RNA editing and Convergence, powerful evidence for design

1) Without seeing what the "programmed" means in context arguing that it is evidence for design or not is premature.2) The fact that these mechanisms are narrowly confined phylogenetically is evidence for common descent and therefore FOR evolution. And there is no reason to conclude that simple convergence indicates design - usually it indicates that a narrow range of available solutions to a particular problem (e.g. sharks, icthyosaurs and dolphins have similar form because they have similar lifestyles),

As I pointed out the convergence in THIS case is definitely NOT anti-common descent.

Well if we are going to talk about whether a case has been made - where's yours ?Come to that if you think that I am denying that this is convergence have you actually read either of my posts ? I never said that - what I do deny is that convergence is automatically evidence against common descent and that in this case the evidence supports common descent.Since you can't fill in the dots in my argument as to why it supports common descent here it is:
The particular implementations of RNA editing have a narrow phylogentic distribution.
This is what we would expect if they arose independantly and were transmitted by common descent.
Design does not have the limitations of common descent and could produce any distribution at all.
Therefore the fact that we find a distribution compatible with common descent is evidence for common descent.Now perhjaps you would like to produce a similarly detailed argument for why you think this is somehow evidence AGAINST common descent.

Well you really seem to have problems grasping the positions you are arguing against.Convergence refers to the evolution of independant evolution of a feature in two groups. It does not imply that they did not have a common ancestor - only that they (probably) did not have a common ancestor with that feature. So it is not opposed to common descent.In this case we have different versions of RNA editing in different lineages so it certainly does not interfere with the attempt to reconstruct phylogenies. Indeed the statements quoted imply that it confirms the existing phylogenies.