Chimps, fake tools and fake science

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

Background:

Organic matter recomposes. In the wrong
environment, organic matter can have as
little as a zero percent chance of ever
being preserved, becoming fossilized. But,
what about rocks?

Rocks are far more likely to be preserved,
even in environments/soils that exclude
fossilization. As such, we find them. We
find lots of them. Some people even claim
to find human stone tools by the billions.

Not millions, billions.

But, no chimp tools.

Chimps are claimed to use tools, but they
left behind ZERO.

So, because paleoanthropology is only
interested in preserving the status quo,
not science, they had to fill the six million
year old gap, the one which should be bristling
with chimp tools, and they did so. Sort of.

Almost.

Well, not quite...




Burkhard wrote:

> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > Show me 500,000 year old chimp tools.
> >
> > You can't. So you're wrong. Period.

Wow, I ask for 500,000 year old Chimp tools
and this moron gives me little stone flakes
that aren't even a tenth that old, and likely
aren't even chimp in origin...

> http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/full/news070212-1.html

From the cite:

: "The type of starch on the pounding tools was
: nearly all from nuts that are eaten by chimps
: and not by humans," says Barton.

Panda nuts, identified by the story, *Are* eaten
by humans. Google it, for crying out loud! STOP
being such a religious twat BELIEVING in his
gospel, his written word, and check things out
for yourself... moron.

http://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Panda+oleosa

There. Humans can & do exploit the nuts in
question. Period.

Put short: A good argument can be made that
whatever was found was left by humans, IF left
behind by a living being and not simply a
geofact.

But what was found?

You're pretending that they found tools. But what
precisely was found?

I quote:

: Julio Mercader from the University of Calgary
: in Canada and his colleagues dated the flakes
: of rock that they found by studying radioactive
: elements preserved in the soils.

So they found flakes of rocks. Not rocks but flakes
of rocks.

Are these flakes the tools? Or did these flakes
fly off of a supposed tool? Or is this all an
enormous load of bullshit?

So we have something that isn't a tool, that can't
be used the way they state rocks are used by chimps
AND it's associated with a species of plant food
known to be exploited by man... but you definitively
state that these are chimp "Tools" AND that despite
them being YOUNGER than the temples of Malta, YOUNGER
than Otzi the ice man found in the Alps, YOUNGER than
the pyramids and roughly the same age or younger than
Stonehenge it somehow manages to fill in your claimed
6,000,000 year gap of missing chimp tools.

Wow, "Science."




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164591536375