@YoursTrue I just saw this comment, and was not surprised..
exchemist said:
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.
Mention the words Darwin, scientists, theory, etc., and you'll get a large trail of ants coming out the woodwork.
Better get some Diatomaceous Earth.
Idiot - a stupid person ; a person of low intelligence ; stupid - having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
How does one guage intelligence? Is it based on how many degrees, PhDs etc. one has, or that one has any at all?
We know that's not the case.
Common sense - good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Because one believes something, it doesn't mean it is better than another belief. Both beliefs
may be based on sound judgment, but we don't replace commonsense for the sake of beliefs.
It's true some have their reasons for believing that common ancestry is certain... perhaps making inferences from DNA Sequencing, but then it's not based on fossils, since they acknowledge that they cannot be sure of any fossils that would confirm the common ancestor of primates, and they do have faith in the assumptions that go with their beliefs.
Based on (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, it is surprising that people are using these charts to claim an evolutionary history.
This record apparently is exempt from the rare findings.
Maybe because they lived around the same period.
Given that these hypotheses are not complete, and subject to change, as you mentioned -
God knows they are inaccurate, it's no surprise to me the reaction I see on this tread, to your question.
Like...
Don't touch my evolution belief. Grrrr.
Since you haven't gotten an answer to your question, I'll answer it for you, as you are likely to just keep getting attacked - you might as well have jumped into piranha infested waters.
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?
Here are a number of responses from some intelligent people. Us "idiots" will be quiet.
...for a while.
Common descent is a concept in evolutionary biology applicable when one species is the ancestor of two or more species later in time.
Convergent evolution
If early organisms had been driven by the same environmental conditions to evolve similar biochemistry convergently, they might independently have acquired similar genetic sequences.
...
some researchers have sought to develop formal statistical arguments to test the hypothesis of [common ancestry].
There are at least two ways in which sequence similarity can mislead formal statistical tests and overstate the strength of evidence in favor of [common ancestry].
So, don't mind what idiots say, Common ancestry is a hypothesis. No hypothesis is certain. As you rightly said, scientists use the term "might" for a reason. Might, or might not. Uncertain.
So 150 years later, this hypothesis has been frozen.
There are other uncertainties, in the evolution history, and controversies, and debates... not only in the areas mentioned here -
Embracing Uncertainty in Reconstructing Early Animal Evolution
I'm sure you are not fooled by the puffer fish antics here on RF.
We know. We know.
“Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. We're not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers.”
—Neil deGrasse Tyson,
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
So in short. The answer. 150 years later, they still have to tackle a number of problems, including perhaps primarily genome sequencing.
On universal common ancestry, sequence similarity, and phylogenetic structure: the sins of P-values and the virtues of Bayesian evidence
The universal common ancestry (UCA) of all known life is a fundamental component of modern evolutionary theory, supported by a wide range of qualitative molecular evidence. Nevertheless, recently both the status and nature of UCA has been questioned.
....................
Conclusions
For K&W's artificial protein data, sequence similarity is the predominant factor influencing the preference for common ancestry. In contrast, for the real proteins, model selection tests show that phylogenetic structure is much more important than sequence similarity. Hence, the model selection tests demonstrate that real universally conserved proteins are homologous, a conclusion based primarily on the specific nested patterns of correlations induced in genetically related protein sequences.
... and they still don't know.... and based on the fact that these hypotheses cannot be verified by any observation, they will never know.... Unless bones start talking. Maybe they need the magic man in the sky after all.
