4 ms·

I'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

by gumby 3y ago

I'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 ago
Didn'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 ago
  Edit: 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 That belief is an outdated one from people who were too anthropocentric and didn't spend enough time with animals.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 ago
    Making tools, such as bending wire to make a hook in this case, is distinct from just using found objects.
    - solardev 3y ago
      Yep, 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 ago
        I'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 ago
  My god man. Do not be teaching crows metallurgy. You're a species traitor.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
svnt 3y ago
You’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 ago
  I 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 ago
The 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]

by gumby 3y ago

adr1an 3y ago

Didn'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 ago
Edit: 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 ago
  Making tools, such as bending wire to make a hook in this case, is distinct from just using found objects.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Yep, 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 ago
      I'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 ago
My god man. Do not be teaching crows metallurgy. You're a species traitor.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

svnt 3y ago

You’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 ago
I 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 ago

The 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]