What about the 16S rRNA phylogenetic tree?
"What about the 16S rRNA phylogenetic tree?"
The fact that among the thousands of genes there can be found one which moderately follows traditional traditional taxonomy is not very surprising.
Even then, there are many problems in which "horizontal transfer" must be invoked. I'm not against horizontal transfer in general, but if it has to be invoked to explain away problems, the technique isn't all its cracked up to be. There is no way to tell the difference between "horizontal transfer" and "this tree doesn't work".
If Universal Common Ancestry were true, we would expect most genes to give at least roughly the same tree. But that is not what happens.
See http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2004_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf
Since horizontal gene transfer seems to be most common where we can't see it, don't you think that invoking it is going past where the evidence goes? Horizontal gene transfer is a must if you assume Universal Common Ancestry under the standard models of abiogenesis. But without those models, horizontal gene transfer means "the tree doesn't work like expected". You can only really keep the tree if you assume its existence in the first place, which means that you are assuming a specific idea of abiogenesis.
Nope, no one saw it! It didnt happen!
Real science has to be actually witnessed by someone in real time, filmed with a video camera and later translated into little comic books to be left at laudromats and gas stations.