https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248424001337
Abstract
The use of broad tool repertoires to increase
dietary flexibility through extractive foraging
behaviors is shared by humans and their closest
living relatives (chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes).
However, comparisons between tool use in ancient
human ancestors (hominins) and chimpanzees are
limited by differences in their toolkits. One
feature shared by primate and hominin toolkits
is rock selection based on physical properties
of the stones and the targets of foraging
behaviors. Here, we document the selectivity
patterns of stone tools used by wild chimpanzees
to crack nuts at Bossou, Guinea, through
controlled experiments that introduce rocks
unknown to this population. Experiments
incorporate specific rock types because previous
studies document hominin selection of these
lithologies at Kanjera South 2 Ma. We investigate
decisions made by chimpanzees when selecting
stones that vary in their mechanical propertiesrCo
features not directly visible to the individual.
Results indicate that the selection of anvils and
hammers is linked to task-specific mechanical
properties. Chimpanzees select harder stones for
hammers and softer stones for anvils, indicating
an understanding of specific properties for
distinct functions. Selectivity of rock types
suggests that chimpanzees assess the appropriate
materials for functions by discriminating these
rCyinvisiblerCO properties. Adults identify mechanical
properties through individual learning, and
juveniles often reused the tools selected by
adults. Selection of specific rock types may be
transmitted through the reuse of combinations of
rocks. These patterns of stone selection parallel
what is documented for Oldowan hominins. The
processes identified in this experiment provide
insights into the discrete nature of hominin rock
selection patterns in Plio-Pleistocene stone
artifact production.
On 30.12.2024. 7:52, Primum Sapienti wrote:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248424001337
Abstract
The use of broad tool repertoires to increase
dietary flexibility through extractive foraging
behaviors is shared by humans and their closest
living relatives (chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes).
However, comparisons between tool use in ancient
human ancestors (hominins) and chimpanzees are
limited by differences in their toolkits. One
feature shared by primate and hominin toolkits
is rock selection based on physical properties
of the stones and the targets of foraging
behaviors. Here, we document the selectivity
patterns of stone tools used by wild chimpanzees
to crack nuts at Bossou, Guinea, through
controlled experiments that introduce rocks
unknown to this population. Experiments
incorporate specific rock types because previous
studies document hominin selection of these
lithologies at Kanjera South 2 Ma. We investigate
decisions made by chimpanzees when selecting
stones that vary in their mechanical propertiesrCo
features not directly visible to the individual.
Results indicate that the selection of anvils and
hammers is linked to task-specific mechanical
properties. Chimpanzees select harder stones for
hammers and softer stones for anvils, indicating
an understanding of specific properties for
distinct functions. Selectivity of rock types
suggests that chimpanzees assess the appropriate
materials for functions by discriminating these
rCyinvisiblerCO properties. Adults identify mechanical
properties through individual learning, and
juveniles often reused the tools selected by
adults. Selection of specific rock types may be
transmitted through the reuse of combinations of
rocks. These patterns of stone selection parallel
what is documented for Oldowan hominins. The
processes identified in this experiment provide
insights into the discrete nature of hominin rock
selection patterns in Plio-Pleistocene stone
artifact production.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a This doesn't talk about "stone selection", this talks about *selection*. If you encounter a left turn while driving a car, will you
turn left, turn right, or continue straight? Humans will turn left. If a chimp turns left, does it "follows a human pattern", or he is not
following any sh.t, but he is simply using his intelligence?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a This abstract says that there was no "divine spark" that hit humans in the past. Hm, interestingly, few papers recently talks about exactly this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Interestingly, this automatically refutes this silly, Vatican
produced, genetic mutation theory. There was *no* (single) "mutation"
that made humans.
On 12/30/24 4:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Interestingly, this automatically refutes this silly, Vatican
produced, genetic mutation theory. There was *no* (single) "mutation"
that made humans.
Could you cite anyone with an education beyond the 3rd grade that
claims there was?
On 30.12.2024. 22:14, JTEM wrote:
On 12/30/24 4:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Interestingly, this automatically refutes this silly,
Vatican produced, genetic mutation theory. There was *no* (single)
"mutation" that made humans.
Could you cite anyone with an education beyond the 3rd grade that
claims there was?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Please, for god sake. For decades scientists are searching for
this event which made us what we are.
Aren't they searching for Eve and
Adam?
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
On 30.12.2024. 22:14, JTEM wrote:
On 12/30/24 4:41 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Interestingly, this automatically refutes this silly, >>>> Vatican produced, genetic mutation theory. There was *no* (single)
"mutation" that made humans.
Could you cite anyone with an education beyond the 3rd grade that
claims there was?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Please, for god sake. For decades scientists are searching >> for this event which made us what we are.
Not that I'm aware of.
Aren't they searching for Eve and Adam?
There has been a number of excessively flawed studies claiming to be
looking for/finding Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam, yes. But
it's a stretch to say that they are the first human.
The first humans, according to current science, were habilis and they
lived millions of years before this "Adam" or "Eve."
This so called "Eve" was placed at 100k to 200k years old, and given
that molecular clock dating exaggerates ages it had to be a lot
younger than that. These days aren't capable of pinpointing a single
time or place or population.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Ok. Now explain to me *why* they are searching for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam if they are not important (like
you are saying)?
https://youtu.be/TCznX6qoSNQ?si=pGYQyPK3HFOgVT0W--
On 12/31/24 1:09 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Ok. Now explain to me *why* they are searching for
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam if they are not important
(like you are saying)?
Stupidity.
DNA simply does not work the way most people believe it does,
and all of the media represents it as working.
Most of these studies, and ALL of the earliest ones, assume
that mtDNA is NOT under selection.
There is no selective pressures on mtDNA, according to them.
This is how they exaggerate age so badly. They pretend it can
only ever "Evolve" (change) and the exact same clock like rate.
Which is idiocy.
Secondly, they pretend that is Y-Chromosome or mtDNA from a
given population can no longer be found in living humans than
nobody from that population has any surviving descendants.
Idiocy.
As I've pointed out countless times, to no avail, the LM3 or
Chromosome-11 Insert is *Way* older than any so called "Eve,"
BILLIONS of living humans can directly trace their lineage to
this LM3 population and we would have no idea that they ever
even existed if it weren't for a lucky mutation moving DNA
from the mtDNA to the nuclear DNA.
Absent that mutation and nobody could believe that this vastly
more ancient than mtDNA "Eve" population even existed, much
less has BILLION of living descendants...
This is LINEAR thinking and LINEAR modeling, and I've spent
most of my time here preaching against it...
https://youtu.be/TCznX6qoSNQ?si=pGYQyPK3HFOgVT0W
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I wrote something along these lines some 10 years ago, but it
doesn't matter, it is your red herring. I said that people were
searching for Adam and Eve, you said that they weren't, and now you are writing that they were,
On 12/31/24 10:56 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I wrote something along these lines some 10 years ago, but it
doesn't matter, it is your red herring. I said that people were
searching for Adam and Eve, you said that they weren't, and now you
are writing that they were,
No, I said that they are searching Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome
Adam. But, these are always understood to NOT be the first human.
"The most recent common ancestor" is how they put it.
AND THEN misunderstand everything from there...
"Most Recent Common Ancestor" is NOT the first human.
I honestly don't think you wrote what I typed, because nobody could misunderstand things as badly as you claim to do here...
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Jesus, they were claiming that something magical happened 300
kya,
which produced "spiritual" humans. You know, red ochre, and all
this.
So, we all, today's humans, which are "spiritual", because we
have, like, religion, are descendants from those Adan and Eve, who were, suddenly, hit by the "divine spark" 300 kya.
On 1/1/25 5:26 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Jesus, they were claiming that something magical happened 300
kya,
That's not science, that's WokeTardia. Out of Africa purity fell apart,
they found Hss features in Asia before they should have ever arrived so
they just decided to call something "Modern" even though it clearly is
not.
They've done worse, even more obviously fake... like Naledi's burial inscriptions, fires and whatnot...
which produced "spiritual" humans. You know, red ochre, and all this.
That was found in Europe and attributed to Heidelberg Man.
So, we all, today's humans, which are "spiritual", because we have,
like, religion, are descendants from those Adan and Eve, who were,
suddenly, hit by the "divine spark" 300 kya.
It's about "Symbolic thinking."
Which, personally, *I* would argue is what modern humans modern...
Evidence for religious beliefs, spirituality is always evidence for
symbolic thinking. That's why it's so important.
Many times I've had turkeys come after me, looking for a handout.
This is a sign of intelligence, recognizing me, remembering that
they had gotten some cracked corn from me. But if I showed the
turkeys a model of the street and pointed out where I had just
dropped a pile of cracked corn, they're never ever going to figure
it out.
On 2.1.2025. 8:21, JTEM wrote:
On 1/1/25 5:26 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Jesus, they were claiming that something magical happened >>> 300 kya,
That's not science, that's WokeTardia. Out of Africa purity fell apart,
they found Hss features in Asia before they should have ever arrived so
they just decided to call something "Modern" even though it clearly is
not.
They've done worse, even more obviously fake... like Naledi's burial
inscriptions, fires and whatnot...
which produced "spiritual" humans. You know, red ochre, and all this.
That was found in Europe and attributed to Heidelberg Man.
So, we all, today's humans, which are "spiritual", because we have,
like, religion, are descendants from those Adan and Eve, who were,
suddenly, hit by the "divine spark" 300 kya.
It's about "Symbolic thinking."
Which, personally, *I* would argue is what modern humans modern...
Evidence for religious beliefs, spirituality is always evidence for
symbolic thinking. That's why it's so important.
Many times I've had turkeys come after me, looking for a handout.
This is a sign of intelligence, recognizing me, remembering that
they had gotten some cracked corn from me. But if I showed the
turkeys a model of the street and pointed out where I had just
dropped a pile of cracked corn, they're never ever going to figure
it out.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, street doesn't look the same from your height and from
turkey's height. Turkeys do fly if attacked, but it is questionable if
they are looking at anything in those moments, or are they, simply,
trying to save themselves, and are watching for some other clues.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a It were those first tests that they give to kids in kindergarten. One of those is, they show to the kids cubes of different sizes, and different colors, and they ask them which one is the biggest.
And all the kids point to the cube of the same color (I believe it is a
red color, but I don't recall exactly which color). I was the one who pointed to the biggest cube. A lady told me that other kids point to the (red) cube. I did understand the concept of being "big", while other
kids didn't.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Few years later they gave us (the kids in kindergarten) watercolor paint. All the kids painted simple (wire-like) houses, cars,
and people, I painted upper half in dark blue, and lower half in dark
green. Lady asked me, what did I paint, I said that it is dark clouds
coming over the hill. She said that she doesn't see clouds there, I said that I am still little, so I don't know how to paint clouds. She asked
me, if there is a hill like that near my house. I said that actually
there is, but it can be *any* hill. She was very surprised with that
answer, this is a case of symbolic thinking in a kid in kindergarten.
Later they grouped me in a group of talented kids. On every intelligence test that I attended I was the best in a group. So, I am an expert in symbolic thinking. Trust me, "symbolic' thinking isn't a product of a "divine spark" which hit Adam and Eve, this isn't one magical moment in
our past, this isn't one special mutation, animals have it too.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a See, you are doing exactly the same like those whom you are calling a fools, and WokeTardia. Believing in God in 21st century isn't
a proof of symbolic thinking, it is a proof of stupidity. Whoever claims that humans ground hematite so that they paint their skin, instead of
using sharp (ground) hematite for some practical purpose, is an idiot,
if people ground hematite to paint skin, and not to sharpen hematite,
they weren't some uber beings, they were idiots.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, street doesn't look the same from your height and from
turkey's height. Turkeys do fly if attacked, but it is questionable if
they are looking at anything in those moments, or are they, simply,
trying to save themselves, and are watching for some other clues.
Trust me, "symbolic' thinking isn't a product of a
"divine spark" which hit Adam and Eve, this isn't one magical moment in
our past, this isn't one special mutation, animals have it too.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a See, you are doing exactly the same like those whom you are calling a fools, and WokeTardia. Believing in God in 21st century isn't--
a proof of symbolic thinking, it is a proof of stupidity. Whoever claims that humans ground hematite so that they paint their skin, instead of
using sharp (ground) hematite for some practical purpose, is an idiot,
if people ground hematite to paint skin, and not to sharpen hematite,
they weren't some uber beings, they were idiots.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a BTW, humans have language. Each word is a symbol for something.
This is your "symbolic thinking". And people developed this for many millions of years.
Animals have some mental abilities humans can only
dream to have.
On 1/2/25 6:05 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, street doesn't look the same from your height and from
turkey's height. Turkeys do fly if attacked, but it is questionable if
they are looking at anything in those moments, or are they, simply,
trying to save themselves, and are watching for some other clues.
When turkeys puff up like the classic depiction of Thanksgiving tom
turkey, that's dominance/aggression. That's also when they "Gobble."
If they do that to you, best take some steps back. That was a poor guy
on the news here, standing on a car, as an aggressive tom tried to
get at him...
When turkeys feel threatened, they spread their wings, probably give
them a flap. This is instinctual. The same turkey can run at you,
looking for food, and STILL do the wing thing when anything catches
them the lest bit by surprised...
The wing thing is to prepare to take off, escape danger...
Know how smart they can be?-a I kept the cracked corn in a bag in
the back seat of the car. And those bastard turkeys know this!
Sometimes they'd beat me to the door!-a But if they do I always go
around to the other side to avoid any defensive actions form them.
Again, they have some intelligence, but zero symbolic thinking.
Trust me, "symbolic' thinking isn't a product of a "divine spark"
which hit Adam and Eve, this isn't one magical moment in our past,
this isn't one special mutation, animals have it too.
No. Lots of animals lack it. Very young children lack "Symbolic
thought." It's the difference between animal intelligence and
human intelligence.
Upright walking, from fossil records, goes back about 7 million
years and likely longer. But humans -- Homo -- go back less than
three. Upright walking is not a "Human" trait, it's a vestigial
trait. But symbolic thinking belonged only to humans, and only to
a subset of humans -- MODERN humans?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a See, you are doing exactly the same like those whom you are
calling a fools, and WokeTardia. Believing in God in 21st century
isn't a proof of symbolic thinking, it is a proof of stupidity.
Whoever claims that humans ground hematite so that they paint their
skin, instead of using sharp (ground) hematite for some practical
purpose, is an idiot, if people ground hematite to paint skin, and not
to sharpen hematite, they weren't some uber beings, they were idiots.
On 1/2/25 7:18 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a BTW, humans have language. Each word is a symbol for
something. This is your "symbolic thinking". And people developed this
for many millions of years.
No. Currently, as defined, humans-a /Maybe/-a go back about 3 million years... 2.5 million... a little less.
Animals have some mental abilities humans can only dream to have.
No.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a A lot of animals have "alarm call", when they see predator. "Alarm call" is a symbol for predator.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 3 million years ago Homo had tools while Australopithecus didn't have it.
This points out that Homo had far better vocal
communication that Australopithecus, because Homo got Australopithecus extinct in Australopithecus' territory.
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a A lot of animals have "alarm call", when they see predator.
"Alarm call" is a symbol for predator.
No it isn't. You're just making stuff up.
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 3 million years ago Homo had tools while Australopithecus >> didn't have it.
Please cite this 3 million year old Homo.
Instead, what most seem to believe is that the evidence for
tool use can be associated with australopithecus.
This is secondary or indirect evidence, such as what is reported
to be cut marks.
This points out that Homo had far better vocal communication that
Australopithecus, because Homo got Australopithecus extinct in
Australopithecus' territory.
They appear to have not gone extinct and to instead have
survived until about 300k years ago AND LESS:
Naledi.
On 4.1.2025. 7:29, JTEM wrote:
-a-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a A lot of animals have "alarm call", when they see predator.
"Alarm call" is a symbol for predator.
No it isn't. You're just making stuff up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Well, this is
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Now you are inventing things. Homo is frequently associated with stone tools, Australopithecus isn't.
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.1.2025. 7:29, JTEM wrote:
-a-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a A lot of animals have "alarm call", when they see predator.
"Alarm call" is a symbol for predator.
No it isn't. You're just making stuff up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Well, this is
You seem to be admitting that you were trolling, hence the
random and stupid "Cites."
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, you don't know the basic things
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Second, you are stupid
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, you don't know the basic things
You mean like how old tool use is compared to how far back
Homo is dated? Because I do know that, and you got it wrong.
Pardon me while I laugh at you...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Second, you are stupid
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
THIS, from the troll who has no idea that tools go back
further than we date Homo?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, who says that Kenyanthropus isn't ancestor of Homo.
Second, since you need really special conditions to preserve bones, and
you don't need any conditions to preserve stone tools, it is the
simplest possible logic (which you are unable to do) that the stone tool
of Homo will preserve better than the bones of Homo.
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, who says that Kenyanthropus isn't ancestor of Homo.
First, Australopithecus is considered an ancestor of Homo under
current conventions. I personally like the good Doctor's model
where it's not but, under current conventions it is thought of
as an ancestor.
Second, an ancestor of Homo isn't Homo.
This brings us full circle:-a Evidence for tool use extends back
further than Homo and you didn't know this.
Second, since you need really special conditions to preserve bones,
and you don't need any conditions to preserve stone tools, it is the
simplest possible logic (which you are unable to do) that the stone
tool of Homo will preserve better than the bones of Homo.
Ironically, the best evidence for pre Homo tool use is cut marks
on bones.
Wow. You're doing-a /Terrible/-a here.
On 6.1.2025. 19:36, JTEM wrote:Aw, there'll be no posts at all without you 2 bantering.
aMario Petrinovic wrote:
aaaaaaaa First, who says that Kenyanthropus isn't ancestor of Homo.
First, Australopithecus is considered an ancestor of Homo under
current conventions. I personally like the good Doctor's model
where it's not but, under current conventions it is thought of
as an ancestor.
Second, an ancestor of Homo isn't Homo.
This brings us full circle:a Evidence for tool use extends back
further than Homo and you didn't know this.
Second, since you need really special conditions to preserve bones,
and you don't need any conditions to preserve stone tools, it is the
simplest possible logic (which you are unable to do) that the stone
tool of Homo will preserve better than the bones of Homo.
Ironically, the best evidence for pre Homo tool use is cut marks
on bones.
Wow. You're doinga /Terrible/a here.
You are a lying Catholic patrol, this is your function on this forum,
to make a mess. I have enough of you, you are in my killfile.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 19:37:29 +0100
Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
On 6.1.2025. 19:36, JTEM wrote:
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a First, who says that Kenyanthropus isn't ancestor of Homo.
First, Australopithecus is considered an ancestor of Homo under
current conventions. I personally like the good Doctor's model
where it's not but, under current conventions it is thought of
as an ancestor.
Second, an ancestor of Homo isn't Homo.
This brings us full circle:-a Evidence for tool use extends back
further than Homo and you didn't know this.
Second, since you need really special conditions to preserve bones,
and you don't need any conditions to preserve stone tools, it is the
simplest possible logic (which you are unable to do) that the stone
tool of Homo will preserve better than the bones of Homo.
Ironically, the best evidence for pre Homo tool use is cut marks
on bones.
Wow. You're doing-a /Terrible/-a here.
You are a lying Catholic patrol, this is your function on this forum,
to make a mess. I have enough of you, you are in my killfile.
Aw, there'll be no posts at all without you 2 bantering.
Ironically, the best evidence for pre Homo tool use is cut marks
on bones.
Wow. You're doing-a /Terrible/-a here.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You are a lying Catholic patrol, this is your function on this
forum, to make a mess. I have enough of you, you are in my killfile.
Aw, there'll be no posts at all without you 2 bantering.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:15:05 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (11,196K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,448 |