Let me just pull out my textbooks and laptop real quick. 
Already been suggested on the forum; I’ve read it and I reviewed here: Book Reviews on Humanity and Evolution: Erdrich's Fiction and Reich's Non-fiction
I checked and my library has it in the new books section so I will pick it up! Thanks. Looks interesting.
Yes, but I already disagreed with him twice.
Ok, I definitely shouldn’t rely on my memory because my percentage on reversals was very off. Anyway, first see my post here about Balanovsky and all the mutations they said showed up in all samples but didn’t count. Dsterncardinale's Review of Traced by Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson - #91 by thoughtful I am suggesting the false negatives would be reversals (it looks like about 10% of the total mutations found. I suppose since those would be recent, the actual occurrence might be a bit higher). Parallel mutations look to be more common. But if the mutation rate is high in a population of billions, it seems to me like that’s to be expected for mutations not yet subject to drift?
I don’t know what you’d define as extreme homoplasy, but I’m suggesting that recent mutations will often be parallel to those found in deep lineages, whether extant or extinct.
Anyway, practically no one commented what I wrote about the details of Balanovsky Supplemental Table 2 at the time. I didn’t know quite what to think of the silence, since usually I’m told I’m wrong quite quickly. 
I’m still open to hearing I am understanding that table wrong and it is NOT evidence for a high mutation rate. To me, it looks like it IS evidence for it.