Why?
Darwin himself was very clear he had no theories on this point and didn't seem to be bothered by it.
Evolution, in the original and reasonable sense of the term, involves how organisms change over time. How the organisms came into existence in the first place is outside its field of study.
[[Darwin himself was very clear he had no theories on this point and didn’t seem to be bothered by it.]]
He was bothered by it, and voiced his concerns as well. Why must origins be included in a hypothesis about macroevolution? Because if, as I said, you wish to establish life naturally evovles species beyond hteir own kinds, you must show hte mechanisms behind the process, and htose mechanisms woudl thus have to have a natural beginning from chemicals, as that would have been all that was available to nature ‘in hte beginning’
If you wish to state that scientists choose to ignore origins, that would be fine- but it’s simpyl not correct to state that the ‘study’ of macroevolution excludes origins explanations
[[Evolution, in the original and reasonable sense of the term, involves how organisms change over time.]]
That is hte operational study of Microevolution- microevolution is a verifiable, testable, process- Macroevolution however is not- it’s nothign but a hypothesis, which quite frankly violates several key scientific principles