So, I disagree with her argument against common descent. Not because common descent must be true axiomatically, but because her argument neglects population genetics, and is fallacious. It is rhetorically strong for non-scientists that don’t like evolution, which is why you like it. Though it really does fall apart on mathematical scrutiny.
@vjtorley is a non-scientist that was able to pick up on this problem before, and he swings back and forth between ID and non-ID: The Mathematical View of Origins. There is a pattern with ID arguments. They sound great rhetorically, especially if you don’t know the real arguments for what is being argued against. On scrutiny, (1) the math usually falls apart, and (2) the strongest and quantitative evidence is never explained or engaged. That is exactly what we see in the argument against common descent here.
As one proximate example of this pattern, though not about common descent, from @Ronald_Cram:
No one should trust the science of someone who makes that argument without immediately retracting it. If @Ronald_Cram really did hear that from a scientist, it would be great to figure out where that is in print, and if it was retracted.