Uncommon or Common Descent?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

My overall take away from the discussion on Dr. Ewert’s paper is that no one believes a tree is a good fit for the data. Thus, everyone agrees with Dr. Ewert’s main result, that a graph with some degree of dependency structure is a much better fit. Hence, per my above reasoning, ID is the best explanation for what we see.

Non-sequitur alert!

Have you not been reading the thread? There are several other explanations before ID for that result, and it isn’t even yet established. Don’t channel @Cornelius_Hunter here, who got this description:

@swamidass

I think overall what I see is that Dr. Ewert has offered the tentative beginnings of a research program, and he has admirably entered the ring to test it, and you have lifted up his arm and declared him the undisputed winner by KO before the fight has even really begun.
https://discourse.biologos.org/t/new-paper-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/39018/131?u=swamidass

Prematurely declaring victory is not respectful of Winston’s work. I won’t tolerate disrespect of an excellent guest and like that very long. He impressed us. Do not undermine him.