Posted: Sep 25, 2018 2:19 am
by Wortfish
Rumraket wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Wrong. It does imply universal common descent, courtesy of the fact that current populations inherited their genetic constitution from relevant ancestors.

No c'mon. The fact that macroevolution is a fact, as in we know that speciation happens and that species can radically change morphology and biochemistry through evolutionary change on geological time-spans, does not itself imply that all species currently known must share a common genealogical realationship.

There is evidence that they do, but the mere definition of the term macroevolution isn't evidence for anything. Macroevolution could be true, while universal common descent could be false. There could concievably have been multiple independent origins of life, and different parts of extant biodiversity could in such a scenario trace their ancestry to independent origins. We could at least in principle have two parallel trees of life, or even more.


In other words, life could be polyphyletyic rather than monophyletic.