You should know that isn’t good enough. Of course it isn’t self-evident, and you should be wary of the pull of the anthropocentric viewpoint.
Yes, as it happens. Didn’t you just show that your conflation is incorrect? I’m confused.
I agree completely. They’re even rare in sequences that are under selection. But I don’t see what that has to do with the relative number of functional differences in species pairs.
Nor am I sure what you were talking about right then.
I’m not sure you do. You have said that it would be very difficult to come up with an example, and I show that it isn’t difficult at all.
The bit about microinversions was a counterexample to the claim that rare changes would not be detectable as intervention. It depends on the background level of changes. Since microinversions are orders of magnitude less common than point mutations, even a comparative few of them would stand out from that background.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. At any rate, it’s a counterclaim to divine parsimony. You can justify anything by whipsawing between those two principles.