Chimps Used Simple Tools 5 Million Years Ago

David_Bloom writes: "Evidence that chimps have been using simple tools over 500 million years ago has been unveiled by an archeological dig in West Africa. Tragically, it will probably be another 500 million years before my mom figures out how to use the simple Windows taskbar. [sigh]" Update: 05/23 22:45 GMT by T : Actually, as the linked article really says, that should be five million, rather than 500 million.

Comments

500 = 5

[rw2]

But you were only off by a factor of 100. Probably and astrophysicist, eh?

By any chance...

[Snafoo]

By any chance, is your Mom named 'Lucy'?

Too Bad

[erasmus_]

It's too bad most of the Slashdot crowd is so progressive. This is one of those perfect articles to get into flame wars about whether or not evolution really happened. And how every thing that seems to contradict the Biblical version of time is placed on this earth as "a test of faith."

Regardless, this is clearly fascinating. Although in my mind it raises the question of why that species has not advanced significantly more in all this time. I realize the article states that the researchers will look for differences in modern behavior, but my guess is that their methods are still basically the same.

Which I guess is good for us, as who wants super-monkeys taking away all of our jobs. Although if they could just comment their code, I might give them a shot.

Re: Too Bad

[Black Parrot]

> What I see is that AC agrees that there is natural selection and genetic mutations, but that these mutations never lead to an increase in genetic information.

And are we to suppose that AC has ever actually measured the information in a parent and offspring to see what the difference is?

Or even has a rigorous definition for 'information' in the context of inheritance?

Re: Too Bad

[Black Parrot]

> Gentry's halos have been attacked time and time again

I presume it's a waste of time arguing with you, but any lurkers who don't want to be led astry might want to read this explanation.

Re: Too Bad

[Black Parrot]

> I have not personally measured the number of base pairs; very few have I'm sure.

If you're equating "the number of base pairs" with "information" then your argument is lost before you start, because we know that the number of base pairs can increase or decrease between parent and child.

> However evolutionists are the ones claiming that you can get something from nothing; it's up to you/them to come up with examples, it's not up to me to dance for you.

Actually, the theory of evolution is just the invocation of known facts to explain known facts. It is beyond argument that species have changed over time, and modern genetics gives us an explanation for how this happens. Creationists don't like this and so they incorrectly invoke the second law of thermodynamics or make up their own "fourth law of thermodynamics" to 'prove' that the biological explanation is wrong.

It is quite clear that children differ from their parents. Is this a change in 'information'? Who knows; creationists generally avoid defining their terms, because they always find themselves shown wrong when they do.

Do we "gest something from nothing" when a snowflake forms? Until you can answer that quantitatively then you should recognize that you're talking out your ass. (Or rather, echoing what came out of some creationist leader's ass.)

Re: Too Bad

[Black Parrot]

> t's too bad most of the Slashdot crowd is so progressive. This is one of those perfect articles to get into flame wars about whether or not evolution really happened.

I'm curious why you use the word "progressive" in this regard. The issue isn't progressive ideas vs. others, but rather whether you are going to let your views on the history of the world be guided by the evidence. This hardly strikes me as a "progressive" viewpoint, since the basic issue was resolved by all but the religion-dominated somewhere around 200-300 years ago.

Also, re -

> ...whether or not evolution really happened.

That evolution happened is beyond doubt, since the fossil record very clearly shows that the collection of species inhabiting the earth varies greatly over time, at least on geological timescales. The only thing open to rational discussion is what the mechanism for the changes was, not whether the the changes happened.

It happens that we have a theory that appears to explain that mechanism very well, to the point of making predictions about what you'll see if you go down to the lab and do some gene sequencing tomorrow. Some people object to that theory because it contradicts their religious beliefs, and it is commonly believed that others object to it due to a peculiar political ideology (namely that religion-as-opiate-of-masses is a good thing), but neither party has actually done any science that calls the current theory into question. So they resort to bogus pseudo-scientific claims, handwave arguments, misrepresentation of facts, mendacity (e.g., carven human footprints at Paluxy), attempts to poison the well by undercutting the public's trust of science in general, attempts to misportray their ancient mythology as science, attempts to bring science down into the gutter with their own beliefs by labelling it as a mere philosophy or even a religion, and sometimes to arguments that are so truly loopy that it is often commented that creationism is impossible to parody.

But something is needed to explain the changes to the species over time, and right now the only available explanations are the theory of evolution and magic. And the only theory constrained by the facts is the theory of evolution.

Re: Too Bad

[Black Parrot]

> And if evolution were to be true, why would one species (us) "evolve" into intelligence and one that had the nascent beginnings just stagnate for vast amounts of time?

Once a population splits the theory of evolution does not predict that they will evolve in parallel -- all the more if they move into distinct environments or adopt distinct lifestyles.

Also, don't underrate the intelligence of chimps. I suspect that an objective measure would put them a lot closer to the intelligence of humans than to the intelligence of, say, snails.

How does one know that a rock is a tool?

[BusterB]

I know that they found these rock fragments concentrated around trees, but how does that mean that they were being used as tools? I can use a rock to break open a pecan, but when I put it down, does it suddenly look like a tool? Would someone be able to pick up that rock later and say 'hmm..looks like someone cracked a pecan with this one.' You can call it a 'tool fragment', but come on, these are rocks around a tree. Apes could have been eating them and pooping around trees, for all we know.

Re:How does one know that a rock is a tool?

[americanFatCat]

I think it usually has to do with the way the rocks have been shaped. Then again, I'm not a paleontologist, neither are you. They would know the answers. they don't get funding for nothing. Your comment is like saying, "I can't divide. therefore, division can't be done."

Re:How does one know that a rock is a tool?

[flewp]

BBC Article URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2 006000/2006309.stm (I use it as a reference in this post)

Well, they found pits in the rocks that indicate they've been used repeatedly (perhaps for generations) for the same purpose. Using another object for a specific task repeatedly is a tool, no? Okay, so that's not the exact definition of a tool, but it sure fits the criteria for a tool if you ask me. The stones also took a degree of skill to use, and could take 7 years to master. Hit it too hard, and you smash the inside of the nut, hit it too soft, and you still get nothing. So it's not a matter of just smashing things with a rock. The younger chimps apparently practice too as well, using smaller rocks. One thing they haven't done though, is create tools of different shapes and sizes.
Yeah, they could be eating and pooping them out, but the rocks weighed 15 kilograms.

Re:How does one know that a rock is a tool?

[teamhasnoi]

I saw 'The Scorpion King'. The Rock is a Tool.

From the article

[ynotds]

at the close of what is known as the Miocene era, when Ice Age conditions cooled the planet

Any paleontologist worth their salt will be so familiar with the stratigraphic boundaries between the various geological epochs, including the Miocene, that they aren't going to think to give their dating a special mention, especially not in a CNN one page summary.