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.

 

[- 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/atheism-agnosticism/monkeys-evolved-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.

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 -]

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/atheism-agnosticism/monkeys-evolved-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/comdesc/section4.html#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/HTML/content/questions/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/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/wolfe_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/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/wolfe_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/comdesc/section4.html#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.