This is the last paragraph of Nelson’s review:
Let go of MN, I reply, and consider that CA might be false, in the light of new evidence, and we can talk. Otherwise, there isn’t much to discuss.
Yes. Let’s discuss that new evidence. Is it significant? Or are Common Design advocates just straining to find fodder in a few anomalous cases? I’m not a scientist of that specialty so my question is a sincere one.
If the “new evidence” is truly groundbreaking, then there surely must be huge opportunities for some earnest doctoral student to make a name for himself/herself. I’d say blowing apart the foundations of Common Descent would be the fast-track to a tenure track.
I suppose significant numbers of ID scholars are racing to publish the definitive analysis of this new evidence in prominent peer-reviewed journals. I enthusiastically look forward to reading that seminal paper when it is published.