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

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.
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.

You are listening to the sound of a reconstruction of a 35,000-year-old flute made from vulture wing bone. (You can switch the sound off by clicking on the sound icon at the top of the page)


The figure of a human being playing a flute in the 7,000-year-old drawing shows that the people of the time possessed a culture and a knowledge of music, and therefore, that they were mentally developed and cultured.

Hi Dr. Trax!

I had a feeling you would still be a big Harun fan! Link to the above was easy to find:

http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/15069/

I hope you have been seeing how the most recent scientific evidence is making it difficult (in case of humans) to define what a "common ancestor" is. There was not "slow change". Scientific evidence now indicates the giant human chromosome suddenly appeared in the population then full human man and woman were born. That would make our common ancestor Adam and Eve, or their parents but they could not have the 48 chromosome "ape" genome type either and I think could play the flute but kids might have been better at it than their parents who were maybe busy enough making sure their needs were met to have time to practice.

I often say (and might have previously in the forum) that in these things the truth ends up in the middle. The answer is what neither side expected but religion is not hurt by it. And in this case there would have likely been a small number of fully human like them born to other families which solves a big problem explaining how children had children. Also, part of being human requires cellular development then growing up with someone there to teach what is required for them to later on their own make wise decisions. Giving them a preprogrammed brain not tempted by the fruit tree would work fine and they would not get kicked out of paradise but we must have a "free will" type of mind or not be human. We must be taught over time. And humans make mistakes but without that we would be like a simple robot-mind, not a human.

Most recent evidence has the clay still in the story too. Only difference is the clay was prior to their birth for the origin of cells to develop into humans.

Weak attempt to disprove evolution. Neanderthal's lived about 30,000 year ago, and they had ''advanced'' techniques, such as music, burial of dead, art whilst performing care for their handicapped family. However, mitochondrial DNA from Neaderthals have proven that they where not human, that their genetic differences where far too varied than homo sapien sapien.

Charzhino said:

Weak attempt to disprove evolution. Neanderthal's lived about 30,000 year ago, and they had ''advanced'' techniques, such as music, burial of dead, art whilst performing care for their handicapped family. However, mitochondrial DNA from Neaderthals have proven that they where not human, that their genetic differences where far too varied than homo sapien sapien.

Click to expand...

I don't need to "disprove evolution" the only thing I need to do is prove false the conclusions that have no scientific merit at all in the scientific arena.

I just checked scientific literature to see how the human speciation debate in regards to Neanderthal is doing. There is still discussion on classification as a "subspecies" but that does not make them a non-human. Evidence now suggests that the two populations hybridized and are now in the gene pool of the "modern human" Homo Sapiens. If by rare chance it is found that they had the 48 chromosome genome then the hybridization theories would be in trouble because of the reproduction problems which would make it unlikely they could produce offspring together. But that would not change a single thing in regards to the theory I represent that already has all the solid evidence it needs without speciation details that paleontology and anthropology are filling in.

Since your side of the argument claims "they where not human" and this is a very basic science question a simple dictionary definition of what a "human" is should do here:

Http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Human

homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

Click to expand...

If you want more evidence then this detailed science paper from the most respected Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences will explain the human chromosomal speciation event:

From References: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

[17] Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi
Colloquium Paper: Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes
PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; published online before print April 25, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6535.full

Click to expand...

The scientific evidence is very much in our favor. Where you dispute my conclusions you will need to provide equally reliable scientific evidence to the contrary, but from what I know there is none.

The question of what makes us human is now open to all humans to help answer including Dr. Trax and others regardless of their religious way of defining these things. With you being a human too your opinion on the evidence that I presented is likewise valuable, but you will first have to study the paper above and/or the theory of ID blog section on speciation because most of what you were taught or told about human speciation no longer has merit anywhere in the scientific arena.

Charzhino said:

Weak attempt to disprove evolution. Neanderthal's lived about 30,000 year ago, and they had ''advanced'' techniques, such as music, burial of dead, art whilst performing care for their handicapped family. However, mitochondrial DNA from Neaderthals have proven that they where not human, that their genetic differences where far too varied than homo sapien sapien.

Click to expand...

Weak attempt to prove evolution!
Humans lived about 1.5 million years ago!

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134281150-1-5-million-year-old-footprints-brand-new-shocking-severe-blow-imagina.html

And for the Neandertals it is all SciFi-made up!

Peace.

Science101 said:

Since your side of the argument claims "they where not human" and this is a very basic science question a simple dictionary definition of what a "human" is should do here

Click to expand...

It is highly probable that they where not modern human. Recent sequencing of mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal's allowed thefollowing graph of differences to be constructed.



This is a extract from the paper.

By contrast, the Neandertal genome had an average of 27 +/- 2.2 differences from modern humans (3.375 times the average difference between modern humans). The smallest difference between any human and the Neandertal was 22, and the largest difference between any human and the Neandertal was 36. These differences put the Neandertal genome well outside the limits of modern humans. Another interesting result is that the mtDNA sequence seemed equally distant from all modern groups of humans. In particular, it did not seem to be more closely related to Europeans, something that might have been expected if, as some scientists think, Neandertals were at least partly ancestral to them

Furtur sequencing of a complete mtDNA of a Neanderthals gave this graph.



The conclusion arrived from this is:

Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years

Charzhino said:

Click to expand...

Forgot to mention the key:
Green - Human/human comparison
Red - Human/Ne'thal comparison
Blue - Human/Chimp comparison

Green R., Malaspinas A-S, Krause J., Briggs A., et al. (2008) A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing. Cell, 134:416-426

Charzhino said:

It is highly probable that they where not modern human.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have to agree with that. A "modern human" lives in "modern time" while our more distant ancestors are "human" but lived in "ancient time" then before that in recent "prehistoric time".

That was an easy one to reconcile!

i personally dont believe in evolution

It's called the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution :hmm:

Unfortunately the word 'theory' doesn't mean what you appear to think it does. This topic was done to death the first time this news was posted, and there's absolutely nothing in it that has any bearing on evolution at all, never mind a refutation.

You can't apply the principles of macro evolution to micro evolution and vice versa ..
if you don't have something demonstrable that can stand on its own merits, then this exercise is futile.. it doesn't matter how authoritatively sounding your convictions!


all the best

Gossamer skye said:

You can't apply the principles of macro evolution to micro evolution and vice versa

Click to expand...

The distinction between the two is superficial.

Azy said:

The distinction between the two is superficial.

Click to expand...

if you have done some very basic molecular biology and genetics, you'd know that your testament is erroneous at best!

all the best

For the benefit of all why don't you just dazzle us with an explanation?

use the search feature third from your anatomical right, I have discussed it in quite the details, & so did br. Steve et. al.
High fidelity should be exercised one pedant at a time for accuracy! ...

all the best

I was more hoping for a discussion between us since you brought it up and I want to know why it is that you think micro and macro are exclusive (though it's clear why you would want to). Dredging up a 3 year old thread with all the usual apologetics and harun yahya claptrap isn't really what I was aiming for with my post.

That is unless you think there's a particularly enlightening (and preferably noise free) thread including your own views which you wouldn't mind being quizzed on. If so, could you do me the favour of pointing it out since there're a lot of threads pertaining to evolution.

I don't believe I have ever used Hrun yahaya on any of my threads or debates..
Regardless of the cloud of miasma your apologists like to create around him, he defends his reasons in the same superficial style that evolutionists use .. it doesn't begin to scratch the surface of molecular biology or genetics..

if you want for starters you may read this, which I have in fact used before in my debates:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

that is how detailed you've to get in order for me to view something through one lens or another.. evolution has no bearing on whether or not God exists.. many people believe that it is God's way and plan for the world..
I have problems with the scientific aspects of it.. there is no good reason for me to substitute one belief system for another.. since we are not talking mere adaptation by known principles rather actual speciation.. It is actually very big, and at the rate that it happened for all these billions of species, there is no point for humans to be in the shape they are in for the last one thousand years.

if you don't like the noise, then take yourself out of a debate, last I left it, it takes two hands to clap no?


all the best

Gossamer skye said:

that is how detailed you've to get in order for me to view something through one lens or another

Click to expand...

I suppose I'm obliged to ask what the good is in all that detail when it provides no useful information. I'd take relevancy and accuracy any day, detailed or not.

Gossamer skye said:

.. evolution has no bearing on whether or not God exists..

Click to expand...

Quite, but it starts limiting his traditional jurisdiction which some people find distasteful and are consequently unreceptive in the same way as those who just seemed to prefer the Earth being flat.

Gossamer skye said:

I have problems with the scientific aspects of it.. there is no good reason for me to substitute one belief system for another.. since we are not talking mere adaptation by known principles rather actual speciation..

Click to expand...

Earlier I stumbled across a 'revisiting' of Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species and I found a line which summed it up nicely for me.

"After all, species differences are simply the final disposition of the standing genetic variation within species, so it is the nature of that standing variation and of the forces modulating it that is the real stuff of evolutionary
genetics. All else is just developmental and molecular biology."