Divergence is even easier than convergence. Convergence is the independent evolution, at least twice, of the same design. Divergence is the evolution of a design, perhaps only once. And of course divergence is also a “known process.”
So your theory explains, or accommodates, (i) new complex designs arising which evolutionists have failed to explain (as discussed above), (ii) convergence, and (iii) divergence.
Who’s to argue?
It seems like anything goes and there’s not much empirical content left as your theory doesn’t actually say anything of consequence except, of course, that you’re right and that “known processes” can explain everything. You could sit down and arrange m characters in n species pretty much any way you want and explain it on your theory. In spite of the data not falling anywhere close to a “known processes” model, you’ve proven it.
How about the genome of the starlet sea anemone, Nematostella vectensis which turned out to share “a surprising degree” of similarity with the genome of vertebrates, thus “contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution”!? As one evolutionist admitted:
It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone — a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal — is almost as complex as that of a human.
This makes no sense on the theory.
How about the non homologous development in salamanders, developing their digits (which violate, as well, the pentadactyl pattern by the way) in the wrong order? In fact the salamander character data are full of contradictions:
The evolution and phylogeny of crown group salamanders is plagued by homoplasy. In fact, a large a number of highly derived anatomical characters, including body elongation, tail autonomy, and life history pathways, have been demonstrated or are debated to have evolved multiple times.
You can also add unique genes to that list. These make no sense on common descent.
But alas, none of this matters, for these are but more meaningless examples of convergence, divergence, and new designs arising, and they are not a problem. Lakatos explained this a long time ago: theories are protected. You can’t get at evolution. It is safeguarded from the empirical evidence by a protective belt.
You continue to appeal to this failed argument/evidence that George tried to use. First of all, for pseudogenes falling into the common descent pattern, the (hypothetical) lack of fitness/selection does not help. If it is deleterious, as the loss of vitamin C synthesis likely would be, then it is evidence against the theory, in spite of Steve’s protestations. If it is neutral, or it is positive (which is quite possible), then you have supporting evidence, but not very strong.
All of this is moot, however, since pseudogenes can violate the common descent pattern with no harm to the theory!
And finally, if this wasn’t enough, the whole argument is on the wrong side of centuries of history. Evolutionists have always been claiming disutility, and it just continues to be proven wrong. This applies to pseudogenes just as much as everything else. Now they’re being called “pseudo-pseudogenes,” with the latest study suggesting they may be “a widespread phenomenon.”