Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[gnostic]

Not quite because of the branching not likely being uniform. Imagine a tree with branches coming off the trunk but not all at the same level or at the same length.

Or at the same time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, you know more about BB Theory than they do?

It is not about me, but there are humans who know more than they do, and there are humans who do not have much of a clue.

 

[YoursTrue]

Bear in mind that the term "common ancestor" refers to an ancestral population of creatures, not to a single individual.

But yes, if you trace those 3 lines back there will at some point have been a population from which all three are descended, though, as @metis points out, they did not all diverge at the same point (the gorilla family split off first). Here's a diagram:
View attachment 73686

Regardless of the illustration, let me ask you this question since you seem to have a handle on the theory: gorillas and chimpanzees are in a slightly different evolutionary category than monkeys, right? Considered a suborder. So then the "common ancestor" is -- what? Did the monkey and bonobo (oh, and human) all come from a common ancestor that kind of maybe looked like them? Did they all (the apes) come from similar common ancestors? You say it wasn't one couple that gave birth to whatever evolved to gorillas, bonobos and humans, right? But they all three came from a "Common Ancestor" or "Common Ancestors." Which is it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Or at the same time.

In other words, that "Common Ancestor" is not quite a really common ancestor that can be traced to humans, gorillas and chimpanzees, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Bear in mind that the term "common ancestor" refers to an ancestral population of creatures, not to a single individual.

But yes, if you trace those 3 lines back there will at some point have been a population from which all three are descended, though, as @metis points out, they did not all diverge at the same point (the gorilla family split off first). Here's a diagram:
View attachment 73686

(It's ridiculous. That's my conclusion. For better or for worse.)

 

[metis]

It is not about me, but there are humans who know more than they do...

Such as...?

 

[metis]

(It's ridiculous. That's my conclusion. For better or for worse.)

Why do you refuse to answer my very simple question? That's what truly is "ridiculous".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Such as...?

Spiritually advanced souls.

 

[YoursTrue]

We are “close” in the sense to chimpanzees in that we shared a “common ancestor”.

This “common ancestor” isn’t a chimpanzee and isn’t a human. But the “common ancestor” would have some of the physical traits of both chimpanzees and humans.

We already have physical evidence of shared ancestry, between humans and chimpanzees, through the DNA of both living species, how “close” we are to each other, in relatedness.

What creationists have failed to grasp and continue to misunderstand, that it is this extinct “common ancestor” that humans and chimpanzees evolve from, the “common ancestor” BEFORE THE DIVERGENCE of the line to the genus Homo and the line to the genus Pan.

The “common ancestor” doesn’t mean we (humans) evolve from the current species of chimpanzees, nor does it means chimpanzees evolved from humans. It is the mystery “common ancestor” that link both sides, some 7 million years ago.

One of the candidates of this mystery “common ancestor” is the species Sahelanthropus tchadensis (of the genus Sahelanthropus).

The samples (evidence) of Sahelanthropus tchadensis was discovered in Chad, dated to the Miocene Epoch, some 7 million years ago. The samples comprised part of the brow ridge and portion of brain case, some pieces of jaw and some teeth. The rest of skeletal body below the skull (meaning no post-cranial skeleton) haven’t been found so far.

But I said “candidate”.

Paleontologists need to find more evidence to determine if this species of Sahelanthropus is directly linked to Homo species or not, and to the Pan species or not. Paleontologists are not sure yet. As I said, they need more evidence, preferably the rest of the body, or better - more fossils of other individuals.

If not, then the search for the missing link would continue.

So let me understand something about the theory, if possible. These

(It's ridiculous. That's my conclusion. For better or for worse.)

Yes, i was thinking about this, the "line of descent" pertaining to humans and bonobos, etc. So all the little branches came from one common ancestor(s) as far as the thinking goes? By the way, how many common ancestors were there? Were they all the same type of whatever(s)?

 

[metis]

Spiritually advanced souls.

So, they supposedly know about scientific evidence than do the cosmologists?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So, they supposedly know about scientific evidence than do the cosmologists?

They know that human science doesn't understand what over 95% of the mass of the universe is. They know that human science doesn't even understand what an electron actually looks like. They know it is hubris for humans to claim they know much about the universe when they don't know what more than 95% mass is.
Does the 95% unknown energy have an effect on the 5% physical matter?
Do you know if there is an omnipresent spirit of the on high?
Do you know if it occupies the same universal space as dark energy?

 

[Astrophile]

They know that human science doesn't understand what over 95% of the mass of the universe is. They know that human science doesn't even understand what an electron actually looks like. They know it is hubris for humans to claim they know much about the universe when they don't know what more than 95% mass is.
Does the 95% unknown energy have an effect on the 5% physical matter?

Yes. Dark matter interacts gravitationally with baryonic matter; that is, it attracts baryonic matter. Dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe.

Do you know if there is an omnipresent spirit of the on high?

No. If you think there is and that this is a scientific question, you must present some evidence for it. You are saying that human science doesn't understand dark matter and dark energy, for which we have some evidence, and then suggesting that we should believe in an omnipresent spirit, for which we have no evidence.

Do you know if it occupies the same universal space as dark energy?

No. First present some observational evidence for the omnipresent spirit.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes. Dark matter interacts gravitationally with baryonic matter; that is, it attracts baryonic matter. Dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe.

No. If you think there is and that this is a scientific question, you must present some evidence for it. You are saying that human science doesn't understand dark matter and dark energy, for which we have some evidence, and then suggesting that we should believe in an omnipresent spirit, for which we have no evidence.

No. First present some observational evidence for the omnipresent spirit.

The reply was to metis and phrased such that it took into consideration his Christianity. But if you insist, I will try and respond to your points.

So science had given a name to same omnipresent energy that occupies the same space that the metaphysicians named ether, and religionists named spirit. And please don't raise the issue of the MM experiment wrt ether, not all claims by humans about anything are true.

Human evolution on this planet has just entered the space age, it is relative primitive in the context of its potential and so its scientific and religious awareness is still quite limited wrt ultimate potential. Wrt observational evidence of spirit, since it is not physical, the mind is the instrument with which to become aware of it. This takes some practice, the most efficacious way to my understanding is still mind meditation. Since this is a subjective observation, anyone interested in evidence logically must do the meditation until they realize the goal, which btw will may take years, but then so does a degree in science.

 

[metis]

They know that human science doesn't understand what over 95% of the mass of the universe is. They know that human science doesn't even understand what an electron actually looks like. They know it is hubris for humans to claim they know much about the universe when they don't know what more than 95% mass is.
Does the 95% unknown energy have an effect on the 5% physical matter?
Do you know if there is an omnipresent spirit of the on high?
Do you know if it occupies the same universal space as dark energy?

You clearly do not know what you're talking about since you think that Joe Schmoe with his handy-dandy Bible knows more about the formation of the universe than do the cosmologists that actually study the BB.

OTOH, what I do is to rely more on cosmologists when dealing with the evolution of our universe and then rely more on theologians to give us their interpretations of the scriptures. However, I don't think either of them have all the answers. So, when you wrote "Do you know...?", all I get out of that is self-centered arrogance.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You clearly do not know what you're talking about since you think that Joe Schmoe with his handy-dandy Bible knows more about the formation of the universe than do the cosmologists that actually study the BB.

OTOH, what I do is to rely more on cosmologists when dealing with the evolution of our universe and then rely more on theologians to give us their interpretations of the scriptures. However, I don't think either of them have all the answers. So, when you wrote "Do you know...?", all I get out of that is self-centered arrogance.

What's with the Joe Schmoe Christian fundamentalist strawman, you can't seriously believe that is what was meant by 'spiritually advanced soul'?

Relying on cosmologists or theologians does not cut it wrt spiritually advanced souls, they understand that belief in scientific claims is an act of faith, and is in itself ironically, a choice made subjectively, not scientifically. Science cannot deal directly with subjective experience, it can only deal with the objective. Subjective experience do not mean irrelevance, it only means that observations are dependent upon the observer's experience, and cannot be measured scientifically. The spiritually advanced soul realizes the underlying unity of all existence subjectively, it can never in all eternity be discovered objectively scientifically or theologically, for the simple reason that the 'kingdom' is within, not external..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

 

[metis]

What's with the Joe Schmoe Christian fundamentalist strawman, you can't seriously believe that is what was meant by 'spiritually advanced soul'?

Relying on cosmologists or theologians does not cut it wrt spiritually advanced souls, they understand that belief in scientific claims is an act of faith, and is in itself ironically, a choice made subjectively, not scientifically. Science cannot deal directly with subjective experience, it can only deal with the objective. Subjective experience do not mean irrelevance, it only means that observations are dependent upon the observer's experience, and cannot be measured scientifically. The spiritually advanced soul realizes the underlying unity of all existence subjectively, it can never in all eternity be discovered objectively scientifically or theologically, for the simple reason that the 'kingdom' is within, not external..

We're talking about the Big Bang in case you forgot.

 

[metis]

"Nice" stereotypes, and I have no clue how "Politics" supposedly fits into your scheme of things on this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, that "Common Ancestor" is not quite a really common ancestor that can be traced to humans, gorillas and chimpanzees, right?

It would be a whole species. Not an individual, though if one had enough data could calculate when such an ancestor existed. The problem is that there may not be enough data to do so and to what purpose? Why would you want to know the identity of a specific ancestor when populations evolve, not individuals? The identity of that ancestor would not aid the understanding of evolution. It would be just a red herring.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We're talking about the Big Bang in case you forgot.

Theoretical BB you mean, a conception created in the mind of relatively lowly evolved human creatures based on contemporary limited scientific understanding. When the universe was about the size of a human being, about 10-35 seconds after the BB beginning, what came before it? What do you think was the cause of this event? Where did the energy come from?

I am not knocking science, I am calling it as it is.