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

[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_PrimitiveCell_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_PrimitiveCell_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/sc_afp/sciencearcheologymusicgermany_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/sc_afp/sciencearcheologymusicgermany_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. mg:

 

[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. mg:

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.