[CORRECTION]
“So, how did the authors explain the incredible complexity found across the spectrum of life in myosin gene content that had no clear evolutionary patterns? They explained it by 1) convergence (the sudden and simultaneous appearance of a gene with no evolutionary patterns in different taxa), 2) lineage-specific expansions (different myosin gene complements found in different creatures), and 3) gene losses (missing genes that evolutionists thought should have been there). None of these ideas actually explain why there is no evolutionary pattern of simple-to-complex in myosin gene content across the spectrum of life.”
That statement makes the unscientific and false assumption assumption that myosin and genomic diversity of the early ages must be expressed in the genomes of the present lifeforms, which is simply not the case at all. There was a time only 550 million years ago when there were a considerable number of fauna which used trilateral and polylateral body plans in their genomes, instead of the bilateral body paln that survives in todays fauna. Had it not been for the fossilization of their unusual morphologies, we would not have known about them today by looking at the surviving genomes. This is the problem with most of the microbial lifeforms being unsuitable for preservation except in rare circumstances. Very very little of the extinct genera are known to us because they were not preserved in the paleontological and geological records. The early diversity of unrelated characteristics is unsurprising, because it should actually be expected.
Very good point - just because attributes are expressed in particular cases, doesn’t mean they are the only attributes capable of being expressed. Without a corresponding study of gene expression factors, how can any expressions be said to be representations of full development?