No. I think "no true Scotsman" usually asserted as a hasty retreat from the original, all-inclusive claim ("no Scotsman"), once the original claim has been rebutted with a counter-example. Sort of a moving of the goalposts.
Allow me to rephrase mu original statement, thusly: "But in the "No True Scotsman," the original assertion [meaning "No scotsman would..."] is originally made gratuitously, hence it isn't the "Accident Fallacy," as it is not asserted as having followed from some general principle.
We are in agreement on the balance of your analysis: it IS "goal post moving" -- which I call a form of equivocation in this instance, one which is rationalized by begging the question of just what a "true Scotsman" would or would not do. Please accept my apologies for the lack of clarity in my previous reply.
No true participant in the evolution threads would ever apologize for anything. Nor, in this case, is an apology required anyway. We're in agreement, and that's what counts.