You have to stop citing papers you haven’t read. It’s just rude. I refuse to discuss a claim based on your poor scholarship.
No, he’s not talking about convergence of any sort. Separate creation is not compatible with convergence, which is a feature of common descent.
Exactly. You can’t provide an account at all. And it will never be fully developed. This is you once again relying on hypothetical future information to support your argument. That isn’t cricket.
I have pointed out previously that none of these are identified as basic types. I have also pointed out previously that Avalon isn’t even a taxon; it’s a location. Similarly, Ordovician is a time period, Odontodes are teeth, and none of them is a family, which you have previously said is what basic types are. And I have further pointed out that many of these supposed basic types are nested within each other, so at most one of those nested groups can be a basic type. This is you once again reposting an incoherent claim without ever addressing previous criticisms.
It’s also consistent with many other irrelevant notions. Consistency is not a good guide to relevance.
Yes, that’s because the HGT they observe largely follows the true phylogeny. This is not useful to your claims.
Because I said that horizontal transfer is rare in eukaryotes, and tens to hundreds of genes out of roughly 20,000 would be considered rare. In other words, that paper supports my claim, not yours.
No, I said what I meant. What?
But that’s not what it means. You must try harder not to be incoherent.