Um, no, I don't. It's just that we haven't even gotten to that argument yet. I've simply been conceding your characterization of the evidence for the purpose of arguing that you have no basis for accepting even that characterization.
and Creationist claims that the similarity in animal genomes stem from common design (which, for some reason, you have a hard time coming to grips with).
No, I don't. I readily concede that, if creation were true, we would expect the Creator to use common elements in His designs (if only so his creatures could eat each other, for for many other reasons as well). What I dispute is that a creationist is entitled to expect any particular pattern to these commonalities. And I certainly dispute, and have been here disputing, that a creationist is entitled to expect or find vindication and a very particular pattern that only crystallizes and emerges as a pattern at all on the assumption of, and therefore looks like, universal common descent of all animals.
(if only so his creatures could eat each other, for but for many other reasons as well)
disputing, that a creationist is entitled to expect or find vindication and in a very particular pattern
Agreed.
==What I dispute is that a creationist is entitled to expect any particular pattern to these commonalities.
I suppose it depends on what kind of Creationism you’re talking about. IDers, although certainly not YEC, certainly would expect common patterns in living things re: frontloading. And this paper lends credence to such expectations. Biblical YEC would expect that each of the created kinds would be frontloaded with the capacity for variation within the limits of its overall design. A Biblical YEC would also expect signs of descent with modification within the created kinds, but definite breaks/discontinuity between the lineages of the created kinds. As per Romans 1:20, A Biblical YEC would also expect that all organisms would be linked by design and point to a single designer (and that nature would resist materialist explanations like Darwinism). Thus, a Biblical YEC would expect to find a commonality of design that resists naturalistic explanations while at the same time bearing the marks of a single designer (as opposed to multiple designers). Thus, a Biblical YEC would indeed be "entitled to expect" common life patterns (unity within diversity) that would point to a single designer/creator, such as genome similarity, system similarities, cellular similarities, anatomical similarities, etc., etc...all of which is supported by the original article, and none of which is contradicted by the same.
I don't see it. Why would a Creator make His creatures so they eat each other? Even supposing that were true, it doesn't follow they need be made of common elements, at least as I understand the term.