Are scientists any closer

[Bear Wild]

I'm going by what scientists say. Meantime, such an easy answer according to you that you say I don't do research (I have). So if scientists don't agree, change their opinions, why should I agree with you? Are you right? Are they right? Can't you explain your beliefs?

What exactly are scientists disagreeing about. It is not about the theory of evolution. It may be about details but not the theory. The fact that scientist change their position is based on new evidence that becomes available.

Nobody agrees on everything not in science or in religion. It is healthy to challenge and disagree. It is unhealthy to close your mind to new information.

 

[metis]

Are scientists any closer to figuring out, since Darwin's theory was expounded,

Absolutely yes.

what is that proposed unknown common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans? With all those bones and dna findings, still no certain common ancestor?

We know the generalities but not all the specifics in many areas of science. But what we don't do is to have a blind faith in a subjective source written thousands of years ago by people we don't know and can't ask questions of.

 

[Altfish]

I'm going by what scientists say.

No you are not!!

Meantime, such an easy answer according to you that you say I don't do research (I have). So if scientists don't agree, change their opinions, why should I agree with you? Are you right? Are they right? Can't you explain your beliefs?

Learn about evolution, here is a starter video for you ...

When you have watched and understood that one, come back and I'll raise the stakes to elementary level.

 

[The Hammer]

Still no answer. Just putdowns from you and people like you. Btw, scientists keep changing what they think reality is. Brains smarter, bigger, maybe yes, maybe no.

What don't like my list of MRCA's, via photo? Nice and simple for you to peruse.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yet again - it's pointless asking questions if you just ignore the answers and refuse to learn anything.

But we see this over and over and over again, ad infinitum and ad nauseum!

It is really quite irritating when people pretend to be looking for truth knowing full well they wouldn''t accept it if it was proven ninety-nine ways to Sunday. The OP is NOT seeking knowledge. The OP supposes that (s)he already has all the knowledge required, and because some goat-herder from a couple of millenia ago wrote it down, it has to be "the Truth," Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Last one

I think you'll probably have to explain in some more depth. "Pan" as in pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) and pan paniscus (bonobo).

Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God is the father of all. Thus, He is the common ancestor.

In the sense in which the question is asked, this is a total non-sequitur. We are not "related" to God in any way whatever -- that would require God to have genetic material, and I'm fairly sure you wouldn't stand for that notion.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Timeline evidently keeps changing. Furthermore, what's the UCA (unknown common ancestor) that burgeoned from bonobos, chimpanzees, or gorillas to ...people? Still in the dark, scientists are.

You know, no one worth listening to ever said science was the end all be all of authoritative word set in stone. It's just people trying to figure out how things work. It really is just that simple.

Now, over time what works and what doesn't is tested, and the stuff that works is fine tuned. Medicine now, vs. 100 years ago is totally different and vastly superior, just like medicine 100 years ago vs. 500 years ago was totally different and vastly superior.

It's a system of self correction as we learn more about the way the world works. Sometimes it's wrong, and as such, we adjust when we are mistaken about things.

Not sure why there's so much contention over evolution... Evolution doesn't mean a god can't exist.

 

[McBell]

...
Evolution doesn't mean a god can't exist.

I never have been able to understand why so many theists think that evolution kills their all powerful deity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

as soon as they find.......the rib
the one that Eve was made from

Wasn't a rib -- it was a baculum. Makes much more sense. The Believabliltiy of Evolution

 

[ecco]

With all those bones and dna findings, still no certain common ancestor?

God is the father of all. Thus, He is the common ancestor.

If the second quote is correct, why did you bother asking the first?

The answer: So that you could start another ridiculous thread on evolution and do some more proselytizing.

 

[exchemist]

Are scientists any closer to figuring out, since Darwin's theory was expounded, what is that proposed unknown common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans? With all those bones and dna findings, still no certain common ancestor?

Common ancestry is certain. But we do not yet know if we have a fossil of the creature - or one of them- in question, though there are some candidates. That's not really a surprise, when you consider (i) how rare it is for a skeleton to become fossilised, and then (ii) how rare it is for such a fossil to be exposed at the earth's surface again and then (iii) how rare it is for such a re-exposed fossil to be found, and then (iv) how rare it is for it to come into the hands of someone who recognises its importance to science.

If you look at the family trees of all species, you find they are compiled by "joining the dots", as represented by various fossils, with gaps in between. That is the nature of science. The trees represent the predictive model of science as to what further fossil finds could be expected, in order to make a more complete picture.

That's what science does: it discerns patterns that enable predictions of what more we should expect to find.

In fact, in the case of the apes, the picture seems to be complicated by hybridisation between the emerging new species, so it may well be that it is futile to hope for the simplicity of a single, unambiguous, common ancestor.

So I have no doubt there will continue to be scope for stupid fundamentalist preachers to ridicule the science. Ridiculing something you haven't taken the trouble to understand is one of the prime hallmarks of an idiot.

 

[ecco]

Pan as in peter pan (you know the one that can fly) or pan as in the god pan ( the one with the horns) or the ape pan as in I am an ape man?

I am the egg man
They are the egg men
I am the walrus
Goo goo g'joob

 

[Wandering Monk]

You didn't Google it, did you?

You can't make converts Googling stuff. You have to come to social media for that.

 

[ecco]

That's got to be the most energetic orangutan I've ever seen. Which reminds me... of a TV series about life at a British zoo. One of the male orangutans got hold of a clothing catalogue (I can't remember how or why). Anyhoo it became a favoured possession of his; he sat and "read" it avidly day after day. Eventually the keepers noticed that he was particularly keen on a certain section of the catalogue - the ladies lingerie pages.

Is this evidence that orangutans can have the hots for female homo sapiens or is it evidence that orangutans are interested in crossdressing?

 

[ecco]

Are creation scientists any closer to figuring out who my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather on my mother's side was, and collecting his bones to show me?

Creation Scientist: There are no verified reports of the actual existence of this oxymoronic creature.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A simple answer will do. Such as, "scientists haven't figured what The Unknown Common Ancestor is to bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and humans." And let me help you out here: you might follow that up with, "But undoubtedly they will, eventually." See? You have faith in the theoretical lines of ascent or descent of those branches by force of nature. Of course, fish still stay fish, bonobos still stay bonobos. It's been nice seeing all the responses, bearing out what some scientists have said about expressing disbelief in my Darwin's theory. Thanks to all those.

Now here is where -- on the excessively UNLIKELY chance that you were ever to actually look at all the evidence presented to you, you would see where you are hopelessly uninformed.

Number 1 -- fossilization is an extremely rare event, but animals dying, and entire species disappearing, is extremely common. Now, if we had the fossilized remains of every animal that ever lived, you could get your wish, but we don't. We don't even have 1 out of a billion fossils of the critters that died on this planet. As someone else pointed out earlier, for any one of us to find our who all 64 of our great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers were would be utterly amazing, and I don't believe there's anybody alive who could do it. And yet, you do have that many (or possibly fewer if there was any intermarriage in your family).

Number 2 -- if there are bonobos now, then there must have ALWAYS been bonobos, because without evolution there is no way whatever to get them. Yet, the fossil record shows that there were NOT always bonobos, or dogs, or horses, or whale sharks, or chickens, peacocks, amphioxus or anything else. In every case, we can find fossils going back in time for most species -- but only so far and no farther back. Species end and new species start, according to the fossil record.

So, let's just leave you with your Bible, and you can thumb through the pages until you can explain just those two little points. I await your erudition eagerly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm going by what scientists say.

No, you most certainly are NOT going by what scientists say. And the easiest way to demonstrate that is because you don't even KNOW WHAT IT IS THEY SAY!

 

[The Hammer]

God is the father of all. Thus, He is the common ancestor.

But Wotan/Woden/Odin is the All-Father. The Father of All (including the Gods), so your Yahweh and Jesus.

 

[ecco]

A simple answer will do. Such as, "scientists haven't figured what The Unknown Common Ancestor is to bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and humans." And let me help you out here: you might follow that up with, "But undoubtedly they will, eventually." See? You have faith in the theoretical lines of ascent or descent of those branches by force of nature. Of course, fish still stay fish, bonobos still stay bonobos. It's been nice seeing all the responses, bearing out what some scientists have said about expressing disbelief in my Darwin's theory. Thanks to all those.

Even more simple simplistic is that Kangaroos made to Australia after leaving the ark.
Even more simple simplistic is that Pandas made it to China after leaving the ark.
Even more simple simplistic is that Polar Bears made it to the Arctic after leaving the ark.

Do any Creationists know why these different "kinds" knew where to go?

If Creationism is correct, Creationists should be able to answer these questions. If Creationists cannot answer these basic questions, Creationism must be false.