Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA02552 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 28 May 2002 16:33:18 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [188.8.131.52] From: "Grant Callaghan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: RE: Report: chimps used simple tools 5 million years ago Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:27:11 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F84wskYAHKqpTh0000d356@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2002 15:27:11.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[23429840:01C2065C] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
How about if the stones were found around a stump amid the remains of nut
shells near a few dino skeletons?
> <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
> > struggle
> > 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
> > us.
> > It's better to ignore such information, lest dissonance rear its ugly
> > ;-)>
> 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
>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
>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.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 28 2002 - 16:51:58 BST