• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are scientists any closer

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Going back to science for a moment, when Leewunhoek discovered microbes, that was a fantastic discovery. It proved that things we wouldn't ordinarily see exist. It doesn't prove evolution.

But his work supported evolution. You do not prove theories, you find evidence and test the predictive capacity of the theory. Leewunghoek just provided a new piece to support the theory of evolution.

Proofs are for mathematics not scientific theories.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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?
To further highlight how big a problem this is for them...
Evidence of a chimpanzee-sized ancestor of humans but a gibbon-sized ancestor of apes
Body mass directly affects how an animal relates to its environment and has a wide range of biological implications. However, little is known about the mass of the last common ancestor (LCA) of humans and chimpanzees, hominids (great apes and humans), or hominoids (all apes and humans), which is needed to evaluate numerous paleobiological hypotheses at and prior to the root of our lineage.
Here we use phylogenetic comparative methods and data from primates including humans, fossil hominins, and a wide sample of fossil primates including Miocene apes from Africa, Europe, and Asia to test alternative hypotheses of body mass evolution. Our results suggest, contrary to previous suggestions, that the LCA of all hominoids lived in an environment that favored a gibbon-like size, but a series of selective regime shifts, possibly due to resource availability, led to a decrease and then increase in body mass in early hominins from a chimpanzee-sized LCA.

All approaches to understanding the past must work with limited data. Like many other kinds of evidence of past peoples, the relation between ancient DNA and past events is intermediated by complex models that bear many assumptions, some untested or untestable. Statements about the past from this evidence are thus accompanied by uncertainty, some quantified and some unquantifiable. Accurate communication of this uncertainty is essential to effective cross-disciplinary collaboration and public understanding.

That's huge.
Guesswork then, is all they can manage, really... but who knew.
Certainly not idiots.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
...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 your argument is to find a technical article that supports the theory of evolution and then just say the opposite. Clearly you did not read the article or did not understand it at all so why just distort its meaning?
From the article you presented

"The notion of common ancestry (CA) among all species dates most prominently to the work of Charles Darwin in the foundational text The Origin of Species (Darwin 1859). More than 150 years later, the primary ideas about evolution put forth by Darwin are supported by voluminous qualitative evidence (Coyne 2009), which explains why biologists almost universally accept CA and other tenets of evolutionary theory as well-supported scientific truths. Nevertheless, CA, especially with regard to the relationship of humans to other species, remains controversial among a large fraction of the general public. Perhaps motivated in part by this controversy, some researchers have sought to develop formal statistical arguments to test the hypothesis of CA."
"We have developed novel statistical approaches to test CA versus SA from aligned DNA sequences based on maximum likelihood estimation, BIC, and parametric bootstrapping of a parsimony difference test statistic. Our model treats nucleotide base probabilities separately at each site in order to account for biological constraints that limit nucleotide usage differently by site.

We find overwhelmingly strong evidence against SA (separate ancestry) in favor of CA in primates at both the subordinal and family levels. Additionally, we find common ancestry between primate orders and among primate families. We find very strong statistical evidence against a hypothesis of SA of humans from other primates, This supports the conventional view that humans are closely related to other primates rather than deriving from an independent origin event."

You just do not like the fact that there is overwhelming evidence so you make up false conclusions about what the studies say.

Clearly a desperate act.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
So your argument is to find a technical article that supports the theory of evolution and then just say the opposite. Clearly you did not read the article or did not understand it at all so why just distort its meaning?
From the article you presented

"The notion of common ancestry (CA) among all species dates most prominently to the work of Charles Darwin in the foundational text The Origin of Species (Darwin 1859). More than 150 years later, the primary ideas about evolution put forth by Darwin are supported by voluminous qualitative evidence (Coyne 2009), which explains why biologists almost universally accept CA and other tenets of evolutionary theory as well-supported scientific truths. Nevertheless, CA, especially with regard to the relationship of humans to other species, remains controversial among a large fraction of the general public. Perhaps motivated in part by this controversy, some researchers have sought to develop formal statistical arguments to test the hypothesis of CA."
"We have developed novel statistical approaches to test CA versus SA from aligned DNA sequences based on maximum likelihood estimation, BIC, and parametric bootstrapping of a parsimony difference test statistic. Our model treats nucleotide base probabilities separately at each site in order to account for biological constraints that limit nucleotide usage differently by site.

We find overwhelmingly strong evidence against SA (separate ancestry) in favor of CA in primates at both the subordinal and family levels. Additionally, we find common ancestry between primate orders and among primate families. We find very strong statistical evidence against a hypothesis of SA of humans from other primates, This supports the conventional view that humans are closely related to other primates rather than deriving from an independent origin event."

You just do not like the fact that there is overwhelming evidence so you make up false conclusions about what the studies say.

Clearly a desperate act.
Clearly, it's either the case that you paid no attention to what I said, or you were just desperate to build a strawman.
Read the post again, or just keep building your strawman, if you prefer.

Or maybe you don't know what evidence is?
Evidence goes to court, but it is either accepted, or thrown out against other evidence.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
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.

The conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim. Again did you read and understand the article. When using real proteins the analysis shows that conserved proteins are homologues thus show common ancestry. Thus this supports evolution. Yes there are scientists out their that have different views and that is what makes science such a powerful technique.

If you are going to make claims that the theory of evolution is not supported then provide some study that supports that view and not just post a study and misrepresent it.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The conclusion is exactly the opposite of what you claim. Again did you read and understand the article. When using real proteins the analysis shows that conserved proteins are homologues thus show common ancestry. Thus this supports evolution. Yes there are scientists out their that have different views and that is what makes science such a powerful technique.

If you are going to make claims that the theory of evolution is not supported then provide some study that supports that view and not just post a study and misrepresent it.
Theory of evolution?
strawman.gif

Evidently you are not even paying attention.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Clearly, it's either the case that you paid no attention to what I said, or you were just desperate to build a strawman.
Read the post again, or just keep building your strawman, if you prefer.

Or maybe you don't know what evidence is?
Evidence goes to court, but it is either accepted, or thrown out against other evidence.

Oh I read what you said and paid attention and actually read the articles you provided which clearly support evolution. Just because you cannot understand the articles is no fault of mine.

You use the words of uncertainty, might, probability and disagreement to mislead people who are not familiar with science in drawing the wrong conclusions. Same things happen in climate change. You compare all the evidence to support evolution and compare it to the lack of evidence for any other proposal for life on earth and the conclusion is clear. Evolution has actual evidence and Creation/intelligent design fails.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Theory of evolution?
strawman.gif

Evidently you are not even paying attention.

I am sorry to tell you this but a strawman is not a part of the evolution theory. They are made by people from things that developed from evolution. Oh and by the way a straw man is not alive. It may be hard for you to believe that because you must of seen the wizard of oz but the scarecrow was actually a human dressed as a straw man.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
That's huge.
Guesswork then, is all they can manage, really... but who knew.
Certainly not idiots.

Now there is a statement of ignorance. You again did not read the article carefully or did not understand what they were saying. This is not guesswork unlike what you do. They are using actual evidence to propose a better understanding of the evolution of apes and the environmental factors that shaped those changes. This is anything but just guesswork. They actually use real evidence and not the imaginary evidence of the opposition. You again provide an article that supports evolution and misinterpret it again. All you are doing is providing more and more supportive information for evolution theory.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
But it doesn't prove Gods either.
Here's something I came across about probabilities, laws, and statistics in science, by a prominent evolutionist, George Gaylod Simpson -- "We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences." I can agree with that. In other words, scientist may attempt to say what could have happened, what may happen, but there is no absolute certainty.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I got time.
Your eagerness and enthusiasm to build your strawman is quite evident. It a big one.

Wow that is the best you can do? Oh that is right you do not understand the articles you read so you resort to silly pictures to redirect away from the incorrect conclusions you have. Will not help. You can find all of the pictures of a strawman on google but it will not make up for your lack of understanding of what you presented.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Now there is a statement of ignorance. You again did not read the article carefully or did not understand what they were saying. This is not guesswork unlike what you do. They are using actual evidence to propose a better understanding of the evolution of apes and the environmental factors that shaped those changes. This is anything but just guesswork. They actually use real evidence and not the imaginary evidence of the opposition. You again provide an article that supports evolution and misinterpret it again. All you are doing is providing more and more supportive information for evolution theory.
Lol. My.
Did you read the part about intelligence?
I hope you don't have a PhD. ;)

Maybe don't try so hard to avoid the truth, while cherry picking the post. It gives the impression you don't want us to have. :)
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Here's something I came across about probabilities, laws, and statistics in science, by a prominent evolutionist, George Gaylod Simpson -- "We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences." I can agree with that. In other words, scientist may attempt to say what could have happened, what may happen, but there is no absolute certainty.

You are finally catching on to the reality of our world? What is the "proof" of your position. The absolute certainty of your position? It is time to spell it out for all to see.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Wow that is the best you can do? Oh that is right you do not understand the articles you read so you resort to silly pictures to redirect away from the incorrect conclusions you have. Will not help. You can find all of the pictures of a strawman on google but it will not make up for your lack of understanding of what you presented.
That's exactly what you are doing.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
That's exactly what you are doing.

So the articles are supporting homology of proteins and the evidence for common ancestry by you say they are not? Quote were they disagree with common ancestry and evolution and not just say they don't.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@YoursTrue I just saw this comment, and was not surprised..

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. :D

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.

toskulls2.jpg


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.
angry-dog-holding-bone-vector-id1018752220


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. :D

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. :D ...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. :)
CavernousCreativeCobra-size_restricted.gif

We know. We know.
:rolleyes:

“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. ;)
Thanks. I just looked up some information about an esteemed evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson. And although quite well bred in the theory of evolution, he at least admitted the following: :We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences,: Of course, he goes on to bolster the theory of evolution as he understood it, but -- at least he was honest enough to admit that.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Thanks. I just looked up some information about an esteemed evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson. And although quite well bred in the theory of evolution, he at least admitted the following: :We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences,: Of course, he goes on to bolster the theory of evolution as he understood it, but -- at least he was honest enough to admit that.

That is how science works and why it is the only effective way to understand the natural world. What absolute proof do you have against the theory of evolution. Please state it.
 
Top