Remove them from what? How is this evidence of separate origins?
Wow. How can someone who is so obsessed with evolution as you are still understand it so poorly?
No, Bill. The theory of evolution is NOT predicated on the position “Prokaryotes and eukaryotes are very different, therefore they share a common ancestor.” Geez.
Good question. Let’s work on this later.
No, based on nesting hiearchical structures, and the differences being consistent with having been caused by the biochemical causes of mutations. You can’t just handwave this away.
When there is enough similarity I agree with you. Example dog and wolf. As the differences grow the theory becomes more problematic. The prokaryotic to eukaryotic comparison is just an example of extreme differences as Fazil pointed out. Either we have universal common descent or we don’t. If we don’t then the discussion becomes how much does common descent explain.
How? What are the problems that can be demonstrated? Please note: This is not the same thing as “problems” that you just believe to exist as the result of your abysmal understanding of evolution and your religiously motivated wish that evolution was not true.
And we do. This is a fact as certain as anything in science.
Denial borne of ignorance and religious indoctrination is not scientific evidence, it pains me to tell you.
How much does reproduction on its own explain? Can it explain the up regulation of an enzyme so a dog can digest carbs better? Probably. Does it explain the emergence of new cell types so eyes can form? Probably not.