Oldest stone tools ever unearthed in Kenya; predate Homo genus - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;47783940]It's pretty much the intention that counts. The fact that a living being would look at a rock, have the idea that it could serve a purpose other than just bashing shit (e.g. sharpening it to cut things), then formulate and execute a plan to convert a rock into a tool suggests a certain level of intelligence.[/QUOTE] Yeah it definitely means they have an understanding of their environment and that certain materials are gonna be more fitting for purpose than others. [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=DarklytheGreat;47785204]Personally, I think Zen has a point. Sure, they could genuinely be 3.3 million year old tools. But if throwing some rocks in a quarry can cause results similar to that, imagine the results of 3.3 million years of wear and tear on a rock.[/QUOTE] 3.3 million years of wear and tear will [b]erode[/b] a rock, not smash it and hone a sharpened edge on it.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782424]No I am just being skeptical. I don't see why there is any reason to assume tool orientated thought when the only evidence is rocks that clearly have been chipped due to striking. I went to a rock quarry once and managed to make tons of jagged rocks just by throwing them around and having them hit other rocks. Im not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying that it isn't a lot to go on.[/QUOTE] I'm more inclined to trust that the people who do have been doing this professionally for longer than I've been alive are competent enough to actually account for this. Especially since, if they don't, they will be ripped apart in peer review and their academic credentials will be turned to toilet paper. Skepticism is good, but it's most beneficial if you actually have some knowledge of the subject and process yourself. If you don't, then the difference between skepticism and just being a contrarian edgelord is very very vague.

read some fuckin' books, folks, you can't get the same patterns that you get from using a rock as a tool/the process of sharpening it from throwing it or any other super creative theories you amateurs can come up with

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47784534]you just made this so much harder who do i trust, several well educated researchers or a man who throws rocks[/QUOTE] Choosing skepticism over appeals to authority can be tricky, I know. It's ok.

To those asking how they know the tools were this old, one of the articles talking about the tools found said that the researchers test the sediment that the tools were found in and find out how long the sediment has been there.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782424]No I am just being skeptical. I don't see why there is any reason to assume tool orientated thought when the only evidence is rocks that clearly have been chipped due to striking. I went to a rock quarry once and managed to make tons of jagged rocks just by throwing them around and having them hit other rocks. Im not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying that it isn't a lot to go on.[/QUOTE] I don't understand your thought-process dude, like do you really think people out in the field haven't thought about this? They assume tool-orientated thought because this rock tool is consistent with other rock tools they've found. We can say they're hammers and cutting instruments precisely because they've consistently found tools in similar shapes.

thousands upon thousands of pages of papers on the topic thrown out the window, hundreds of years of research flushed down the toilet how could none of these men infinitely smarter than the 14-16 year olds on facepunch miss such a realistic explanation? [I]ancient man threw rocks to cut food[/I]. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=innerfire34;47785958]read some fuckin' books, folks, you can't get the same patterns that you get from using a rock as a tool/the process of sharpening it from throwing it or any other super creative theories you amateurs can come up with[/QUOTE] do you have some fringe research paper that claims humans couldn't have made some stone tools because aliens did it, or something, bernie buddy? [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] like legitimately read some books if you don't understand this. my family has a couple hundred arrowheads and we used to go hunting for them from time to time and heck it is an accurate enough science that you can 'date' most artifacts you find by the exact technique used to create the tool and it's easy enough for a gosh-dang child to figure out if they know what they're looking for

The article is better researched than other popular science publications. It's already fairly known that Oldowan tool technology isn't strictly limited to the genus Homo, and you really shouldn't be using the invention of stone tools to be a defining characteristic of the genus, either, since the first tools might be associated with [I]Australopithecus garhi[/I] (Which they also talk about). [B]As for how stone tools demonstrate intelligence and cognition:[/B] Well, they do, just not in the same way that people think. Olduwan tools and this new tech could have been taught via simple observation. Chimpanzees teach their young to use tools in the same way and there's no reason this wouldn't be the same. But the tradeoff is that a lot of the resulting flakes are a bit more random, so they understood they'd be getting sharp flakes, but they have to take what they can get. [B]Later[/B] tool technology like Achulean ([I]Homo ergaster, Homo erectus[/I]) are different in that they have a more complex method of design, and essentially require a mental template: To do it, you have to know exactly what you want and you're not really improvising on the spot. This also potentially has ramifications for language, as you wouldn't be able to successfully teach your children this mental template without some sort of auditory communication. I think a lot of people have outdated assumptions about human evolution, but I think it'll change as more evidence comes forth. [B]As for people that don't know how they know it's a sign for stone tools:[/B] There are specific factors (residue, markings on the striking surface that suggest patterns of wear) that help archaeologists determine this, and what it was used for. If it was something that was thrown (Entirely unlikely), they would be able to tell, but you'd likely find that a thrown rock that size simply fractures, especially in terrain like that. They also mention that the rocks were used to subtract flakes. [B]The rocks themselves are not the tools, but the flakes that came off of them.[/B] Sorry, I have recent anthropology grad syndrome, I don't mean to keep schooling people.

[QUOTE=innerfire34;47785958]read some fuckin' books, folks, you can't get the same patterns that you get from using a rock as a tool/the process of sharpening it from throwing it or any other super creative theories you amateurs can come up with[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but I don't have much interest in reading the New York Times best seller [I]Rocks[/I] or subscribing to [I]The Weekly Rock[/I]

then i guess any uneducated opinion u formed about said rocks would hold little weight, huh? [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=itak365;47793057]The article is better researched than other popular science publications. It's already fairly known that Oldowan tool technology isn't strictly limited to the genus Homo, and you really shouldn't be using the invention of stone tools to be a defining characteristic of the genus, either, since the first tools might be associated with [I]Australopithecus garhi[/I] (Which they also talk about). [B]As for how stone tools demonstrate intelligence and cognition:[/B] Well, they do, just not in the same way that people think. Olduwan tools and this new tech could have been taught via simple observation. Chimpanzees teach their young to use tools in the same way and there's no reason this wouldn't be the same. But the tradeoff is that a lot of the resulting flakes are a bit more random, so they understood they'd be getting sharp flakes, but they have to take what they can get. [B]Later[/B] tool technology like Achulean ([I]Homo ergaster, Homo erectus[/I]) are different in that they have a more complex method of design, and essentially require a mental template: To do it, you have to know exactly what you want and you're not really improvising on the spot. This also potentially has ramifications for language, as you wouldn't be able to successfully teach your children this mental template without some sort of auditory communication. I think a lot of people have outdated assumptions about human evolution, but I think it'll change as more evidence comes forth. [B]As for people that don't know how they know it's a sign for stone tools:[/B] There are specific factors (residue, markings on the striking surface that suggest patterns of wear) that help archaeologists determine this, and what it was used for. If it was something that was thrown (Entirely unlikely), they would be able to tell, but you'd likely find that a thrown rock that size simply fractures, especially in terrain like that. They also mention that the rocks were used to subtract flakes. [B]The rocks themselves are not the tools, but the flakes that came off of them.[/B] Sorry, I have recent anthropology grad syndrome, I don't mean to keep schooling people.[/QUOTE] this is actually a very deep area of study and it's kind of hilarious how ignant and churlish these folks be

Paleoanthropology changes much more rapidly than other fields of anthropology because one discovery can potentially throw 20 other things into question, because the interpretations rest on the now out of date assumption. For example it was originally assumed that there was a straight-line descendancy between the famous australopithecines and the genus Homo, and we technically used higher brain capacity and tool use as major defining factors of the genus. However, now we understand that: A) There were many Pre-Homo hominins floating around Africa at the same time that weren't all directly related to the genus Homo. B) Tool Use may predate the genus entirely. C) The first traditional Homo species, [I]H. habilis[/I] has a smaller brain size relative to body size than some Australopithecines and features that some feel would otherwise classify it as an Australopithecine, while there are new Australopithecines that are very Homo-like. Even hominins being bipedal isn't enough anymore, as there are pre-hominin apes that have been discovered in North Africa and Europe that were bipedal but not considered hominins. The point is, this discovery is actually a pretty big deal, because now that we know that tool use isn't unique to early humans, figuring out where it actually came from is now the big question.

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;47785220]How about you go throw some rocks in a quarry and call some archaeologists. Tell us how that goes.[/QUOTE] is this going to be the next cubeman

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47782023]I'm sorry, but a chimps throwing rocks at eachother by a riverbed would have the same effect. I'm going to need more than "It is chipped it must be a tool" and "Look, those rocks look like they could be used as hammers!"[/QUOTE] Honestly most ancient tools look like rocks and are indistinguishable from rocks to the average joe so I forgive you for your ignorance.