The common ancestry is well known in science.
No. Absolutely not.
Common ancestry is 'a hypothesis', an idea that is well known among modern western scientist but NEVER proven to provide a 'creature' from any fossils or whatever to prove it. It has never been proven so it will never be accepted as a truth.
There is no proof that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. That is hocus pocus.
"we're not talking about individuals but rather what is the consensus of the scientific community"
No we are not talking about neither a person's credentials nor a consensus. That's deception. We are talking about facts or fiction.
A scientist knows that he/she must prove and confirm beyond an hypothesis or theory. Your diverting from the topic.
"But I'm only telling you what the consensus of SCIENCE is actually saying. Here's another reference... (no worries, I'll supply more) It is because I'm not new to this debate..."
Hint: if a group of so-called scientist tell you that they all have reached a consensus that all Negroes are 2/3rds human, then my
suggestion is that you do NOT believe that 'consensus'. It's a lie. Consensus means nothing unless it is proven with scientific facts. If they tell you that they are not new at this form of debate, then I suggest you ignore it because White Supremacy is not new, but yet it is still a method that has been used to deceive the world into believing that White people are more supreme than African people.
I read your reference about Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and how it is believe there is a common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees, but again, no source. They have presented no 'being' to confirm this belief.
"However, by the same token you are not an evolutionary biologist.
Nor are the credentials or education of your children terribly relevant
to your credibility, your education, or your knowledge of evolution or the subject of common ancestry."
Now there is where you are wrong. Whether I discuss issues on
Genetics, or the belief in
evolution, or
anatomy, or
any other field of biology, no matter, I had to achieve in those area of study to some level in order to get my degree. So it's ridiculous for you to challenge my knowledge in evolution and my credentials if I have told you that i earned a degree in Biology. The background i provided is not to make you jealous but it is necessary if a person is being challenged their area of study and to offer an example of how well I have been able to apply my degree and further others.
"The video is trying to explain that all species get infected by viruses. When that
happens (retroviruses) the virus leaves a sequence in our DNA. And we can pass
this sequence on to our kids. When that happens, its in the very same spot in both our DNA code. ..."
Let me stop you right there. What you are trying to explain is 'a mutation'. You left that part out. If a mutation occurs, then it 'can' be passed onto an offspring but not all offspring will get that 'virus'. And you're right. I need to go back and read to explain in more detail what you are bringing up to sideline the real topic that you can't answer. It is not 'the virus' but the human's genetic makeup that causes certain humans to be susceptible to getting a certain virus as oppose to others. So it's not the virus that in on the chromosome. But this is not the topic. I've given you references but you have not provided references to show this ancient common ancestor because it does not exist. Your references are still about why the hypothesis should be accepted as truth. That would be a contradiction to the scientific method that is used to prove a theory. You can't just accept 'a consensus'. It must be proven otherwise, it is just a belief.
This thread is about 'the black pigment'!!!
Your obsession with unproven evolution of humans versus human origins from a black skinned human is the topic.
I promise you that none of your evolution ideas will be able to come up with an ancient common ancestor of monkeys, apes, and chimpanzees, that had an afro.