[LeBleu]

No, it is two different dichotomies. One is one-ancestor vs. multi-ancestor, with the first being correct. The second is no gene transfer between descendants vs. gene transfer between descendants, with the second being correct. So there was only one species to begin with, but then later, after it diverged into multiple species, those branches traded genes back and forth.

[Alex3917]

"So there was only one species to begin with"

The idea that all life shares a common ancestor does not mean that there was only one species to begin with. There could have been many species who contributed genetic material to a common ancestor, and then eventually died out. The article is poorly written because it doesn't make it clear whether the gene swapping occurred before or after the common ancestor.

[DanielBMarkham]

I went back and re-read the article.

I took it at first to mean common ancestor in terms of a single ancestor for a particular species. But then you guys seem to think it means a common ancestor for all life.

I found it confusing. Meta: I have no idea why my comment was voted down so much. I did not understand it, and I still do not. Seems like an admission of that along with an explanation from other commenters would be a good thing, right? Saying I don't know and having people help me -- reason for the board, or not?

[Alex3917]

I have no idea what's up with comment moderation, but it's clearly been going downhill. It's probably best to just ignore it.

[chronomex]

Nitpick: You say "correct" where the more precise phrasing would be something like "far more probable".