> Isn't this a required truth of evolution (not necessarily these animals, but the concept) - that humans and centipedes (or sharks, or dogs, or pigeons, or mushrooms, etc.) all have a common ancestor if you could trace evolution with perfect accuracy back to the beginning of time?
No, its not a "required truth of evolution". Evolution works just fine if you have life arising independently in multiple places.
Universal common descent was among the hypotheses Darwin proposed in The Origin of Species, but its certainly been challenged many times without the basics of evolution being challenged; I think it is part of the current scientific consensus based on the available evidence, but its not at all necessary to evolution.
Thanks, that makes sense to me, but it has never been presented to me like that. It's similar to spoken languages evolution, then, correct? In that many languages developed very similar basic rules independently? I don't have a lot of experience beyond high school evolution lessons (which present the common ancestor as a necessary piece of the puzzle), but I took some nature of language classes in college and found that very interesting.
No, its not a "required truth of evolution". Evolution works just fine if you have life arising independently in multiple places.
Universal common descent was among the hypotheses Darwin proposed in The Origin of Species, but its certainly been challenged many times without the basics of evolution being challenged; I think it is part of the current scientific consensus based on the available evidence, but its not at all necessary to evolution.