A 35,000-year flute refutes the idea of historic evolution

[ihsan karacabey]

A 35,000-year-old flute unearthed during the course of excavations in Germany shows, like other flutes discovered to date, that people in very ancient times possessed a highly developed artistic culture.

The flute, made from griffon vulture bone, was unearthed in 12 fragments from the Hohle Fels cave in southern Germany by archeologist Nicholas Conard. Since the 5-hole whistle is enormously fragile, Conard had an identical copy made from a similar piece of bone in order to test the instrument’s functionality. He was able to play the American national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, on the flute, using the seven-note scale that represents the foundation of Western music. (to listen to the sound of a reconstruction of a 35,000-year-old flute made from vulture wing bone click here)

Archeologists also discovered six statuettes made from mammoth tusk in the same cave. Wil Roebroeks, an archeologist from the University of Leiden in Holland, states that there was a highly advanced culture in Europe 35,000 years ago and that people then had a very similar lifestyle to people today. Roebroeks says that these flutes were made and played by modern human beings. April Nowell from the University of Victoria in Canada has stated that these finds reveal the existence of a highly advanced and stable technical knowledge and tradition.

These archeological finds once again refute the Darwinist claim that human beings share a common ancestor with apes. Darwinists maintain that the ape-like entities that supposedly lived tens of thousands of years ago, grunting to one another and living an animal lifestyle, came to live in groups and thus developed intelligent and social behavior. But these supposed primitive entities are not the only beings to live in social groups. Gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys and many other animal species live in groups. But none of these have developed the same intelligent and social behavior as human beings. None has made a 7-note flute, manufactured statuettes or, in short, exhibited any such intelligence and ability. Because intelligent and conscious behavior is unique to human beings. These objects dating back to tens of thousands of years, the remains of which have come down to us today, were produced by human beings possessed of intelligence and consciousness, the ability to calculate, plan and manufacture, and a soul given them by Allah.

[Aurora]

Homosapiens (humans) have existed for over 100 thousand years. We split off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees millions of years ago.

[- Qatada -]

Homosapiens (humans) have existed for over 100 thousand years. We split off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees millions of years ago.

Is there any proof for that common ancestor? Or is this just an assumption?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Homosapiens (humans) have existed for over 100 thousand years. We split off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees millions of years ago.

This statement hold no weight anymore because it's been known know that there is too much of a gap between us and monkeys/chimpanzees etc.



Personally I dont get why we have to be from them just cause there r similarities. Havent ppl ever wondered that maybe it just means order not necessarily branchin off an ANIMAL. Evolution is a theory with loads of gaps, not factual.

One professor told me we came from monkeys and another told me jellyfishes. ?????

Which is it? Pick one O.O

This just shows lack of consistency.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[- Qatada -]

This statement hold no weight anymore because it's been known know that there is too much of a gap between us and monkeys/chimpanzees etc.


Personally I dont get why we have to be from them just cause there r similarities.

:salamext:


Someone could just as well argue that we're made by the same God with similar design.


But anyway, we got a thread on this here;
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/a...ed-humans-1193

[Aurora]

Is there any proof for that common ancestor? Or is this just an assumption?

Theres plenty of evidence.
Check this site out if you're interested http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

:salamext:


Someone could just as well argue that we're made by the same God with similar design.

:w:

I don't understand what you mean.

[Aurora]

This statement hold no weight anymore because it's been known know that there is too much of a gap between us and monkeys/chimpanzees etc.

Please elaborate on these gaps?

Personally I dont get why we have to be from them just cause there r similarities. Havent ppl ever wondered that maybe it just means order not necessarily branchin off an ANIMAL. Evolution is a theory with loads of gaps, not factual.

It is both a theory and a fact. Theory of Gravity, Atomic theory, etc. A theory in scientific terms is something that explains empirical observations.

One professor told me we came from monkeys and another told me jellyfishes. ?????

Which is it? Pick one O.O

This just shows lack of consistency.

It is neither. We share common ancestors with these animals.

[- Qatada -]

:w:

I don't understand what you mean.

:wasalamex


We could say that God made us all similar, and that's why we have so much similarities.


Evolutionists say we evolved off each other because we're similar.

[- Qatada -]

Theres plenty of evidence.
Check this site out if you're interested http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

There isn't, check this out;

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/a...ed-humans-1193
http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm

[جوري]

a fact means a statement of assertion of verified information.. in other words you can take one of the common ancestors which still walks and remains un-evolved.. subject it to a frameshift, nonsense. missense mutation or acrocentric break or jumping genes and have 'proof' of a theory..

also not all theories are created equal..

all the best

[Aurora]

:wasalamex


We could say that God made us all similar, and that's why we have so much similarities.


Evolutionists say we evolved off each other because we're similar.

Nope there is far more to it than similarities. The fossil record and molecular evidence make common descent all the more likely. I'm not sure if you read the article I posted, but one of the examples given was that of endogenous retroviruses and there placements in the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees. There are known to be atleast 7 common insertions in humans and chimpanzees. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#retroviruses

[جوري]

would you like to expend on how the retroviruses caused said evolutionary change, especially without direct manipulation, and why that isn't reproducible today? given most retroviruses in existence don't cause speciation rather a state of disease.

I'd like it if you can articulate and integrate the knowledge in your website in relationship to this topic, rather than simply reference us to it..

all the best

[جوري]

thought this would be interesting:

Science Questions

The Naked Scientists: Science Radio & Science Podcasts

If as a human I share 98% of my genes with a chimpanzee and 60% of my genes with a banana, how come I only share 50% of my genes with my own daughter? Phil in Milton Keynes

I would say that you actually share more than 98% of your genes with a chimpanzee. I suspect that virtually all of the genes in the human genome also have counterparts in the chimpanzee genome. The most likely explanation for the fact that we are so obviously different from chimpanzees is the way in which these genes are controlled and the way they are switched on and off, and the length of time for which genes are active. You share 50% of your genes with your daughter because she's obviously inherited one genome from you and one genome from her mother. We all have two genomes in our bodies: one from our mother and one from our father, but there are counterparts to all of your genes in the genome that your daughter has inherited from her mother. If you compare a banana with a human, just over half the genes in a banana will do the same job in a banana as they do in a human. However, the genes themselves will not be the same letter for letter; they just perform the same function. In contrast, when you are talking about the genes you share with your daughter, you are not asking how many of the genes have the same function (which is 100%), you are asking how many of those genes are absolutely identical, letter for letter. The probability that any one of those genes came from the father is 50%, and the probability that a gene has come from the mother is also 50%. This is why you share 50% of your genes with your daughter.

July 2006

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HT.../question/919/

common ancestry with bananas and chimps?
perhaps.. or perhaps this is the alphabet of our creation..
sharing genes doesn't denote split off from.. just denotes that these are the building blocks of our universe!

[Aurora]

would you like to expend on how the retroviruses caused said evolutionary change, especially without direct manipulation, and why that isn't reproducible today? given most retroviruses in existence don't cause speciation rather a state of disease.

I'd like it if you can articulate and integrate the knowledge in your website in relationship to this topic, rather than simply reference us to it..

all the best

They didn't cause evolutionary change or anything of that sort. In the past when animals were infected by retroviruses, very rarely a copy of its DNA would insert itself into the gametes. This would then be passed down to descendants. So far there are known to be 7 insertions of ERVs in the exact same locations of the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees suggesting that there was a common ancestor that had these insertions that passed it down to humans and chimpanzees.

[جوري]

They didn't cause evolutionary change or anything of that sort. In the past when animals were infected by retroviruses, very rarely a copy of its DNA would insert itself into the gametes. This would then be passed down to descendants. So far there are known to be 7 insertions of ERVs in the exact same locations of the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees suggesting that there was a common ancestor that had these insertions that passed it down to humans and chimpanzees.

It is very common to be affected by the same pathogens that strike animals. and happens still today through multiple routes, either ingestion or oral/fecal/swimming in infested places, inhalation, bites etc.
see here:

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew...olfe_htlv.html
.. unless you are suggesting that these are germline retroviruses that were passed down along side some simultaneous somatic mutations, where we simply happened to split off from a common ancestor..

[- Qatada -]

They didn't cause evolutionary change or anything of that sort. In the past when animals were infected by retroviruses, very rarely a copy of its DNA would insert itself into the gametes. This would then be passed down to descendants. So far there are known to be 7 insertions of ERVs in the exact same locations of the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees suggesting that there was a common ancestor that had these insertions that passed it down to humans and chimpanzees.

The first problem with this argument is that it's hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn't come with a tag attached saying: "This is an ERV". It could be that some genes which we expect to be ERV's aren't ERV's at all but something completely different. It could even be junk genes, byproduct. Or it could be something we don't yet understand the purpose off. The difficulty in recognizing an ERV, is that it's usually deformed from it's origenal virus form. That is because if a virus is embedded in it's complete form, its almost impossible to pass it down to further generations. To explain this, let my use a simplified example. Imagine a man who has a virus. This virus will not infect every last cell of his body, and even if it would, he would most likely die and that would be the end of the story. Now for this man to pass this embedded ERV down to a child, the virus needs to be embedded in a spermcell. Only then will the ERV be present in every cell of the childs DNA. Since all cells have their DNA copied from there on. If however the virus isn't deformed, the child would have a flu in every single cell of his body. His cells would constantly reproduce this virus, and spread it throughout it's body. You can imagine this fetus doesn't have a fighting chance from the start on. No, for an ERV to be passed down trough generations, it has to be rendered harmless first. So how do you recognize it as a virus after this rendition to harmless junk then?

A second problem of the argument, is the slippery slope fallacy again. What if both chimps and humans were infected by the virus, and both got ERV's in a similar fashion? After all, given their similar physiology, that seems reasonable enough right? Well the reply from evolutionists is, that the ERV is specific in a certain locus (place on the genes) and it is improbable for both chimps and humans to create an ERV at the exact same spot. However, I disagree. There is a recent discovery at the university of Pennsylvania US that shows a human DNA-associated protein that would dictate where on the DNA that AIDS is to be inserted. The protein called LEDGF would travel along with the retrovirus in it's mantel and then modulate where in the human genome the virus is inserted. So if retroviruses can be locus specific, then loci-specific ERV's is no longer a problem for this counterargument. It is then a matter of simple causality; chimps and humans have ERV at similar loci due to similar proteins. In other words similar results by similar processes.


http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm

[Aurora]

It is very common to be affected by the same pathogens that strike animals. and happens still today through multiple routes, either ingestion or oral/fecal/swimming in infested places, inhalation, bites etc.
see here:

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew...olfe_htlv.html

It is very rare, however for there to be ERV insertions into sperm or egg cells even if the animal is infected. What is strange is that there are 7 different insertions in the exact same location in the exact same chromosomes of chimps and humans. We also share some common ERV insertions with other primates, but it becomes less common with animals less related to us.

.. unless you are suggesting that these are germline retroviruses that were passed down along side some simultaneous somatic mutations, where we simply happened to split off from a common ancestor..

What do somatic mutations have to do with this? The insertions I'm taking about happened in the germ cells so that they could be inherited.

[Abdul Fattah]

Nope there is far more to it than similarities. The fossil record and molecular evidence make common descent all the more likely. I'm not sure if you read the article I posted, but one of the examples given was that of endogenous retroviruses and there placements in the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees. There are known to be atleast 7 common insertions in humans and chimpanzees. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#retroviruses

Hi
The first problem with this argument is that it's hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn't come with a tag attached saying: "This is an ERV". It could be that some genes which we expect to be ERV's aren't ERV's at all but something completely different. It could even be junk genes, byproduct. Or it could be something we don't yet understand the purpose off. The difficulty in recognizing an ERV, is that it's usually deformed from it's origenal virus form. That is because if a virus is embedded in it's complete form, its almost impossible to pass it down to further generations. To explain this, let my use a simplified example. Imagine a man who has a virus. This virus will not infect every last cell of his body, and even if it would, he would most likely die and that would be the end of the story. Now for this man to pass this embedded ERV down to a child, the virus needs to be embedded in a spermcell. Only then will the ERV be present in every cell of the childs DNA. Since all cells have their DNA copied from there on. If however the virus isn't deformed, the child would have a flu in every single cell of his body. His cells would constantly reproduce this virus, and spread it throughout it's body. You can imagine this fetus doesn't have a fighting chance from the start on. No, for an ERV to be passed down trough generations, it has to be rendered harmless first. So how do you recognize it as a virus after this rendition to harmless junk then?

A second problem of the argument, is the slippery slope fallacy again. What if both chimps and humans were infected by the virus, and both got ERV's in a similar fashion? After all, given their similar physiology, that seems reasonable enough right? Well the reply from evolutionists is, that the ERV is specific in a certain locus (place on the genes) and it is improbable for both chimps and humans to create an ERV at the exact same spot. However, I disagree. There is a recent discovery at the university of Pennsylvania US that shows a human DNA-associated protein that would dictate where on the DNA that AIDS is to be inserted. The protein called LEDGF would travel along with the retrovirus in it's mantel and then modulate where in the human genome the virus is inserted. So if retroviruses can be locus specific, then loci-specific ERV's is no longer a problem for this counterargument. It is then a matter of simple causality; chimps and humans have ERV at similar loci due to similar proteins. In other words similar results by similar processes.

Conclusion, the argument is indirect and relies on assumption, and therefore holds little weight.

[جوري]

It is very rare, however for there to be ERV insertions into sperm or egg cells even if the animal is infected. What is strange is that there are 7 different insertions in the exact same location in the exact same chromosomes of chimps and humans. We also share some common ERV insertions with other primates, but it becomes less common with animals less related to us.

Again, having commonalities is to be expected 7 insertions if I am to take it completely at face value (see Br. Steve's post) hardly requires all the ado about nothing in the face of millions of genomes.. and it certainly doesn't translate to common ancestry rather things in common.

What do somatic mutations have to do with this? The insertions I'm taking about happened in the germ cells so that they could be inherited.

Did you understand everything that was written? I am working the extra step where is you've already assumed common ancestry then (evolutionary) change causing 'sepciation' through somatic mutations.. in simple terms from ape Jaw to human jaw from hairy body to less hairy body etc.

[Aurora]

Again, having commonalities is to be expected 7 insertions if I am to take it completely at face value (see Br. Steve's post) hardly requires all the ado about nothing in the face of millions of genomes.. and it certainly doesn't translate to common ancestry rather things in common.

Why do chimps and humans have ERV insertions incommon then? Is it that they both just so happened to be infected by the exact same retrovirus at around the same time, and that the very rare occurence of a insertion just so happened to happen in the exact same location of the exact same chromosome of a germ cell that was later involved in fertilization? Not once, but 7 times.

Did you understand everything that was written? I am working the extra step where is you've already assumed common ancestry then (evolutionary) change causing 'sepciation' through somatic mutations.. in simple terms from ape Jaw to human jaw from hairy body to less hairy body etc.

Those changes didn't happen as a result somatic mutations, so I don't understand why you keep mentioning that.

[جوري]

Why do chimps and humans have ERV insertions incommon then? Is it that they both just so happened to be infected by the exact same retrovirus at around the same time, and that the very rare occurence of a insertion just so happened to happen in the exact same location of the exact same chromosome of a germ cell that was later involved in fertilization? Not once, but 7 times.

why do we have a good 50% of our genes in common with bananas?
I find that argument absurd really, if for no other reason save the complete opposition I have witnessed by atheists to any research on probabilities,(which is in essence what you are arguing here) especially of the random assembly of primitive cells:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

Those changes didn't happen as a result somatic mutations, so I don't understand why you keep mentioning that.

You tell me in your own words then how you suppose 'speciation' happened were we born to apes? in other words all the alleged mutations that took place were germline mutations only?
(the topic does have to do with evolution) not some ancillary find on retroviruses!

[Aurora]

why do we have a good 50% of our genes in common with bananas?

We share genes with banana plants because we're related to them, although creationists may claim otherwise, however ERV insertions cannot be explained away in the same way a creationist might explain away the similarity of the genome of a human and a banana plant as being due to similar design due common designer.

I find that argument absurd really, if for no other reason save the complete opposition I have witnessed by atheists to any research on probabilities,(which is in essence what you are arguing here) especially of the random assembly of primitive cells:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

Why are you binging abiogenesis into this? We were discussing evolution. I don't have an opinion on how life began, I don't know why or how it happened.

You tell me in your own words then how you suppose 'speciation' happened were we born to apes? in other words all the alleged mutations that took place were germline mutations only?
(the topic does have to do with evolution) not some ancillary find on retroviruses!

Speciation occurs as a results of isolation of populations of a species. If the two populations have seperated gene pools eventually after many generations they may become seperate species as they won't be able to produce fertile offspring together. About 5 or 6 millions years ago the ancestors of chimps and humans would have sperated and they became different species. The mutations that took place happened in germ cells ofcourse.

[جوري]

We share genes with banana plants because we're related to them, although creationists may claim otherwise, however ERV insertions cannot be explained away in the same way a creationist might explain away the similarity of the genome of a human and a banana plant as being due to similar design due common designer.

This isn't about what creationists claim or don't claim.. this is about what you can make scientifically relevant and demonstrable.. how are we related to bananas? we split off from bananas? do we share a common ancestor?

Why are you binging abiogenesis into this? We were discussing evolution. I don't have an opinion on how life began, I don't know why or how it happened.

How did life begin according to evolutionists? and from what did we evolve?

Speciation occurs as a results of isolation of populations of a species. If the two populations have seperated gene pools eventually after many generations they may become seperate species as they won't be able to produce fertile offspring together. About 5 or 6 millions years ago the ancestors of chimps and humans would have sperated and they became different species. The mutations that took place happened in germ cells ofcourse.

that is a nice sentiment.. how about some science to back it up..
here is an isolated tribe:
Isolated tribe spotted in Brazil



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm

would you like to go about using some sound science to show how isolated tribes of apes become human, perhaps later from humans to cockroaches?

all the best

[Trumble]

Isn't this all rather beside the point, folks?

The claim in the original post (originating from Harun Yahya - surprise, surprise :rollseyes ) was that

These archeological finds once again refute the Darwinist claim that human beings share a common ancestor with apes. Darwinists maintain that the ape-like entities that supposedly lived tens of thousands of years ago, grunting to one another and living an animal lifestyle, came to live in groups and thus developed intelligent and social behavior. But these supposed primitive entities are not the only beings to live in social groups. Gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys and many other animal species live in groups. But none of these have developed the same intelligent and social behavior as human beings. None has made a 7-note flute, manufactured statuettes or, in short, exhibited any such intelligence and ability. Because intelligent and conscious behavior is unique to human beings. These objects dating back to tens of thousands of years, the remains of which have come down to us today, were produced by human beings possessed of intelligence and consciousness, the ability to calculate, plan and manufacture, and a soul given them by Allah.

Or, to summarize, humans cannot have developed intelligent and social behaviour as a consequence of living in groups (and do 'Darwinists' really make that claim, anyway?) because other animals also live in groups and did not do so. The fact that Neanderthals probably also did is conveniently ignored, not that another instance is actually needed.

Whatever your take on evolution, retroviruses, abiogenesis and all the rest of it this 'argument' is simply logical nonsense. Not to mention having nothing whatsoever to do with this fascinating flute - which doesn't 'refute' anything.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Please elaborate on these gaps?


It is both a theory and a fact. Theory of Gravity, Atomic theory, etc. A theory in scientific terms is something that explains empirical observations.


It is neither. We share common ancestors with these animals.

Either it's a theory or a fact. Theory and fact both doesn't make it 100 percent factual. All these theories exist so we can somehow explain what we don't understand. Theories are able to be disproved, facts aren't.

Another thing about evolution is that those "ancestors" no longer exist. If that is the case, then why are chimps still existng? Jellyfish etc? You'd have to be pretty insane to think I'm from a jellyfish? Its neither but we share common ancestry? Yes and no? Weird.

:wasalamex


We could say that God made us all similar, and that's why we have so much similarities.


Evolutionists say we evolved off each other because we're similar.

That's besides the point, cuz theyre a different species.

why do we have a good 50% of our genes in common with bananas?

Maybe I should go tell my professor that his ancestor was a banana :)

[Sarada]

A 35,000-year-old flute unearthed during the course of excavations in Germany shows, like other flutes discovered to date, that people in very ancient times possessed a highly developed artistic culture.

Conard had an identical copy made from a similar piece of bone in order to test the instrument’s functionality. He was able to play the American national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, on the flute, using the seven-note scale that represents the foundation of Western music. .

Stick to the facts:


Conard reports that a playable replica of the flute has not yet been made, but says it is likely to produce a range of notes comparable to many modern types of flute.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090624...20090624174002


If you are going to make a claim, at least get your facts straight.

And, as Trumble says, this proves nothing.

[Trumble]

And, as Trumble says, this proves nothing.

If not for that reason. We could could dig up a 35,000 year old one of these;

And it still wouldn't prove what is being claimed. Although an awful lot of historians would look very silly... :happy:

As they are, of course, by other miracles of ancient technology reported by Mr Yahya such as ancient Egyptian light-bulbs. Erich von Daniken, eat your heart out.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Aurora;

Those changes didn't happen as a result somatic mutations, so I don't understand why you keep mentioning that.

I don’t understand how creation happened, only that God put all things in place by his will and his power. I have to confess, I cannot understand how a thirty five thousand year old flute, would prove or disprove evolution.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[ihsan karacabey]

Stick to the facts:


Conard reports that a playable replica of the flute has not yet been made, but says it is likely to produce a range of notes comparable to many modern types of flute.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090624...20090624174002


If you are going to make a claim, at least get your facts straight.

And, as Trumble says, this proves nothing.

Here is the proof from CBS news. It is written that:

"The reassembled instrument was too fragile to be played, but Conard worked with another academic to make a copy of it from the same type of bone and to play it and produce recordings of songs such as "The Star-Spangled Banner."

This sound can also be listened here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117343.stm

[drahmed]

For the skeptic, no amount of proof will be enough, and for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary

[Azy]

I'm sick of reading that phrase, we should change it to:

"For the skeptic, a reasonable amount of proof will be enough, and for the believer, no amount of proof will ever convince them otherwise."

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^It depends on your definition of proof or what you "take" to be proof. What isn't reasonable to you, might be reasonable to others. So that really doesn't make it any better.

[Trumble]

For the skeptic, no amount of proof will be enough, and for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary

I'm sick of reading that phrase, we should change it to:

"For the skeptic, a reasonable amount of proof will be enough, and for the believer, no amount of proof will ever convince them otherwise."

It's irrelevant either way; the issue here is not one of faith but a simple empirical fact; did somebody produce a replica of this 35,000 year old flute and play it, or not? I for one am quite happy to accept they did. As I said, though, that fact (or absence of it) - or the existence of this flute - simply has nothing whatsoever to do with 'historic evolution', let alone 'refuting' it.

[root]

I see those old misrepresentations are still doing the rounds.

A: How do you know it's a retrovirus, cos they don't jump up and shout at you.

(Well, cos Science reverse engineered one.)!!!!!

A "misfired" retrovirus that shared between human and apes showing the exact misfiring sequence and showing same degredation over time? Now find me one of those in a very long distant ancestor and I might say you have a point, point is that would be like finding a rabbit fossil in the cambrian era!!!!!!

[Beardo]

This statement hold no weight anymore because it's been known know that there is too much of a gap between us and monkeys/chimpanzees etc.



Personally I dont get why we have to be from them just cause there r similarities. Havent ppl ever wondered that maybe it just means order not necessarily branchin off an ANIMAL. Evolution is a theory with loads of gaps, not factual.

One professor told me we came from monkeys and another told me jellyfishes. ?????

Which is it? Pick one O.O

This just shows lack of consistency.

Well, that explains why there is such thing as "Jelly Bellies"! I've made an important discovery. :omg:

[Aurora]

Either it's a theory or a fact. Theory and fact both doesn't make it 100 percent factual. All these theories exist so we can somehow explain what we don't understand. Theories are able to be disproved, facts aren't.

Another thing about evolution is that those "ancestors" no longer exist. If that is the case, then why are chimps still existng? Jellyfish etc? You'd have to be pretty insane to think I'm from a jellyfish? Its neither but we share common ancestry? Yes and no? Weird.

Those common ancestors obviously don't still exist. We did not come from jelly fish. That is like saying your cousin gave birth to you.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Those common ancestors obviously don't still exist. We did not come from jelly fish.

Contrary to what you think, this is what Professors teach you in universities. You might as well battle it out with them...not me...as I dont buy any of this nonsense, period. These "common ancestors" do exist...i.e. chimps/gorillas...monkeys in general!

That is like saying your cousin gave birth to you.

I don't see how that analogy works...other than it's all nonsensical..!

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Well, that explains why there is such thing as "Jelly Bellies"! I've made an important discovery. :omg:

Indeed...perhaps it's time to go take a visit to one of these scientists/evolutionists!

[Aurora]

Contrary to what you think, this is what Professors teach you in universities.

They don't teach that. you're either lying or you've misunderstood them.

You might as well battle it out with them...not me...as I dont buy any of this nonsense, period. These "common ancestors" do exist...i.e. chimps/gorillas...monkeys in general!

We did not come from chimps or gorillas. They're our very distant cousins. The common ancestors that we share with them were neither human, chimp or gorilla.

I don't see how that analogy works...other than it's all nonsensical..!

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

They don't teach that. you're either lying or you've misunderstood them.

Sorry to bust your chops but I'm not lying and yes my professor DID teach that. Just because you yourself have no idea doesn't make me a liar.

We did not come from chimps or gorillas. They're our very distant cousins. The common ancestors that we share with them were neither human, chimp or gorilla.

Cousin, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, mother, father, grandfather, whatever you wana call it, that still implies we come from them!

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

Absolutely, any doubts?

[Aurora]

Sorry to bust your chops but I'm not lying and yes my professor DID teach that. Just because you yourself have no idea doesn't make me a liar.

Well then you've probably misunderstood your professor. What Evolutionary biologists are there that claim we came from gorillas?

Cousin, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, mother, father, grandfather, whatever you wana call it, that still implies we come from them!

You didn't come from your cousin or your sister, certainly. The ape like creatures that chimps and humans evolved from were not chimps, they were something somewhat different and are simply not the same species as anything existing today. Chimps and gorillas did not exist 5 million years ago.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Well then you've probably misunderstood your professor. What Evolutionary biologists are there that claim we came from gorillas?

I don't know, enlighten me. And for the record, I didn't misunderstand anything. I even had him confirm it. Can we end that game now?

You didn't come from your cousin or your sister, certainly. The ape like creatures that chimps and humans evolved from were not chimps, they were something somewhat different and are simply not the same species as anything existing today. Chimps and gorillas did not exist 5 million years ago.

And what is that something millions of years ago? And how can we assume we evolved from them, other than the usual "there are similarities" bit? That seems to be the most popular argument. So what? Can't we denote it to be worldy order? Why ancestry?