I don't know about you, but in every scientific congress I've been to scientific papers were presented. And I mean papers, not articles. Next time just share the papers instead of an article with no methodology nor detailed data. "Fcn retarded".
Scientific papers will indeed be presented, i never claimed the opposite. But the first impression they give is most of the time limited to the abstract and the conclusion; unless you ask them for more details. You're also still ignoring about the fact that the forum has a good scientific reputation and is, a heavy advocate of evolution. I mean, who would understand the paper better other than the author itself? you're acting as if it makes you afraid of something lmao.
It's not becoming more "likely as time passes". It will become more likely when there's an actual evidence against humans being primates. Web of life model doesn't open anything, actually, unless it's supported for complex organisms considered to share a taxon as small as a family. Quote me back when actual evidence for what you're suggesting here is found instead of making another overreaching jump.
My bad, i mean not that the alternatives model is becoming more likely, but rather that the current UCA model is becoming more and more problematic. I also said many times before which somehow never actually got into your head that there are no direct evidence that humans being primates either. Before the first formal computational statistics test conducted by Theobald, theory of evolution or Darwinian evolution to be precise is based on the hypotheses of homology; that is DNA sequence similarity, morphology similarity, molecular similarity, etc implies divergence from a common ancestor. It takes it at face-value and disregard the possibility of convergence of different possible ancestors. These critiques came even from the pioneer of American molecular evolutionists, Walter M. Fitch. This is why it remains controversial and is still an open debate as i said many times before; so far the question is which phylogenetic tree works the best for the acquired biological data (See the work of Masatoshi Nei and Theobald in my original post), not whether the phylogenetic tree exists in the first place.
Think of it this way, generate numbers between a given range in your computer. There are chances that your randomly generated numbers will resemble a certain mathematical model, whether a linear, polynomial, logarithmic, etc. Suppose you try least square method and you find that it is approximately a linear model with the R-squared value of about 0.9, which is pretty close to 1. It tells you that it is extremely likely that the model is linear, but is it really tho? Oviously no, it was just a randomly generated number in which if you wider the domain, it will most likely disrupt your predicted model to an absolutely abstract model. This is the exact same scenario as the Darwinian evolution. All these are the reason why Theobald started the first quantitative study of the Darwinian evolution, and he further says it remains controversial.
And yes, web of life model does open the possibility of human not being in the same kingdom as chimp, let alone in the same genus. The current web of life model do still say that human and chimp still evolved from the same eukaryotes, but it doesn't guarantee that. That's like the literal definition of "web". And also yes, the scientists themselves explicitly claim the possibility as well. Theobald considered the possibility of human (homo sapiens) having a different ancestor than ABE (Archae, Bacteria, Eukaryotes) [
1] which later was further reviewed by other well known biologists Rob Knight and Michael Gilchrist.
As i also pointed out before many times again, there is no need to assess the likelihood of human having a different ancestor to prove that darwinian evolution directly opposes religion. What oppose religion in some way is the hypothesis of UCA/Tree of Life/Taxonomy, so adressing the issue that the hypothesis becoming more problematic is ENOUGH to say it doesn't directly oppose religion. I dont know why do you keep repeating this fallacy.
And yes, they do at fundamental levels. Completely different approaches at understanding reality, one depending on constant redefinition in order to refine its findings and the other relying on sacred words from old sources that are constantly redefined, yes, but because they keep getting cornered by the development of science itself and humankind.
Science changes to perfect itself. Religion changes to preserve itself. One evolves (pun intended) through research and falsifiability, the other relies on ad ignorantiam pre-established explanations and confirmation biases. Don't even try to compare them. The more science discovers, the less useful religion becomes because the less gaps remain unexplained for it to fill; hence why you probably don't buy the religious explanation for tons of events that were attributed to whatever deity until science gave a proper understanding of them long before you were even born (and therefore were educated with).
Everything you believe right now will eventually be debunked too just like any other magical explanation that religion provided yet is debunked today by a scientific approach. And while sadly religion will probably never disappear, surely your god, whichever you randomly believe in, will be replaced by another one day. Just like always happened.
They will never not, for it to directly and completely oppose religion, it has to first be a fact. At best, it will only address the unlikelihood of the idea proposed by religion. Even then, we ourselves still doesn't even know the true likelihood of the evolution theory as the likelihood that it fits the data best doesn't necessarily equate to the true likelihood of it being true as i explained in my analogy above. This is what also being agreed on by many biologists and as such they think this topic remains controversial.
Besides, arent Atheists also would rather choose the hypotheses that there is no creator and that we are the product of randomness despite the extremely unlikely probability lol?