Home » Human evolution, News » Ancient cave paintings (32 mya) “simply electric”

Ancient cave paintings (32 mya) “simply electric”

Peter Robinson tells us at Ricochet (July 17, 2012), re Werner Herzog’s documentary on the 32, 000 year old paintings deep in a cave in Chauvet, France:

The film proved fascinating–at moments, simply electric. Discovered only eight years ago, these cave paintings date back at least 32,000 years, yet they appear fresh, immediate, vivid, human.

Yes, the horses, especially the horses.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

18 Responses to Ancient cave paintings (32 mya) “simply electric”

  1. 32 thousand years ago, not 32 million years ago (the human ancestors living then would have been haplorhine monkeys).

    Might pay to have someone who knows the first thing about human prehistory write these posts?

  2. Hi wd400,

    I think this is the fourth or fifth time “news” as misused “mya.” I think whoever “news” is is rather mentally challenged by the abbreviation “mya.” I’ve suggested before that they seek some other moderator’s proofreading their post before posting it. Apparently “news” is fully confident that they understand “mya.” So just sit back and enjoy it. Sooner or later “news” will misuse “mya” again.

  3. i just figured they were intentionally screwing this stuff up. Often they put the wrong year. Like 500 years instead of 500 million that was in the actual post. meh

  4. I can’t prove it’s the same person who always screws up. But it’s always “news.” And it’s always wildly, hilariously wrong. It’s getting so I look forward to the next time “news” screws up. I enjoy a good chuckle.

  5. (the human ancestors living then would have been haplorhine monkeys).

    Unfortunately there isn’t any evidence to support that tripe…

    Might pay to have someone who knows the first thing about human prehistory write these posts?

    Unfortunately no one on this planet knows anything about human pre-history.

  6. Unfortunately no one on this planet knows anything about human pre-history.

    The fact that you don’t know anything about archaeology or paleoanthropology doesn’t mean practicing archaeologists and paleoanthropologists don’t. Here is a hint, it ain’t space aliens

  7. You’re right Joe, there’s no evidence for the idea that descend from monkeys. Basically every biologist on earth believes it, but that’s because of a massive conspiracy. Thankfully you, True Believer that you are, can see through that. Well done.


  8. Unfortunately no one on this planet knows anything about human pre-history.

    grannyape92:

    The fact that you don’t know anything about archaeology or paleoanthropology doesn’t mean practicing archaeologists and paleoanthropologists don’t.

    BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAA- what is wrong with you? PRE-HUMAN HISTORY- archaeology deals with human history.

    Thanks for the laugh and I believe your family tree includes knuckle-walkers.

  9. You’re right Joe, there’s no evidence for the idea that descend from monkeys.

    There is but only if you are a true believer. I can take the same evidence and use it for an entirely different scenario.

    Basically every biologist on earth believes it, but that’s because of a massive conspiracy.

    There are plenty of biologists who don’t believe it- geneticists, developmental biologists. That is because no one even knows if changes to the genome can account for the transformations required. It is all imagination.

  10. Joe, the adults here are actually talking about human pre-history, which is exactly what archaeology is about.

  11. wd400- you are no adult…

  12. 12

    BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAA- what is wrong with you? PRE-HUMAN HISTORY- archaeology deals with human history.

    Ummm, Joe, Excavation of a Chimpanzee Stone Tool Site in the African Rainforest and 4,300-Year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology similar excavations have been done on capuchin tool manufacturing sites. In reality paleoanthropologists use archaeological field methods to excavate primate fossils all the time.

  13. Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test – Douglas Axe – July 18, 2012
    Excerpt: “For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time. Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
    My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they’re in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be.” Doug Axe PhD.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62351.html

  14. If you are not able to use the simplest terms (mya: million years ago, not millenia – or myllenia?) correctly, why should someone trust your interpretation of the more complex ones?

  15. grannyape-

    Humans were around 4300 years ago.

    But anyway I was incorrect, as wd400 pointed out. However so is the “definition” of “prehistory” as it assumes that humans could not write/ document anything for some period of time.

  16. I’m not the first to point this out, but I really, really think News should correct the title of this. The painting isn’t 32 million years old ya know…

  17. m is for millenia ;)

  18. …in which case, “MYA” is redundant (i.e., you wouldn’t say 32 thousand years years ago, would you?). Just saying ;)

Leave a Reply