Point still stands. If a tube with wings could have engines at the back and high up - it would have. But wait, we already had such planes. Various DC planes and even the tri-engine planes with the third engine on top of the fuselage. And we gradually saw those designs disappear and saw engines moved under the wing.
Aerodynamics wise AND ingesting air into the engine wise, having engines under the wing is the best solution. Air is unobstructed when fed into the engine. Having engines at the back (and up) doesn't influence aerodnaymics directly but makes up for a lot of added weight away from center of lift. Which makes the whole plane quite draggy, indirectly, as the plane needs to compensate for that weight at the back with trim, creating drag. Placing engines where center of weight and lift is - which is under the wings, is overall a better solution. While there is SOME loss of lift due to the pylons, that's not much, and certainly the decades of aeroplane designs around the world showed it's a good compromise.
Now, I would understand placing the engines on top if the fuselage was thin and if it was a true flying wing, with very little clearance to the ground. But here we're seeing blended body wing designs which show ample room, as the wings are positioned up high. I dare to say that the clearance shown is bigger than on A320/B737 series planes.
And again, I am not saying that placing the engines under wing is better. I am asking WHY isn't it done. And hoping for a *detailed* reply which would make me understand the benefits.