To my mind, the researchers’ assumption of common descent doesn’t make much difference. Data is data, and can be interpreted and reinterpreted without regard for the data collector’s original intent for the same. I’m interpreting the data as both supportive of ID front-loading and supportive of Creationist front-loading, and I’m interpreting the data as yet one more nail in the coffin of neo-Darwinism. It is a nail in the coffin of neo-darwinism because it further constricts the time that RM+NS had to act in order to construct an extremely complex, heritable genome. It is supportive of ID frontloading because as you constrict the time available for the same, frontloading becomes more and more tenable in direct proportion to the degree that neo-Darwinism becomes untenable. Finally, the data also lends support to (and certainly doesn’t contradict) the notion that life came from a single designer (shares a common design that points to the common designer), that life was created spontaneously, and that the created kinds were frontlaoded for survival (to include genetic variation, but that also resist any theories that postulate that animals can genetically vary beyond the limits of the created kinds).
Now, if you think the data contained in the original post falsifies what I have just outlined, feel free to cite the data in such a way as to prove me wrong (remembering, of course, that I am fully aware that I’m using the data against the very theory motivating the researchers themselves).