I'm willing to buy into this concept, but the phrasing is way off.
The words "may only exist because" is ridiculously presumptive and egocentric, as if to connote that there's some sort of defeat or induced and undeserved subordination to the idea. Like, "oh, how disappointing that mushrroms and yeast get to take all the credit" even though we've known all along that plants and animals weren't the originators of life, according to the heterotroph hypothesis.
So, it's more like: "Fungi may have been the spring board to complex life AS WE KNOW IT."
It's not some sad revelation. If anything, it's just one more fact in the cryptic mystery of an already strange origin story.
The words "may only exist because" is ridiculously presumptive and egocentric, as if to connote that there's some sort of defeat or induced and undeserved subordination to the idea. Like, "oh, how disappointing that mushrroms and yeast get to take all the credit" even though we've known all along that plants and animals weren't the originators of life, according to the heterotroph hypothesis.
So, it's more like: "Fungi may have been the spring board to complex life AS WE KNOW IT."
It's not some sad revelation. If anything, it's just one more fact in the cryptic mystery of an already strange origin story.