Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA02118 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 28 May 2002 11:24:15 +0100 Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FD11@fillan.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Report: chimps used simple tools 5 million years ago Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:52:19 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
<Did they have to actually modify the stones for these objects to
> tools? Can't the chimps be given credit for at least using some sort of
> implement/tool as a means to an end, not unlike we humans? If this find
> stands up to scrutiny, I'm sure there will be those who will still
> to keep humans within the charmed circle. The thought of chimps from way
> back when doing humanesque things might be unnerving to someone of the
> special creation mindset, not to mention their phylogenetic proximity to
> It's better to ignore such information, lest dissonance rear its ugly head
It's not the thought of chimp tool use that bothers me, I have no
problem with that, indeed think it's both fascinating and adds to the
arguments for evolution (indeed, arguably for cultural evolution). Nor do I
think tools need to be modified objects. Indeed, it would be a very
interesting thing to find our relatives tool using a long time ago.
All that bothers me is how do you tell an unmodified stone tool on
the ground from millions of years ago from just another stone on the ground?
I'm sure there are clear disciplinary ways of inferring this, I just don't
see how one can claim this with any high level of accuracy. From the
description in the piece posted to the list it sounds like they inferred
this from the proximity of a number of stones shaped a certain way, near a
Let me put it another way, if a number of flattened stones were
found near a dinosaur skeleton, would one assume that the dinosaur used
tools, or that environmental forces, or coincidence over millions of years
resulted in the stones being nearby?
I'm probably disparaging months of analysis and considered reasoning
by experts in a totally obtuse and unfair manner, it just strikes me as a
bit of conjecture very difficult to demonstrate with any veracity.
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 28 2002 - 11:48:58 BST