A question about the "facts" of Evolution?

Question

If I go back 5 million years and saw the species that genetically is linked to human beings and chimpanzees, and I made the subjective comment "oh, that looks like a monkey"; in what way shape or form is my comment a scientific fact?

Rather, would it be the hypothesis that we are testing, the genetic link between that monkey looking species, to the human being.

If this test was run, based perhaps on a fossilized animal, a fossilized monkey looking animal, and we were able to confirm that it is indeed a common ancestor,

would it still change the fact that saying it looks like a monkey is not an objective scientific fact, I could say it looks like a horse, so what, or a unicorn or a pony.

The point is, saying something looks like something doesn't make it a scientific fact.

Do you agree with my asssement of the situation. Why or why not.

Answer 1

Of all the species in the animal world almost uniquely humans and primates can't synthesise vitamin c for the same biological reason-an enzyme deficiency. That can only be because they shared a common ancestor. That is the objective, irrefutable scientific proof of a shared ancestry. The creationists can't even hope to challenge that fact. If people were aware of that particular piece of evidence they would realise that for creationists the game is up-the myth has been shattered and evolution is a proven fact.

Answer 2

Sometimes we "see" links to things that are not true links. Hypothesizing sometimes leads one through too many doors to get to the true facts. If you go back in actuality 5 million years, the only sure way(by today's standards) would to bring back a dna sample to compare to today's monkeys' and humans' makeup. Then again, if you shoot the monkey you may either kill future monkeys OR humans. A true conundrum.
Whatever you find out matters not in the least to today's monkeys or humans. The eventual "true" fact will not change anything except some erroneous facts held by one group or the other of creationists or evolutionists, which in itself could just continue the dispute by fanning the fires of fanaticism of the losing believer's side.
...jj

Answer 3

True, subjective statements like "looks like", "feels like", "smells like", etc cannot be objectively analyzed. That's why biologists and paleontologists look for verifiable common traits.

The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds is bolstered by observations that both have/had three toed feet, certain hollow bones, etc. These things are demonstrable and people do agree that these characteristics match. We are still using "best guesses" since all theories are only effective until another comes along that fits the evidence better.

Other than that, I really have no idea what point you think you've cleverly made...

Answer 4

You dont say that somethign looks like something else, scientists look at its genetic make up and match up features. Can we just call you a horse because that is what we think you look like? There are a massive amount of proofs that the earth is as old as it is and even though there may not be anything to prove evolution fully yet. the bible is COMPLETELY DISPROVEN. It is a book of complete fables. read about proof and logic and proof by contradiction. If you assume the opposite of something and prove it is false, then the negation is true.

Answer 5

No matter how much this is dicussed in a religious venue, it will continue to be pointless.

The religious don't even understand, nor do they care to understand what a THEORY is in science.

They've apparently never heard of gravitational theory, or germ theory; they think the word means "any halfassed notion".

Why some people are so proud of their own ignorance is something I cannot understand.

Answer 6

BURIED ALIVE is the name of the book that will settle any argument that you have about this subject. The author's name is Jack Cuozzo who is an orthodontist who had an unusual opportunity to examine the 'neanderthal'
heads in the Paris France musuem. Jack the author shows xrays of these heads and makes the conclusion the these were the humans that were buried during the flood who lived very long lives as spoken of in the bible. It would be worth the money to buy the book for less than $15. on Amazon.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10

Answer 7

You got to be kidding me right? You do know that’s junk science don't you? Academia has brainwashed the culture and the empty students into believing man is a primitive creature and the dinosaurs lived ages before him. This is the result of pseudo science and theories of evolution being taught as near fact in schools. If it was proven then it would be called the law of evolution wouldn’t it?

Answer 8

Jim! WTF?! this is like the 3rd time you've asked this same question today!

It makes no difference what the ancestor looked like. We evolved from it... that's all we need to know. It's visual appearance has nothing to do with the process of evolution.

Answer 9

I disagree because time-travel into the past is theoretically impossible. Also, you make absolutely no sense.

Answer 10

Why are you making these statements in the religious section and not the science/math section?