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
dbthomas, There isn't anything in the wikipedia article that refutes what I stated. I am talking about evolution not general biology.Joseph
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
To Mark Frank, You are wrong, as usual, about Dr Behe and what he said. For example: The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box:
"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.”
He goes on to say:
"Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers."
BTW Mark both CSI and IC are more rigorously defined than anything your position has to offer. IOW you need to stop griping about ID and start focusing on supporting the claims of your position. However it has become obvious that you cannot support your position.Joseph
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
dbthomas, What part of population genetics demonstrates that it is possible for a single-celled organism to evolve into something other trhan a single-celled organism? What is the calculation/ equation that demonstrates that a chimp and human share a common ancestor? How many mutations did it take to go from a quadraped to a upright walking biped?Joseph
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
VJ @ 64:
I think that culture develops in a different way from science and technology. Cultural practices may indeed evolve, after a fashion, as you suggest. However, I don’t think mathematics evolves, or even agriculture. In these fields, progress is made by someone having a brainwave, telling everyone about their new idea and persuading people that it is indeed a better way of doing things, in some absolute sense of the word.
In my view you are blending several issues that are better treated individually, VJ. One issue is your notion that ideas are "corpuscular" and necessarily spring whole from brows (because indivisible). Another is your assertion that improvements in some endeavors (agriculture, technology) are inherently directional and "absolute" rather than relative, and therefore cannot be said to have evolved (biological evolution being inherently non-directional). These are independent issues, one that pertains to the origins of innovation and a second that pertains to the nature of selection operating in cultural and technological change. In endeavors such as agriculture and technology, innovations sometimes do spring whole from human brows, and are then retained. Just as often (probably more often in the history of agriculture) a process of trial and error is implicated. And oftentimes simple errors and unintended variations in practice result in innovations that are appreciated and retained. I would argue that agricultural and technological practice reflect thousands of incremental inputs from all three sources of variation, many of which were retained by a process that is loosely analogous to selection in biological evolution, resulting in cumulative change. This loose analogy often holds even given the fact that some of those inputs result from intentional efforts and sudden insights. However, the analogy with biological evolution sometimes fails, such as when insight results in relatively more "saltational" changes that, in biology, would be difficult or impossible for unguided variation and selection to attain. The essential insight here is that, while we often think of progress in human affairs and practices as "designed" by foresightful "minds," the fact is that in many spheres of human activity no one agent or community of agents envisions or preconceives the course of events. Oftentimes something rather more like evolution than design accounts for human innovation. Indeed, human efforts at planning and design as often as not result in unintended consequences that themselves become unplanned inputs into this process. Hence, while the struggle in this debate is often over the (in)appropriateness of the projection of human design activities into nature (such as when claims are made that purported saltations to CSI requiring design may be observed), we rather ironically find instead that processes often much like unguided evolution ultimately govern the course of much human innovation and "design." Of course, selection in human affairs results from very different processes than seen in biological evolution, as our own needs, desires and aspirations sometimes confer a direction to the outcomes of cultural (agricultural, technological, political) change in a manner that has no analogy in biological evolution. Even given that, the cumulative results are often wholly unforeseen. Further, human selection is often shockingly conservative, suppressing rather than fostering adaptive innovations in human practice in the service of motives that are absent in biology. In short, both analogies and disanalogies between biological evolution and change and progression in human practices are observed. IMHO, no significant human practice exclusively reflects the "brainwave" process you describe.Diffaxial
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
#62 continued vjtorley Turning to your second point. #36 The ID logic is - known natural cause cannot explain it, therefore a designer. To do the reverse - no known designer, therefore natural - would equally be a fallacy. There is an asymmetry here. We now have something which is close to a comprehensive account of nature, even if we haven’t tied it all together yet. We can basically enumerate the natural causes at work in the world. We know that there are four forces in nature, and we know how strong they are. We also know the approximate size and age of the cosmos. Unless the multiverse turns out to exist, there are no big surprises out there. Hence “No plausible natural cause, therefore a supernatural cause,” may well be a legitimate inference. However, we currently have no way of even beginning to enumerate the intelligent agents at work in the world. We don’t even know the size of the range over which they can vary. We don’t have a theory of intelligent agency which would permit us to even make an estimate. Hence, “no known designer, therefore a natural cause” is an illegitimate inference. An unknown designer is also a possibility. This is very brave to say there are no big surprises out there - consider the situation before the discovery of quantum mechanics. However, two more points: * Physics may provide a framework for natural causes which is pretty solid. But the potential causes within that framework, including chemistry and biology, are infinite and can be surprising. * You are really talking about the distinction between supernatural and natural, not telic and non-telic. Most designers have to also operate with the framework of physics. It is only if we are prepared to invoke the supernatural that we can escape that framework.Mark Frank
July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
Re #62 vjtorley Thank for you a clearly written and polite response. You are a cut above some of your colleagues. It is too much to handle in one chunk so I am going to concentrate on your response to #46 which is key. Mark: ID deduces intelligence from the presence of CSI and IC. However, if you look at the definition of these two you will see that they are defined in terms of “no natural cause”. So in the end ID deduces intelligence from the lack of known natural cause. vjtorley: This objection is certainly not true for irreducible complexity (IC). Behe defines an IC system as “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996, New York: Touchstone, p. 39). Nothing here about “no natural cause.” CSI is more difficult to pin down, as the definitions have varied in the literature. For the sake of brevity, I shall confine my comments to Dr. Dembski’s his earlier papers, where he defined complex specified information (CSI) as being present in a specified event whose probability did not exceed 1 in 10^150. Only then did he proceed to argue that laws of nature and/or chance, operating in the absence of intelligence, could not plausibly be said to generate such information. On the other hand, we do know that some intelligent beings are capable of readily generating CSI. After that, Dr. Dembski inferred that CSI was a hallmark of intelligence. No circularity here; “no natural cause” is a conclusion, not part of the definition. Let’s take IC first. You have extracted Behe’s definition of IC. But you have omitted the text around it, which explains why IC is evidence of design. What type of biological system could not be formed by numerous successive, slight modifications?. And then after the definition: An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (….) by slight successive modifications of a precursor system, …. This is the only reason he ever puts forward for accepting IC as evidence of design and it is based on the perceived failure of natural causes to achieve the objective. Now CSI. I am surprised that you did not use Dembski’s 2005 definition which he describes as “a simplification, clarification, extension, and refinement of my previous work.". In that paper he makes the link to failure of natural causes mathematically explicit. However, we can work with your comments. When you define CSI as a specified event whose probability did not exceed 1 in 10^150 you need a basis for calculating that probability. After all the probability of any event is 1 if you assume a sufficiently powerful designer. In the case of living things the probability is based on the assumption of RM+NS. The whole point is you have CSI when the probability is very low given chance alone i.e. natural causes. The failure of natural causes is intrinsic to the definition of CSI.Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
Hey, um, Joseph? Ever hear of population genetics? Evolutionary biology has also been known to make use of game theory, statistical analysis...oh, just go read Wikipedia: Mathematical biology It's really not hard to find this stuff, so before making sweeping pronouncements about what biologists do and do not do, you may want to, you know, check?dbthomas
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
David Kellogg:
Just chiming in here (I’ve read through the whole thread). “Mathematically debunked”? Hardly.
Right evolutionists don't care about mathematics. They don't care that they cannot provide any calculations nor measurements to support their position.Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Note to Khan- ID is not anti-evolution. ID is anti the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over all biological processes.
otherwise, as i said, the design inference is nothing but evidence against some evolutionary hypotheses, with no positive evidence to support it.
Yet before a design inference can be reached specific criteria has to be met. And meeting that criteria constitutes positive evidence. And speaking of positive evidence what do you have?Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Again there is scientific data which could be used to establish that prokaryotes are evolved forms of cast-off mitochondria. IOW it is not at all established that mitochondria are undigested remnants of earlier engulfed proks.Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
A hypothesis about the cause of an event requires a description of the cause and how it caused the event. What’s the ID hypothesis?
Design is a cause. Either an event/ object/ structure was designed or it arose via some other cause. That said a design hypothesis was presented in comment 79- complete with predictions, tests and possible falsifications.. What is the non-telic hypothesis again?Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews:
But in place of the design inference you offer an untestable guess that’s been mathematically debunked.
Just chiming in here (I've read through the whole thread). "Mathematically debunked"? Hardly.David Kellogg
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Scott,
But in place of the design inference you offer an untestable guess that’s been mathematically debunked
wow, after all that we're right back where we started. I thought you agreed that evolutionary hypotheses were being tested all the time? maybe engaging ID people really is pointless. see ya later.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Khan: Apparently you have no problem telling me how I might be taken seriously, but your skin is a bit thin when it comes the other way. I'm sorry if you take it that way. But in place of the design inference you offer an untestable guess that's been mathematically debunked. By comparison, anything should be taken seriously. I'm out for the night.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Scott, sarcasm, and now personal attacks. I've given you advice on how to be taken seriously in science. if you don't want to follow it, then just keep being amazed at why no one does so.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Khan:
provide compelling, hypothesis driven evidence for design and people will take you seriously.
If you can believe that all the components of life somehow came together by a series of mathematically impossible coincidences, and continued to design new improvements for themselves without the benefit or knowledge or planning, and all of this without knowing how, then what won't you believe? You've set the bar rather low. You're not in a position to tell anyone what to take seriously.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Joseph,
I doubt you think it’s good to hear from me
I honestly do. I hope you're feeling better.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
#81 Joseph That is blatantly false. A hypothesis about the cause of an event requires a description of the cause and how it caused the event. What's the ID hypothesis?Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Scott,
That mitochondria were once prokaryotes is hypothetical. If mitochondria were once prokaryotes, the means by which they became mitochondria remains as speculative as every other mystery mechanism.
not at all. in fact we can observe similar processes (gene transfer and loss) occurring today.
Or the similarity could be evidence of common design.
please provide a testable hypothesis for that speculation.
What interests me is that so many will turn their back on the design inference
provide compelling, hypothesis driven evidence for design and people will take you seriously. otherwise, as i said, the design inference is nothing but evidence against some evolutionary hypotheses, with no positive evidence to support it.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Scott,
That mitochondria were once prokaryotes is hypothetical. If mitochondria were once prokaryotes, the means by which they became mitochondria remains as speculative as every other mystery mechanism.
not at all. in fact we can observe similar processes (gene transfer and loss) occurring today.
Or the similarity could be evidence of common design.
please provide a testable hypothesis for that speculation.
What interests me is that so many will turn their back on the design inference
provide compelling, hypothesis driven evidence for design and people will take you seriously.
Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Can evolution make things less complicated?
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand. Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise. “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
OK if euks aren't a union of proks AND if euks were first on the scene (in any evolutionary senario), abiogenesis just got a bit more difficult to explain. And if life didn't arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those type of processes.Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Khan: You've offered the hypothetical origin of the mitochondria as evidence that natural mechanisms are being discovered for the components of life. That mitochondria were once prokaryotes is hypothetical. If mitochondria were once prokaryotes, the means by which they became mitochondria remains as speculative as every other mystery mechanism. Or the similarity could be evidence of common design. Mitochondria don't interest me. What interests me is that so many will turn their back on the design inference, splitting hairs and rejecting reasonable, logical evidence. But rather than reject it for something greater, they cling to the nonsensical fantasy that "poof!" something happened and one day we'll figure out what. Matter doesn't self-organize into life. Something doesn't come from nothing. Some people have actually offered complex mathematical explanations to prove what's obvious to most people. Darwinism is a religion that, like many others, requires its adherents to dogmatically accept the ridiculous.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Hey Khan, I doubt you think it's good to hear from me- so how about that testable hypothesis?Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
I would have no problem with comparing an ID hypothesis with a natural hypothesis about the cause of some living phenomenon. But we are never given the ID hypothesis to compare.
That is blatantly false. The opposite is true- we are never given a non-telic hypothesis- which is because one doesn't exist.Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
hey Joseph, good to hear from you.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Khan:
if you want to test for design, you have to provide a discrete testable hypothesis and actually test it.
However Khan can't provide a testable hypothesis for his position. But anyway I have prtovided a testable hypothesis for the design inference- others have as well:
The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe
As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution
Observation: The Universe Question Is the universe the result of intentional design? Prediction: 1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters. 2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible. Test: 1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe. 2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability. 3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible. Potential falsification: 1) Observe that the universe is chaotic. 2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries. 3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally. Confirmation: 1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe. 2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability. 3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein Observation: Living organisms Question Are living organisms the result of intentional design? Prediction: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic). Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility. Test: Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. Potential falsification: Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions. Confirmation: Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified. Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality. Conclusion (scientific inference) Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design. Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Khan:
An example is the mitochondria, the origin of which has been convincingly shown to be of natural origin.
There isn't any evidence that demonstrates mitochondria arose via nature, operating freely. As for hypothesis testing do you have a hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes? I have asked and you have never produced one.Joseph
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Scott,
You’ve just offered one hypothesis to support another.
please explain what you mean, thanks.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
An example is the mitochondria, the origin of which has been convincingly shown to be of natural origin.
You've just offered one hypothesis to support another. That's okay. Science has a few loopholes for Darwinism. One hypothesis can support another, and vague grab-bag of hypotheses can suffice as a certain explanation, with the understanding that one of them, or one to be imagined, will eventually be proven correct.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Nonetheless, no testing to date has determined what natural mechanisms, if any, could be responsible for life - its smallest components or most complex arrangements of them
I, obviously disagree. An example is the mitochondria, the origin of which has been convincingly shown to be of natural origin. or are you thinking of something else, e.g. abiogenesis and the flagellum?Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply