On 18.11.2021. 10:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 4:59:14 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 17.11.2021. 22:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 1:29:22 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 17.11.2021. 8:02,
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Only imbeciles believe their ancestors could never have slept on water.
>>>>>
>>>>> On topic:
>>>>>
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111154244.htm
>>>>> It's well possible that tool use & speech co-evolved (late-Pleistocene?):
>>>>> both find their origin partly in our Pleistocene shellfish-diving past:
>>>>> -stone tool use for opening shells, cf sea-otters,
>>>>> -voluntary breathing for shallow-diving,
>>>>> -large brain thanks to seafood, e.g. DHA,
>>>>> -lip-tongue-throat movemensts for suction feeding.
>>>>> Google
>>>>> "speech language origins PPT verhaegen".
>>>> Stone tools have sharp edge. This is like broken shellfish.
>
> Not so sharp. Conchoidal fracture of flint is much sharper than broken clam.
Just the other way around, every shellfish, broken on any way, is very
sharp. On the other hand, from my experience, the flint that yo can find
in nature isn't very sharp. I wouldn't say that you encounter a lot of
conchoidally fractured flint in nature. And even if there is one around,
why would you have it in your hand? On the other hand, if you are eating
shellfish, you handle sharp broken shellfish all the time, and they are
in your hands.
Your objection is very nice example of how somebody can be biased in
his interpretation of nature. You completely ignored the obvious, and
you extremely emphasized some sideway thing.
> So, the
>>>> main thing in stone tools isn't to be used as a hammer. Stone (unmade,
>>>> raw) can be used as a hammer, you don't need stone tool for that. Stone
>>>> tools are made to be used as a cutting device.
>>>> The paradox is that for cutting (sharp edge), you need to have sharp
>>>> edge. So, the idea originated in the usage of sharp edges. But, the
>>>> Oldowan tools are made out of pebbles, and pebbles are about the
>>>> bluntest objects in nature, not the sharpest. So, the development of the
>>>> usage of sharp edges should happen before Oldowan stone tools.
>>> -
>>> Molar hammering crushing cracking
>>> Carnassial. shearing
>>> Incisor gnawing
>>> Canine tearing, piercing
>>> Homo replicated these functions by hand using various materials
>> No way. Which materials?
>
> Hammerstone & anvil stone/log replaced big molars, allowed processing extremely tough nuts.
Who cares. We do have Oldowan stone tools for 2.5 my. We used it for
dealing with wood, hides, we weren't vegetarians.
>> Antlers? With antlers you can pierce. But, what's the use of piercing?
>
> Stabbing to kill prey. Replace fangs with spear allows further distance from prey's defensive weapons.
Hm, why would we stab the prey if we cannot eat it, for god's sake?
>> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
>
> A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
No way that I would eat this flesh. Are you crazy? Ok, if this
obsidian is made industrially, and I have a guarantee that everything is
alright with it, it is grounded smoothly. Obsidian used by our ancestors
isn't anything like that.
>> Shearing. Stone? It will break your teeth?
>
> What? Obsidian slicing meat.
>
> Obsidian? It will cut your
>> throat. Metal? Now, that's much better, but it only came in Middle
>> Paleolithic, along with Homo sapiens. This is why Homo sapiens has
>> changes in chopping apparatus. With metal we chopped off meat from
>> carcass. But, that's about it.
>> No, before the first tools, we had to have fire. Fire was the tool to
>> soften up meat. Why would you pierce an animal, if you cannot eat its
>> meat? For hides? No. Before Oldowan tools we had to have fire,
>> otherwise, why would we hunt animals in the first place?
>
> Thin-sliced & ground-up meat, chewing gum style.
>
>> And this logical net *proves* how Science is *shallow*. They have all
>> those stories about our past, without even thinking to resolve the
>> "carnassial" problem. You cannot eat meat without carnassials, or
>> without fire. Full stop.
>
> Cold-blooded oysters, crab, shrimp were not cooked, because their flesh was never hot.
> Warm blooded rabbits, antelope, pigs were cooked to bring the meat back to life-like temperature, cold meat did not taste as good. Those who cooked thin sliced meat reduced food-borne parasites so their progeny were healthier.
>
> Nobody ate big chunks of meat, cooked or uncooked, not edible. Mammoth was thin-sliced.
> DD
We ate shellfish raw. We burned surroundings for safety, not for food.
But, this burning gave us food. So, this is how we acquired eating
burned food.
--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com