# Uncommon or Common Descent?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [July 23, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776 "2018-07-23T19:07:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EricMH](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ericmh/32/679_2.png) [@EricMH](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/EricMH)\
**Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 12:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776/20 "2018-07-26T00:02:12Z")

</div>

I haven’t seen _explanations_ for the result. I’ve seen statements that the data exhibits a medium amount of homoplaises, and _assertions_ that SCD can account for this. Without an explanation _how_, and not having expertise in the area, all I can do is offer my thinking why the ID conclusion seems the most plausible in my mind. Not trying to disrespect anyone here.

But, still the main takeaway is everyone agrees with Dr. Ewert’s result that pure trees are bad models for the data, and some sort of dependency injection is better, correct?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/uncommon-or-common-descent/776)._