World's oldest stone tools predate humans

Is this really that big a deal? We know some primates use tools for foraging and obtaining water and insects. Why do we think that is was just a specifically human trait to use tools? Crows are quite capable of using tools and im sure you can find other examples of tool use in the animal kingdom no matter how rudimentary it may be. I see no reason why we are so positive that tool use is exclusive to Humans or even just some of our early ancestors.

a reply to: BeReasonable

The implication isn't that tool use is a strictly human or hominid capability. The reason this is an important find is that previously, only the Genus Homo was known to use tools of this nature. There's a big difference between picking up a rock or stick and actually shaping that rock or stick into a useful tool. This is the earliest known attempts or precursors to knapping, sharpening the rock to make it a far more useful tool and thus gives a unique insight to early stages of hominid development, particularly in terms of cognition and reasoning. It's a rather big leap from using a rock to break something open to sharpening a stone to be able to slice through a hide to easily access the meat.

originally posted by: DestroyDestroyDestroy
a reply to: Choice777

Our genus (homo sapiens sapiens) has existed for roughly 200,000 years. Before us, there were other hominids. Hell, even while we were around there were different hominids (i.e. homo neanderthalensis). There is nothing to "wonder" about, it's pretty well documented that our ancestors, dating back millions of years to the australopithecines, used primitive stone tools.

You mean our species, not genus. Our genus is homo and that goes back near 3 million years.

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
You know I think paleontology, archeology, and geology are awesome. Digging up history is pretty amazing.

Yet it always perplexes me how they put these momentus ages on the things they find.

Carbon dating is good for 50k years at most before its deemed unreliable.

You have never heard of the many forms of radiometric dating? Yes, carbon dating doesn't go back much further than that, but scientists use other methods of dating for older fossils. It's not like they just make it up.

a reply to: Choice777

Be careful using sites like "evolutionnews" as sources. That site is not a science site, it is actually a religious site that is anti evolution and demonstrates many false claims about science. I wouldn't use it as a source of legitimate information because of that.

a reply to: Barcs

What do you think about that circular graph ? Could a civilization have evolved in the Archean only to be wiped as no evidence remains of Archean land masses ?

a reply to: Choice777

No evidence? Before you were saying 5-40% of the land mass was still there. I'm not sure where you got those numbers, but that seems like a large margin of error. I say it is extremely improbable that a civilization flourished before complex animals emerged for that reason alone. If you want to talk about the possibility of ancient civilizations, you really have 2 options. The first is that humans built an advanced civilization in the past and it was wiped out (200,000 years on the planet, and 3 million years of hominids, it could have happened at some point, but it was lost in a cataclysm). The other option (and less likely IMO) is that a different intelligent species evolved at some point during the dinosaur ages and made their own civilization, which was also destroyed. If I had a choice I'd go with the first option. Archean civilization is pretty much out of the question.

Where did your picture come from? Remember things don't evolve just because there is enough time to. The environment must support it, and all changes are dependent on it. During the time frame you reference the atmosphere is not very conducive to life at all, the earth was still settling from the late bombardment period and the atmosphere didn't resemble anything close to what we have today. There's a reason we only had single cells for like a billion years. An advanced civilization existing during that time is incredibly unlikely, and if there was, I would think they were from another planet.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Choice777

No evidence? Before you were saying 5-40% of the land mass was still there. I'm not sure where you got those numbers, but that seems like a large margin of error. I say it is extremely improbable that a civilization flourished before complex animals emerged for that reason alone. If you want to talk about the possibility of ancient civilizations, you really have 2 options. The first is that humans built an advanced civilization in the past and it was wiped out (200,000 years on the planet, and 3 million years of hominids, it could have happened at some point, but it was lost in a cataclysm). The other option (and less likely IMO) is that a different intelligent species evolved at some point during the dinosaur ages and made their own civilization, which was also destroyed. If I had a choice I'd go with the first option. Archean civilization is pretty much out of the question.

Where did your picture come from? Remember things don't evolve just because there is enough time to. The environment must support it, and all changes are dependent on it. During the time frame you reference the atmosphere is not very conducive to life at all, the earth was still settling from the late bombardment period and the atmosphere didn't resemble anything close to what we have today. There's a reason we only had single cells for like a billion years. An advanced civilization existing during that time is incredibly unlikely, and if there was, I would think they were from another planet.

Where is got the 5-40% ? From the article. Look at the link a few posts back. So if i take 5% that 5% is actually not all accessible cuse it migh tbe at the bottom of the ocean of under miles of australian soil.
And i didn't say ''before complex animas emerged''......and where did i get the picture ?

DID you even read the past posts ?
Oh ffs i give up , some people can even put 2 dots together.

originally posted by: Choice777

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Choice777

No evidence? Before you were saying 5-40% of the land mass was still there. I'm not sure where you got those numbers, but that seems like a large margin of error. I say it is extremely improbable that a civilization flourished before complex animals emerged for that reason alone. If you want to talk about the possibility of ancient civilizations, you really have 2 options. The first is that humans built an advanced civilization in the past and it was wiped out (200,000 years on the planet, and 3 million years of hominids, it could have happened at some point, but it was lost in a cataclysm). The other option (and less likely IMO) is that a different intelligent species evolved at some point during the dinosaur ages and made their own civilization, which was also destroyed. If I had a choice I'd go with the first option. Archean civilization is pretty much out of the question.

Where did your picture come from? Remember things don't evolve just because there is enough time to. The environment must support it, and all changes are dependent on it. During the time frame you reference the atmosphere is not very conducive to life at all, the earth was still settling from the late bombardment period and the atmosphere didn't resemble anything close to what we have today. There's a reason we only had single cells for like a billion years. An advanced civilization existing during that time is incredibly unlikely, and if there was, I would think they were from another planet.

Where is got the 5-40% ? From the article. Look at the link a few posts back. So if i take 5% that 5% is actually not all accessible cuse it migh tbe at the bottom of the ocean of under miles of australian soil.

And i didn't say ''before complex animas emerged''......and where did i get the picture ?

DID you even read the past posts ?
Oh ffs i give up , some people can even put 2 dots together.

Defeated that easily eh? Why can't you answer my question? I went through all of your links and could not find that picture. I asked because my work might be blocking the website, so I'm curious which source posted it. It was a simple question, I wasn't trying to doubt you.

You posted 4 links that I saw. 2 were wiki links, 1 was the original Fox News article, and the 3rd was the propaganda site, "evolutionnews". Which link is the picture from?

Also you aren't going to like this but it was the wiki article on geology that made the 5-40% claim, but I do not think it says what you think it does.

evidence suggests that continental crust equivalent to only 5-40% of the present amount formed during the Archean.[6]

This statement seems to say that when you look at the present land masses, that 5-40% of the crust that is here today formed during the Archean. It does not seem to say that 5-40% of the crust from the Archean is still here today. It seems like confusion with the terminology, and in all respect it was worded confusingly. I'll see if I can do more research into that claim.

As to the other point about complex animals emerging, I said that because 1.5 billion years ago was before complex animals, I wasn't saying that you said it. You said there might have been a civilization during that time, and I said it was very unlikely because it was prior to complex animals developing in evolutionary history.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Choice777

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Choice777

No evidence? Before you were saying 5-40% of the land mass was still there. I'm not sure where you got those numbers, but that seems like a large margin of error. I say it is extremely improbable that a civilization flourished before complex animals emerged for that reason alone. If you want to talk about the possibility of ancient civilizations, you really have 2 options. The first is that humans built an advanced civilization in the past and it was wiped out (200,000 years on the planet, and 3 million years of hominids, it could have happened at some point, but it was lost in a cataclysm). The other option (and less likely IMO) is that a different intelligent species evolved at some point during the dinosaur ages and made their own civilization, which was also destroyed. If I had a choice I'd go with the first option. Archean civilization is pretty much out of the question.

Where did your picture come from? Remember things don't evolve just because there is enough time to. The environment must support it, and all changes are dependent on it. During the time frame you reference the atmosphere is not very conducive to life at all, the earth was still settling from the late bombardment period and the atmosphere didn't resemble anything close to what we have today. There's a reason we only had single cells for like a billion years. An advanced civilization existing during that time is incredibly unlikely, and if there was, I would think they were from another planet.

Where is got the 5-40% ? From the article. Look at the link a few posts back. So if i take 5% that 5% is actually not all accessible cuse it migh tbe at the bottom of the ocean of under miles of australian soil.

And i didn't say ''before complex animas emerged''......and where did i get the picture ?

DID you even read the past posts ?
Oh ffs i give up , some people can even put 2 dots together.

Defeated that easily eh? Why can't you answer my question? I went through all of your links and could not find that picture. I asked because my work might be blocking the website, so I'm curious which source posted it. It was a simple question, I wasn't trying to doubt you.

You posted 4 links that I saw. 2 were wiki links, 1 was the original Fox News article, and the 3rd was the propaganda site, "evolutionnews". Which link is the picture from?

Also you aren't going to like this but it was the wiki article on geology that made the 5-40% claim, but I do not think it says what you think it does.

evidence suggests that continental crust equivalent to only 5-40% of the present amount formed during the Archean.[6]

This statement seems to say that when you look at the present land masses, that 5-40% of the crust that is here today formed during the Archean. It does not seem to say that 5-40% of the crust from the Archean is still here today. It seems like confusion with the terminology, and in all respect it was worded confusingly. I'll see if I can do more research into that claim.

As to the other point about complex animals emerging, I said that because 1.5 billion years ago was before complex animals, I wasn't saying that you said it. You said there might have been a civilization during that time, and I said it was very unlikely because it was prior to complex animals developing in evolutionary history.

Not defeated, it's just that i'm allergic to this much stupidity.
''This statement seems to say that when you look at the present land masses, that 5-40% of the crust that is here today formed during the Archean. It does not seem to say that 5-40% of the crust from the Archean is still here today.''
Its the same #ing thing you spanner.
I really haven't got time for retards of your level. i gave the links, all the info, but i'm not going to spoon feed retards. End of.

originally posted by: Choice777
Not defeated, it's just that i'm allergic to this much stupidity.
''This statement seems to say that when you look at the present land masses, that 5-40% of the crust that is here today formed during the Archean. It does not seem to say that 5-40% of the crust from the Archean is still here today.''
Its the same #ing thing you spanner.
I really haven't got time for retards of your level. i gave the links, all the info, but i'm not going to spoon feed retards. End of.

Wow. I try to explain my points thoroughly and as nice I as possibly could, and this guy gets all bent out of shape and insults me. All I asked for was clarification on some points and the source of the picture. I guess those questions are too much to ask, we should just take his word as gospel that an ancient civilization lived on earth prior to multi celled organisms.

Its the same #ing thing you spanner.

No, it's NOT the same thing.

The quote is in reference to 40% of the total land mass TODAY, not 40% of the landmass that arose during the Archean. Those are 2 difference things. You do realize that different parts of the crust were formed during different periods, correct? It didn't all form during the Archean which justifies the point I was making. Anyways, I'm going to keep looking for better references to this, whether you like it or not. I like learning new things. I apologize if my questions offended you, it wasn't the intention.

originally posted by: Choice777


Not defeated, it's just that i'm allergic to this much stupidity.

Is it really necessary to be so crudely condescending towards someone who was actually trying to get a better understanding of how you were formulating your position? It's not just rude, it's against the T&C

''This statement seems to say that when you look at the present land masses, that 5-40% of the crust that is here today formed during the Archean. It does not seem to say that 5-40% of the crust from the Archean is still here today.''
Its the same #ing thing you spanner.

It's not the same at all, and again with the hostility... It does nothing to augment your argument. For it to be the same would mean that all land formed at one time and then eroded to the point where 5-40% of the original land mass was still accessible. This however is not the case, volcanism, plate tectonics, mantle convection all contribute to new land being formed or brought to the surface.

I really haven't got time for retards of your level. i gave the links, all the info, but i'm not going to spoon feed retards. End of.

So basically, you're getting called out on the data being provided and are stomping off with all your toys to play by yourself because you don't feel the need to expand on your assertions. It's ridiculous that you're having such a hissy fit over a poster seeking clarification to better understand the point you were trying to make. Not that it isn't a massive stretch of cognition to go from new archaic tools being dated to a period of time before the appearance of the genus Homo, which means they were crafted by Australopithecines or Kenyanthropus Platyops, and moving on to an unsubstantiated daydream of advanced life during the Archean despite the fact that there wasn't an atmosphere conducive to anything but analogues of modern day extremophiles. Perhaps if you were so hostile, you would receive more interest in the proposition. Or at the very least an educational dialogue discussing the pros and cons as well as what tenable evidence could demonstrate the possibility of such. It doesn't look like you're interested in that however.