That was helpful.
In fact, with that in mind, I see a potential way of evaluating the common descent (CD) vs biblical creation. Perhaps one that’s already been done. The challenge is coming up with a more quantitative way of evaluating the two. Personally, just saying “Why would it look like a tree?” is a bit subjective because it doesn’t speak of the quality of a tree. For me, that’s the true issue.
@swamidass is very familiar with the quantitative goal behind this question, which is why he mentioned the SIFTER vs BLAST analysis here (BTW, I still need to research that more, and would like to hear from others on this one)
But what you shared gave me another question to ask. Creationists accept common descent within “kinds” but not external to kinds. Although I am aware that we have not yet identified accurate kind boundaries (which limits this obviously), this concept may give us something quantitative.
So here’s my question:
Has anyone tried to measure the quality of phylogeny within creationist “kinds” vs external to “kinds?”
(BTW we would expect to see some phylogeny signals between kinds, simply due to common features. Although felines and canines are separate kinds, the sure have a lot of similarities).