6 ms·
All the hominins made tools
- gumby 3y agoI'm not sure what point is being made here. The article says that we evolved from pre-hominid primate species that used tools (there are non-hominid toolmaking species as well), which I don't think anybody disputes, and doesn't appear to be claiming that that is novel either. Is the claim that no hominid is known the have given up tool making? That's a hard claim to make (no evidence of absence and so on), and anyway seems like a circular definitional argument (an "only true scotsman" if you will). The central chart is interesting, but to my (note: non-paleontologist!) eye hardly "striking". Feels like the opposite would be more interesting, though again, hard to be persuasive. Am I missing something important here? Again, I'm no expert.
- adr1an 3y agoDidn't read the article, I was hoping it was a gallery with a time line. Anyway, look for New Caledonian Crows, they make tools (bended hooks). It's the only non primate species that does. Supposedly, to make a tool you have a super accurate model representation in your head on what you want to achieve while elaborating such tool. That is awesome.
- fuzzfactor 3y ago>All the hominins made tools I've seen a few fail no matter how hard they try. Sometimes even at the initial conceptualization, so not all hominids are as smart as they think.
- solardev 3y agoEdit: Sorry, parent post said "create" tools, not "use". That is less common, and depends on what you consider "creation". ------ I love crows, but it is not true they're the only non primates able to use tools. Many animals do! Otters, octopuses, other birds, some fish, etc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_non-humans?wprov=s... That belief is an outdated one from people who were too anthropocentric and didn't spend enough time with animals.
- simonh 3y agoMaking tools, such as bending wire to make a hook in this case, is distinct from just using found objects.
- solardev 3y agoYep, that's a distinction the OP made I didn't catch at first, and only subsequently corrected my comment. Even then, however, elephants have been known to modify branches (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-10036-002 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-10036-002), other birds in the same family (corvids) can manipulate wires similarly to the crows (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0901008106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0901008106), dolphins can use shells in non-obvious ways (https://www.wired.com/2011/08/dolphin-fishing/ https://www.wired.com/2011/08/dolphin-fishing/), etc. There are probably more out there that we just never noticed... and it's probably also a matter of degree and circumstance.
- simonh 3y agoI'm not surprised, brains are incredible, even tiny ones in organisms like insects. Is a bird's nest a tool? There's a continuum all the way up from ant nests to rocket ships.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoMy god man. Do not be teaching crows metallurgy. You're a species traitor.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- svnt 3y agoYou’re not missing much, maybe just an implicit and aging position in the field. People have made the argument (in the long line of “this is what makes humans unique” arguments) that our consistent use of technology is what separates us from other animals. In order to do so they’ve tried to argue that other early primates or hominins apparently outside the human lineage did not. It has been clear for some time to most reasonable observers that this is not the case. This is just more data that tool use and tool-making are more broadly distributed than the anthropocentrically-fixated would like to admit.
- dmix 3y agoI looked at some of their examples, such as " accumulative stone throwing" [1] and I don't get how this is a good example of "tool use". It seems like a very thin definition of the term. Maybe I don't understand anthropology and this is and any use of tools at all is bigger deal than it seems. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVv3IUGPDK8&t=209s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVv3IUGPDK8&t=209s
- wolverine876 3y agoThe subheading says: A study of associations between stone tool evidence and fossil hominin remains shows that a wide range of species made stone artifacts. Perhaps in the context of the field, the hypothesis is more clear. Also, does "study" refer to a particular published study that the author is reviewing, or to this blog post?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aosmith 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Dudester230602 3y agoDevelopers I have met rarely if ever make tools... Maybe they are more like cache-making rodents?
- lpapez 3y agoUnless you are truly pushing the envelope of tooling development, I consider learning to use an existing tool well far more important than inventing a new one. The developer tooling has become so complex that it takes a truly exceptional individual to build a tool on their own, and the vast majority of tools are built by teams of people. That is why you rarely meet developers who build their own tools, it's a often futile effort usually better spent elsewhere. In fact I would go on to say that in my personal view people who do roll their own tooling usually do so due either to ignorance of existing tools or as a fun little side-project. Woe be to those who push their opinionated tools onto their teammates...
- Swizec 3y agoEvery abstraction is a tool that we build for ourselves. If you’re not building those, wtf are you even doing? Please assume the lowest possible bar for “abstraction” in my argument. A function that calls 2 other functions is an abstraction.
- hyperthesis 3y agoTrue. But the quality of an abstraction is also significant. A poor abstraction is costly in complexity. In a chain of tools, even modest complexity multiplies, and quickly becomes unmanagable. Whereas a clean abstraction (ideally) resets complexity to zero.
- OJFord 3y agoIf someone shows you how to take a stick and a stone and make a hammer, and you imitate, you're certainly not 'pushing the envelope of tooling development', but you're still making a tool. As the most prevalent & familiar here modern example, I'd suggest writing to .bashrc & using ssh-keygen are 'making tools' in the relevant sense.
- bediger4000 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sebastiennight 3y agoWhat is most striking to me about this article is the level of fallacy in reasoning that's exhibited throughout this entire scientific debate: - Well they had small brains, so there's no way they were the toolmakers - We found lots of remains of Australopithecus here, and usually there are very few remains of the toolmaking species, so obviously, Australopithecus is not the toolmaker It seems remarkable how much of the whole scientific edifice described in the article is pure conjecture with little in the way of "actual discoverable/provable truth". I can see how this field must be so fascinating and keep someone's fascination going for a lifetime.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoThink about it like this: Anthropology is trying to answer questions about things that either aren’t measurable, or only measurable by proxies. Otherwise it’s “history” - being basically every data that is recorded directly from the source or with few proxies This really messes with epistemological reasoning chains and strength of “proof” that can be made from proxy data You can’t build an a/b test or experimental process or define a study population for questions like: “what happened in 15000BC” “Why did humans develop language” Etc… That’s not to say you can’t have very strong conclusions, but just think of the predictive power of keplers equations compared to the process of specieation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- calamari4065 3y agoTangential nit: is 'hominin' actually correct? I thought the term was 'hominid'
- tryphiodorus 3y agoHominin and hominid are both valid terms; hominid is broader, and includes all the Great Apes, in addition to modern humans and their ancestors. (Although apparently hominid used to mean what hominin now means, according to https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference/ https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/homi....)
- Baeocystin 3y agoHominid = all great apes Hominin = species related to humans after the split from proto-chimps IIRC.
- supermatt 3y agoAll hominins are hominids, but not all hominids are hominins.