Are scientists any closer

[Bear Wild]

Oh dear. It seems to be working. You keep avoiding the point of the post, and distracting from it. I'm done.

You were done with the first post when you misrepresented the studies.

 

[YoursTrue]

@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.

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.

Some are of the opinion that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, in fact, Darwin's "survival of the fittest" posit, and certain humans at that, which in the not-that-distant-past was a basis for many espousing racial superiority.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Yup. i.e. Beliefs.
Common ancestry hasn't even made it to a theory... after 150 years.
They believe it... in faith.

 

[nPeace]

You were done with the first post when you misrepresented the studies.

So you think Common ancestry is not a hypothesis, and has no uncertainty. Yup. You're right. The first post did it in for you.
Your stawman didn't even get a foot.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok. What does the discovery of microbes have to do with evolution? Why would the discovery of microbes prove evolution exists? The fossil records, biological mechanisms, and the observance of speciation in animals is what led to evolution's discovery.

Not only that, but modern biological discoveries have only served to confirm what we have found in evolution. With DNA, we can now see how things are related as such. If all the puzzle pieces fit, it seems like it's pretty clear to me.

I am not against science, I think it's fascinating and wonderful that Leeunhoek saw microbes under his microscope, hitherto unbeknownst to the world. That DNA in one form is in another, with more or less of similar DNA does not mean these forms evolved as in "survival of the fittest."

 

[nPeace]

Some are of the opinion that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder, in fact, Darwin's "survival of the fittest" posit, and certain humans at that, which in the not-that-distant-past was a basis for many espousing racial superiority.

I hope you noticed that everyone turned your post into a debate about the ToE, to avoid the question in the OP.
Another Evolution My ToE thread?

 

[SigurdReginson]

I am not against science, I think it's fascinating and wonderful that Leeunhoek saw microbes under his microscope, hitherto unbeknownst to the world. That DNA in one form is in another, with more or less of similar DNA does not mean these forms evolved as in "survival of the fittest."

Do you think "survival of the fittest" is apparent in nature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hope you noticed that everyone turned your post into a debate about the ToE, to avoid the question in the OP.
Another Evolution My ToE thread?

The OP started out the thread with an article about evolution that he misinterpreted. What else do you expect?

 

[McBell]

I hope you noticed that everyone turned your post into a debate about the ToE, to avoid the question in the OP.
Another Evolution My ToE thread?

You really should read the thread before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
The OP was answered at least seven times.
And yes, thus far it is pretty much a repeat of your old thread in that the OP author gets their *** handed to them with at least every other post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think "survival of the fittest" is apparent in nature?

I don't know, do you? (What's the fittest...? so far covid19, whilst arguably the virus is not alive -- maybe it is since it can die -- more or less -- definitions vary, so what's your definition of survival of the fittest and how would you know?)
And yes, how would that apply to the emergence of man from some as of yet Unknown Common Ancestor?

 

[sayak83]

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?

The exact members can never be identified for certain. We can say "the fossil has the characteristics for being a close cousin of the common ancestor if not the common ancestor itself". Remember that very few species that have lived are actually fossilized or their fossils discovered. Time destroys most things except a lucky few who leave their traces behind.

 

[rational experiences]

I am not against science, I think it's fascinating and wonderful that Leeunhoek saw microbes under his microscope, hitherto unbeknownst to the world. That DNA in one form is in another, with more or less of similar DNA does not mean these forms evolved as in "survival of the fittest."

Bones.

Looking at bones as. Scientist.

Science O earth stone body exists for you to stand on it.

Science a practice because earth exists. Products taken from earth.

You study bones like the earth claiming I will know all things God. Even if you don't use term God. One the planet human science.

Thinking reasoning what form stone came from as a previous self consuming form. Known as the science thesis

Why?

Any living human should ask this question. We don't exist in a pre firm self consuming God state.

We compare data to say basic God evidence bones is basic God evidence.

Belongs with living bio form not bones.

Bones are old. Remain present as so is the planet old.

Yet those bones are not living.

Wonder why science is allowed to continue as a practice when it owns no sensible reason of assisting life by its human statements.

Dead things the destroyer science warning advised already.

 

[viole]

Btw, scientists keep changing what they think reality is. Brains smarter, bigger, maybe yes, maybe no.

Unlike the Quran, which makes it then obviously true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

You've been here for more than 3 years and you are still asking questions that a 5th grader might ask.

Question - are you just trolling, or are you disingenuous, or are you actually a 5th grader?

Trolling, by the smell of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unlike the Quran, which makes it then obviously true.

Ciao

- viole

yes, ciao.

 

[YoursTrue]

The exact members can never be identified for certain. We can say "the fossil has the characteristics for being a close cousin of the common ancestor if not the common ancestor itself". Remember that very few species that have lived are actually fossilized or their fossils discovered. Time destroys most things except a lucky few who leave their traces behind.

The exact members can't be identified? Are you kidding, when that tree of evolution with its main branches tell the story?

 

[exchemist]

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.

True. That's because the first was an observation - and thus an observed fact - while the second is a theory*, that accounts for a whole series of observations from disparate branches of science.

No theory in science is ever "proved", as Karl Popper famously pointed out. So saying evolution is not proved is like saying quantum theory is not proved. Neither is proved but they both make good predictions, so they seem to be good models of nature.


*By the way, some evolutionary processes can be observed in real time and are thus observed facts, like van Leeuwenhoek's observations. Where do you think these new variant Covid viruses come from?

 

[exchemist]

The exact members can't be identified? Are you kidding, when that tree of evolution with its main branches tell the story?

Look, there have been several posts on this thread now that make the elementary point that, for reasons that are fairly obvious (but nonetheless have been carefully explained, specifically for you), we only have fossils of a tiny fraction of all the forms of creatures that have ever lived.

It is thus extremely unlikely that we will have in our possession a fossil of the precise last common ancestor, if there was any unique last common ancestor (which due to hybridisation across the separating species, there may not have been).

Why do you still refuse to see this simple point?

 

[sayak83]

The exact members can't be identified? Are you kidding, when that tree of evolution with its main branches tell the story?

You cannot tell much difference between your great great grandfather and your great great grandfather's uncle just based on bones. What can be said that this group of bones belong to those who were either your direct ancestors or close kins. Same here. what we can do is identify a group of species, one member of which will be the ancestor species while the others will be close kins of the ancestor species. One cannot go beyond this from study of fossils.
One prediction of evolution is that such bones of such intermediate groups will be found who will have characteristics showing that were either common ancestors or close kins of such common ancestor species. So the presence of such fossils provide a strong line of evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[sayak83]

Yup. i.e. Beliefs.
Common ancestry hasn't even made it to a theory... after 150 years.
They believe it... in faith.

All of science is probability. Look at quantum theory if you have any doubt about this.