That was my case.
His argument pivotted on it and was inacurate and anachronistic. Interestingly if he'd read the article or understood it if he read it he would have seen that the non-randomness of integration is well discussed in the article from where the phylogram was borrowed. (he erred as well on its description, but that is for later to elucidate).
Also he has admitted my long time contention "or case" that his interest in not in discussing science but in what can be considered evangelizing or prosylitizing -- as he put it writing for the lay people.
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.
You're welcome.
Hopefully you can learn a bit from your mistakes. Appearing to be a desperate lawyer seeking every advantage in a hopeless case isn't a good starting place from which to convince the jury.