(2018-07-22, 07:51 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the links 
And thanks for the thanks. There's another explanation of the paper today
here that you might understand slightly better (I know I did). I can't claim to understand everything, but the upshot is that it is being claimed that an evolutionary tree with common descent is a significantly less probable explanation of the known data (derived from publicly available biological sources) than is a dependency graph model.
As far as I understand it, in the dependency graph model, the underlying working hypothesis is that genes aren't inherited or lost from prior species on the tree, but come from modules that can sometimes be found in species that are widely assumed to be only distantly related. For example, the sonar systems in bats and whales, or the eyes of octopuses and mammals.
IOW, if you treat biological features as if they are similar to computer software, where a program may draw on pre-existent modules (as well as custom code), you get a much closer fit to the available data than if you assume a common descent model.
Now if anyone thinks that I think this proves ID, let me say I remain on the fence about that: it's true that I think Darwinism is a load of bollocks, but that doesn't mean that I think ID is the correct explanation for evolution. I can only say that it seems to me that ID is a plausible hypothesis, far more plausible than Darwinism.
Of course, the real explanation might be something else that hasn't yet been thought of. I will say, though, that as an Idealist -- thinking that consciousness is fundamental, and matter (as well as space and time) are just appearances (aka Maya or illusion) on the screen of perception -- I believe that consciousness is the source of what we think of as living entities.
Does consciousness, as the source of all, actively design what appears to us as living beings? Well, that's a possibility, but I have my doubts. Cosmic consciousness need not be conscious in the same way we seem to ourselves to be. It needn't be an immensely bigger and more intelligent version of us, with far better design capabilities: that could just be a projection of ourselves onto it (which I believe is also the essential reason for Abrahamic religious interpretations).
I won't go much further:
Bernardo Kastrup's many articles, videos, papers and books say it all, and much better than I can.