The tree-like pattern from the dataset was not very strong. Of course, if you shuffle it, it looks strong compared to randomness.
This refutes one of the favorite talking points of popularizers of Darwinism like Richard Dawkins.
Evolution’s grand tree-of-life story requires constructive evolution, not more and more cases of organisms tossing parts overboard.
Think of cars. A Tesla and a Cadillac share many features — but of course, none of that means that Teslas blindly evolved from Cadillacs, or vice versa.
It’s simply false for Dawkins to claim that when you compare genes of different animals, they “fall on a perfectly hierarchy — a perfect family tree.”