What did Humans Create the Origin of?

Hey all,

I've had this thought for a few months now and thought i'd post it and see what others think and speculate on.

So ill set it out like this:

Chimpanzee's are now thought to be in the stone age, using stones for tools and other natural material as tools.

I saw a David Attenborough doco a few years ago relating to ape species that travel up and down the tree line during the seasons. There are about four to six different species which all had there own language. Each had a sound for lion, snake, croc, etc, etc, etc and all other species recognized the words of the other species. So they have a primitive version of language.

www.iflscience.com...

Now fast forward a few millions years or however long it takes and the Chimpanzee's have now evolved into a species we shall call George's.

The George's now have a complex language and high technology different but similar to Humans. (Humans are excluded from this scenario, just used them/us as a comparison).

What can the George's truly take credit for the origins of a particular technology.

Can the George's take credit for language when Chimpanzee's were its creator. The George's can only take credit for its improvement.
Can the George's take credit for the hammer when Chimpanzee's were its creator. The George's can only take credit for its improvement.
Can the George's take credit for social hierarchy when Chimpanzee's were its creator. The George's can only take credit for its improvement.

I guess you see where im getting at.

So lets flip it from The George's to Humans.

What can we Humans actually take credit for the origin of a particular technology?
(Obvious things like computers and air craft dont count).

I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions.

If you dont believe in evolution then this thread may not be for you.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Aqueducts
Fireworks
Steam engines
Internal combustion engines
Electronics of any kind

There’s just too many to list

a reply to: TerryDon79

There the obvious things.

Did we create, say art?

Or was it Erecus or a prior species.

Music?

Memes.

We created memes.

We also created mimes. Mistakes were made...

Peanut Butter and Ketchup
2 of my favorite food groups

ETA - Actually , spaghetti is my favorite food group

The Chinese and the orient have spent thousands of years with much more expenditure of time creating food than probably any other race.

Can I say race? Race shouldn't be a bad word.

If the "George's" follow the human race they won't evolve, they might devolve.

Plastic. I don't really like humans but I have to admit that plastic is a glorious thing. If not entirely sexy.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Are we just crazy hairless apes with shrink-tubing and hairdryers?

The alphabet

Written language.

A million George’s typing on a million typewriters...

... a rose by any other name, and what have you...

The animals can count, recognize faces, have memories, bury their dead, but they cannot write it down. Fast forward to Gutenberg and then the internet... well, the whale songs sound cool!

a reply to: Skyfox81

Humans created the origin of lieing, the internet and global polution.


Oh and fireworks.

Nothing to beproud of here.

AIDS

WTG Humans!

a reply to: Skyfox81

What did Humans Create the Origin of?

Fidget spinners and left-handed screwdrivers spring to mind.

Things like silly string (happy accidents) that have led to many other useful products. The list is almost endless here.

dpost

originally posted by: Skyfox81
...

I guess you see where im getting at.
...

An unrealistic imaginary "scenario" (storyplot)? I guess it helps in setting up or introducing your question about humans. But I wonder, even without this unrealistic introduction to the question about humans, if the subforum "Science&Technology" was the best choice (I know the question about humans also involved the topic of technology, but still). Also considering David Attenborough's baseless claims (not including the term "a primitive form of language"; which one could argue animals like apes and other animals also have today, that's a bit in the eye of the beholder as to what one wants to count as "a primitive form of language", therefore can be a bit arbitrarily* applied).

*: on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. (definition from google)

If you dont believe in evolution then this thread may not be for you.

That's an interesting way of phrasing things in relation to a thread recently made on the "Origins and Creationism" forum called:

Why Most Evolutionists Don’t BELIEVE in Evolution?

Which is a response to a particular behaviour regarding the verb "believe" or the word "faith" often demonstrated in that subforum or by the most prominent gurus of unverified evolutionary ideas/philosophies and storylines that are sometimes presented as "fact" or "factual" and sometimes presented as the (most) likely scenario or model (but always as "science" or under that marketinglabel; which is a word that comes from the Latin "scientia" which means "knowledge", which is also a synonym for "science". Knowledge/science essentially means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. I.e. things that are factual/absolute/certain/conclusive/correct, without error. NOT unverified, not uncertain, not "most likely", not 'maybe'*). As also demonstrated below (this particular behaviour regarding the verb "believe" or the word "faith"):


*: “A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.” - Isaac Newton

A little more from Newton about a proven effective method or methodology to discover and acquire science/knowledge about realities/truths/facts/certainties, what one may call a "scientific method" if that makes it easier to understand what he's talking about (his usage of the word "philosophy" may confuse you what this is about):

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

In case you're confused anyway...

From wiki on the page for "scientist":

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Example from Newton (although perhaps not that obvious to some people, not the best or most obvious example perhaps):

"were men and beast made by fortuitous jumblings of the atoms, there would be many parts useless in them. Here a lump of flesh, there a member too much. Some kinds of beasts might have had but one eye, some more than two. Atoms, mechanical laws, are nothing compared to the knowledge and wisdom of the Creator."

As to your question 'What can we humans actually take credit for, in regards to the origin of a particular technology?' (slightly modified cause that's the only way I can understand the question)

I'd say any technology that humans have ever invented and created, or put into practice, used in applications.

Doesn't seem such a complicated question without the introduction of your opinion about the subject. And the answer seems obvious if you ignore that part of the OP. Which confuses me because it contains such unrealistic proposals. But I guess, if you continue backwards through the evolutionary storyline, whatever or whoever can take credit for the origin of the technology that in reality was invented and created by humans, would be dependent on how far back in the storyline you are willing to go. In the end it will probably boil down to something like "nature", or the forces of nature, or Mother Nature for some people. Oh no, thinking through that again, I just realized you still shouldn't logically reason like that, since human-invented technology is still human-invented technology, nature didn't do it, neither did some mythological supposedly extinct species somewhere in between humans and apes. Ah, never mind, I can't get to your line of reasoning, or 'get' what you're getting at (I also seem to have drifted a bit away from the actual question in my reasoning above). I'm sticking with my first simple straightforward answer. It seems your question was more rhetorical in that regards implying that answer is not actually the right way to look at it.

Man, I can't believe how long this comment has become. Just wanted to edit in a few additional remarks and caveats regarding my intitial comment which was much shorter. I guess that's what happens if you type down everything you're thinking about or reminded of when typing or re-reading something.

Fascinating topic!

I think what sets humans apart from other critters with whom we share a common ancestor is two very powerful attributes; humans have (1) the physiology to communicate at a high level, and (2) the mental capacity to synthesize simple concepts into complex ideas (and inventions).

originally posted by: Skyfox81
What can we Humans actually take credit for the origin of a particular technology?

Fire
The wheel
Clothes
Forging
Medicine (even primitive kinds)
Weapons (spears, clubs, etc.)
Animal husbandry
Blah, blah, blah... lots of stuff.

a reply to: Skyfox81

What can the chimps take credit for?

a reply to: AntonGonist

Poo throwing. Lol