rationalskepticism.org

Wortfish wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Do tell us all why that definition is "shallow and cautious". Preferably with reference to some actual biology to support this assertion.

I mean that such a definition in no way implies universal common descent.

Who the hell says that the term "macrovolution" implies universal common descent?

Universal common descent is just called that, universal common descent. While the case for universal common descent of course rests on the reality of (and evidence for) macroevolutionary change at least in part. But it is odd to somehow claim there's something wrong the definition of macroevolution because you seemingly expect it to imply that all species are related through a common genealogical relationship.