Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human evolution: Oldest hand-crafted flute so far is 35,000 years old

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The pieces of the ancient flute

comprise a 22-centimetre instrument with five holes and a notched end. Conard said the flute is 35,000 years old.

“It’s unambiguously the oldest instrument in the world,” said Conard. His findings were published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Other archeologists agreed with Conard’s assessment.

Well, that’s reassuring.

The Hohle Fels flute is more complete and appears slightly older than bone and ivory fragments from seven other flutes recovered in southern German caves and documented by Conard and his colleagues in recent years.

Now, here’s the interesting part:

Roebroeks said it’s difficult to say how cognitively and socially advanced these people were. But the physical trappings of their lives — including musical instruments, personal decorations and figurative art — match the objects we associate with modern human behaviour, he said.

“It shows that from the moment that modern humans enter Europe … it is as modern in terms of material culture as it can get,” Roebroeks said.

That’s the thing about the evolution of human culture. It never actually seems to happen. Someone just makes a flute and starts playing it, and soon every tribe has a flute.

A bit like the history of mathematics, I suppose. Someone just invents an idea like the Pythagorean theorem or zero, and everyone just picks up from there.

Comments
"Examples aren’t definitions." But they give one a clue. Hello, is there anyone home who is constructive or trying. Spare me. Use for a definition of information, one or more piece of data. If you want to define data then use data as distinct entities. If you want to define distinct and entity then I suggest you ask Bill Clinton. The two of you could spend a day talking about what "is" and "distinct" mean and if the two of you are really entities or not.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
jerry, quoting Abel:
“Complexity in linear digital strings is fully measurable by the degree to which each string can be algorithmically compressed. This is true whether the string does anything useful or not. A string comprised of maximally uncertain elements will be the most complex string because it lacks order and pattern. The compressibility of that string is therefore extremely low.”
I think that's a very poorly chosen passage to quote from Abel, as he clearly conflates algorithmic with classical information. Algorithmic complexity has nothing to do with uncertainty, and classical information has nothing to do with algorithmic compressibility.R0b
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
R0b, As I said "You are straining to find objections not to solve issues and it is apparent so why should anyone take you seriously." I haven't a clue what you are talking about in terms of problems and my guess is that no one else does either. Now that we have eliminated the ambiguity of FCSI what other problems can you gin up. Talk to Mark Frank because he seems to have unending supply of irrelevant remarks.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
jerry:
It is frequently referred to in biology as the information in the DNA. It is simply the sequence of the nucleotides. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Ab.....enome.html Mark Frank knows this but professes horror at the lack of definition for information.
Examples aren't definitions. And to determine if information is complex, it must be quantified. How do we non-arbitrarily quantify the information in DNA? Both Dembski and Durston try to do so in terms of probability under natural hypotheses, but ambiguities remain, as I mentioned to you last week.R0b
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
jerry:
R0b, If a two sets are grouped into a larger set say for example they are both composed of blue entities. And if one of the sets has only six sided entities and the other set has four sided entities the lack of definition of number of sizes in the larger set is not inherent in either subset but it is in the overall set.
You're pointing out an ambiguity that the narrower definition doesn't inherit from the broader definition, just as I did. (FSCI doesn't inherit the open-endedness of the definition of specified.) If the only difference between the definitions of FSCI and CSI is a narrower range of specifications, then FSCI inherits any problems that are in other aspects of the definition. That's not a non sequitur. Is that the only difference between the two definitions, or are there others?R0b
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
R0b, If a two sets are grouped into a larger set say for example they are both composed of blue entities. And if one of the sets has only six sided entities and the other set has four sided entities the lack of definition of number of sizes in the larger set is not inherent in either subset but it is in the overall set. So your conclusion that that a subset inherits the problems of the larger set is a non sequitur. You are straining to find objections not to solve issues and it is apparent so why should anyone take you seriously.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Mark Frank post at #126 is a poster child for absurd posts. It is why people do not take the anti ID people seriously because it seems all they want to do is waste one's time with absurd or irrelevant comments. Information is a simple term. It is the same concept used through out much of biology. Watson and Crick recognized that DNA contained information in 1953 even before they understood anything about how DNA worked. It is frequently referred to in biology as the information in the DNA. It is simply the sequence of the nucleotides. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/genetics_genome.html Mark Frank knows this but professes horror at the lack of definition for information. He has been informed before. Complex is also an easy concept and is also the intuitive understanding of it. If something is composed of many seeming unrelated entities for which there are many options then it is complex. A sentence of 50 characters is complex because it made up of several interrelated parts that all could be different. Each character in a sentence could be one of 27 letters or spaces and more if we added punctuation. It is not hard to see how a DNA sequence is complex. There are technical definitions of complexity if one wants them. Here is one for the specific complexity in a sequence of data such as DNA "Complexity in linear digital strings is fully measurable by the degree to which each string can be algorithmically compressed. This is true whether the string does anything useful or not. A string comprised of maximally uncertain elements will be the most complex string because it lacks order and pattern. The compressibility of that string is therefore extremely low." Specifies means that this entity determines another one just as a blue print specifies a building or a machine. Many DNA sequences determines a protein sequence through the transcription and translation process. Another no brainer of an idea that a child can understand. Function - these proteins have various functions. Anyone denying this. That simply is what FCSI is. It is simple and if people here cannot understand it, then maybe they should refrain from wasting our time with their comments.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
jerry:
CSI has not been defined clearly as far as I can see. FSCI is very clear and easy to understand. If you want to see the nonsense that the anti ID people spread here see the following comment posted just above “As a subset of CSI, FSCI inherits all of CSI’s problems and ambiguities, with the sole exception of the open-endedness of the definition of specification.” FSCI is simply information that is complex and specifies a function in another entity.
It would help if you would tell me what part of the quoted sentence is nonsense so I can fix it. Is FSCI not a subset of CSI? Is the definition of S in CSI not open-ended? Does CSI not have problems and ambiguities? Does FSCI not inherit them, with the one exception that I state? Some specifics would be helpful. For example, I'll point out a specific problem that I see with your comment. From what I can tell, FSCI was coined by kairosfocus, and in his descriptions and examples he always refers to it as functionally specific or functionally specified. (See his always-linked for details.) I've never seen him define it in terms of specifying a function in another entity. He speaks of functionally specified bits, not functionally specifying bits. Is there more than one definition of FSCI?R0b
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Jerry #122 Glad to see that you accept that CSI is not clearly defined. You say the definition of FCSI is "very clear and easy to understand". And then go on to say: FSCI is simply information that is complex and specifies a function in another entity. I find that clear except for the terms information, complex, specifies, and function. In no special order: Information has been defined many different ways e.g Shannon, Fisher and Dembski's own definition. Which one do you mean? Complex again this is a loose term. Dembski defines it in terms of the probability of an outcome meeting a specification given some assumptions about the causes of the outcome. The trouble with this being what is the specification and what is the assumed cause? But then again, maybe you mean something different? Specifies I thought this might be the same use of specifies as Dembski uses in CSI. But it is quite different. The way you use it, it appears that for A to specify B then you can use A to work out the detail of B if you know the rules (so you can work out the amino acids from a DNA string if you know the base pairs and the rules). This is very broad and covers a multitude of sins. If you know the rules you can work out tomorrow's weather from today's meteorological conditions - that's because one causes the other - just as base pairs case amino acids. On the other hand some sentences (not all) have truth conditions and you can work out the truth conditions if you know the rules. But the language does not cause the truth conditions. It based on a convention. And finally functional. There are a couple of problems here - but I will take the easy one to describe. What is the function of a bacterial flagellum? To disturb the water, to move the bacterium, to give the bacterium a fitness advantage, to help the bacterium survive another 24 hours? Maybe you can help with some or all?Mark Frank
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
#123 Can I take your responses as an admission your position doesn’t have anything besides the refusal to accept the design inference? Joseph - you can take my responses to mean whatever you like. You certainly don't seem to take them to mean what I intended! My most recent response to you (#116) pointed out that my quotes from Behe were accurate. I also asked you (yet again) what definition of CSI you use. If you wish to take that as an admission of something I cannot prevent you.Mark Frank
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
David Kellogg, It doesn't matter what people think. And it certainly doesn't matter what you say- you have proven that you are just a blind follower. The fact is that there isn't any genetic evidence for universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents. And in the end I just want people to be able to think for themselves- something you appear unable to do.Joseph
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Mark Frank, Can I take your responses as an admission your position doesn't have anything besides the refusal to accept the design inference?Joseph
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
90DegreeAngel said, "I fully agree with your sentiments . . . now would you mind defining CSI?" CSI has not been defined clearly as far as I can see. FSCI is very clear and easy to understand. If you want to see the nonsense that the anti ID people spread here see the following comment posted just above "As a subset of CSI, FSCI inherits all of CSI’s problems and ambiguities, with the sole exception of the open-endedness of the definition of specification." FSCI is simply information that is complex and specifies a function in another entity. There are three good examples in our world. The first is language. The letters, words, sentences and paragraphs all are information, complex and specify an independent entity which has a function. Computer programming instructions are also information that is complex and which specify the operation in an independent entity. A good example is a print instruction which specifies that a particular document should be printed. The third example is DNA which is information that is complex and specifies a another entity, proteins or RNA polymers that have functions. This process exists no where in our universe except for life and the output of intelligent agents. It is not hard to understand. In fact I have explained it to some 10 year olds. There is no evidence that any process of nature has ever developed FCSI or even has the power to produce such a complicated and process oriented result. DNA is like language and a computer program and natural processes have never come close to doing anything like it. Explain that to your students. If you have any more questions, post them and someone or myself will try to answer them. We have been discussing FSCI for the hundredth time on another thread and you can see the nonsense that some raise there to obstruct any understanding. It is an interesting phenomena, the childish obstruction by educated adults on easy to understand ideas. Here is the other thread https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-eye-into-the-materialist-assault-on-lifes-origins/comment-page-4/#comment-326984jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
jerry:
Mark Frank has been around here long enough to know to know when evolution is involved the CSI used is FCSI which is very easily defined. On another thread Nakashima is doing is best to deny the obvious just as Mark Frank knows exactly how we use CSI when discussing evolution. So why do these people do such things? Is it for our betterment? I doubt it. There are grown men who pursue this frivolous behavior. It is not a very flattering description of their adulthood.
As a subset of CSI, FSCI inherits all of CSI's problems and ambiguities, with the sole exception of the open-endedness of the definition of specification. Dembski always speaks in terms of CSI rather than FSCI, even when discussing evolution. Is this frivolous behavior, unbecoming of an adult? BTW, there are also critical ambiguities in the term functional. If we can define the term narrowly and context-dependent, then it's trivial to point out unintelligent processes that produce FSCI. If we define it broadly and absolutely, then we have to deal with messy FSCI regress, even when talking about intelligent agents.R0b
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Re #118 Jerry See vjtorley's comment #62 above: CSI is more difficult to pin down, as the definitions have varied in the literature.Mark Frank
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Jerry, I fully agree with your sentiments . . . now would you mind defining CSI? This is a concept that I have trouble understanding. I am currently trying to explain this concept to my students at the Vacation-Bible-Computer Programming camp I teach at. Thanks.90DegreeAngel
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
"I strongly suspect you only have the vaguest idea of how CSI is defined. You can prove me wrong by explaining which definition of CSI you adopt and why." This is the kind of nonsense we get here on a daily basis. Mark Frank has been around here long enough to know to know when evolution is involved the CSI used is FCSI which is very easily defined. On another thread Nakashima is doing is best to deny the obvious just as Mark Frank knows exactly how we use CSI when discussing evolution. So why do these people do such things? Is it for our betterment? I doubt it. There are grown men who pursue this frivolous behavior. It is not a very flattering description of their adulthood.jerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
If you are going to discuss what Behe thinks irreducible complexity is why don't you go to the horse's mouth. Here Behe discusses the definition only a couple months ago: http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_blogjerry
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Re #115 RE IC- you did not quote from Behe’s book. Behe stated “Darwinian evolution” on page 39 and you posted just “evolution”. Joseph - my quotes from from DWBB were in comment #99 (the one you reacted to which led to this exchange). They do not include the word "evolution". They appear to be accurate. Meanwhile - you very aggressively attack me with phrases such as: BTW Mark both CSI and IC are more rigorously defined than anything your position has to offer I strongly suspect you only have the vaguest idea of how CSI is defined. You can prove me wrong by explaining which definition of CSI you adopt and why.Mark Frank
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, RE IC- you did not quote from Behe's book. Behe stated "Darwinian evolution" on page 39 and you posted just "evolution". IOW you have issues that need to be addressed before any discussion can continue.Joseph
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
#113 Joseph Yes - I am sorry - I have a habit of typing IR when I should type IC. We were unable to make progress on the IC discussion because we could not agree on the definition of IC (we both quoted from Behe's book) I thought it would be worth trying CSI instead - but start of by agreeing which of the many definitions we are working with. So which definition of CSI do you accept? I prefer the one in Dembski's 2005 paper because he said it superseded the others - but maybe you use a different one?Mark Frank
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
I am going to leave IR because it appears to be impossible to get enough mutual understanding to have a rational discussion.
What is IR? Irreducible complexity is IC- just take the first letter in each word. And all you have to do to have a rational discussion is to start supporting your position. However it appears that all you have is a refusal to accept the design inference. And that means I cannot have a rational discussion with you.Joseph
July 19, 2009
July
07
Jul
19
19
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
#106 Joseph I am going to leave IR because it appears to be impossible to get enough mutual understanding to have a rational discussion. Let's try CSI and start with an agreed definition. As I said in #109 vjtorley points out in #62 the definitions of CSI have varied quite widely over time. Which definition you are referring to?Mark Frank
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
I don’t understand the significance of the quotes you include.
That's because you seem incapable of following along. The first quote:
“Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
lays down a basic criteria for inferring design- positive evidence. the second quote is in addition to that. Namely that non-telic processes are incapable of producing it. Therefor to refute the design inference for any given object all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can produce it. Next it isn't if "evolution" can do this or that- it is can random mutations and natural selection do it. As far as Behe is concerned things were designed to evolve- evolved by design- ie via a well written genetic algorithm embedded into the genomes of the first population(s).Joseph
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Re #103 You are wrong, as usual, about Dr Behe and what he said. I quoted directly from Darwin's Black Box - page 39. It is followed by several pages of discussion and the famous mousetrap example which turn on the definition of IR as "unable to function unless all parts are there" and the proof that IR is a sign of design because evolution would be unable to build such a system. I don't understand the significance of the quotes you include. They are compatible with all that I have quoted (I should hope so - as they are from the same book!) In addition, as I am sure you know, there have been many debates about whether specific examples are IR such as the bacterial flagellum and the immune system really are IR. In all these examples the debate has turned on whether evolution could have built such a thing step by step. Behe has never, to my knowledge, attempted to defend IR on any other basis. BTW Mark both CSI and IC are more rigorously defined than anything your position has to offer I am not debating the rigour of the definitions - only their significance. Although as vjtorley points out in #62 the definitions of CSI have varied quite widely over time. Which definition you are referring to?Mark Frank
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Joseph, dbthomas has anticipated your response and parodied it:
“meet my ridiculous demands to instantaneously calculate perfect and reliable answers to questions based upon incomplete and often ambiguous data”.
That about sums up everything you write in response to evolutionary biology. Here's the thing: nobody cares that you won't accept evolutionary biology. Since you have no influence on how science is done, it doesn't matter. It only matters educationally: that is, if people who don't know any better think responses such as yours are meaningful, significant, or anything more than griping from the sidelines.David Kellogg
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Dave Wisker, I am not looking for something that assumes a relationship and then tries to put it into mathematical form. What is the calculation/ equation that demonstrates that a chimp and human share a common ancestor? In order to answer that one would need to know if such transformations are even possible. Yet we don't have any idea as to what it is that makes a chimp a chimp or a human a human. And if it takes more than two specified mutations the mathematics refutes the non-telic position.Joseph
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
dbthomas, Population genetics does not support any non-telic position.
a. Throw a rock at a random biologist, and you’ll almost certainly hit an evolutionist.
So what? That doesn't mean said biologist can support the non-telic position via mathematics.Joseph
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
joseph writes: What is the calculation/ equation that demonstrates that a chimp and human share a common ancestor? joseph apparently hasn’t heard about the branch of mathematics known as coalescent theory. Here is a paper that uses it to answer his very question: Hobolth A, OF Christensen, T Mailund & MH Schierup (2007). Genomic Relationships and speciation times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model. PLOS 3(2): 294-304.Dave Wisker
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Hey, Joseph, remember this?
Right evolutionists don’t care about mathematics.
Your "general biology" dodge won't suffice, for a few reasons: a. Throw a rock at a random biologist, and you'll almost certainly hit an evolutionist b. They clearly use math, and therefore care about it. c. I care about math. I'm an evolutionist (though not a biologist). Single counterexample and all that jazz.
They don’t care that they cannot provide any calculations nor measurements to support their position.
See that? You said "support their position" and not "meet my ridiculous demands to instantaneously calculate perfect and reliable answers to questions based upon incomplete and often ambiguous data". So, given that support does not mean what you think it means, I have refuted what you said. Pop gen certainly does support evolution. Measurements of mutation rates certainly do that too. So does statistical analysis, amongst other things. Not that I expect you'll be satisfied with that. But then you never will be, as best as I can tell, so I can't say I'm too concerned about it.dbthomas
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply