We Don't forget, Humans are part of the Homo family,...
User Mamkes, in the AliensRHere subreddit,
We did. Don't forget, Humans are part of the Homo family, not only Homo Sapiens. So yeah, obviously not from the modern humans…
We did. Don't forget, Humans are part of the Homo family, not only Homo Sapiens. So yeah, obviously not from the modern humans…
Hi, one of the community mods here. The claims in your post are extremely misleading. >The Persistence Hunting Hypothesis…
The discovery of 3 million-year-old tools in Kenya suggests that the hominin Paranthropus, previously thought to rely solely on…
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14464
Tools were invented and used before humans evolved into modern humans. It is likely, although harder to proove, that fire usage…
It's worth considering that 100,000 years isn't really that long from a geological perspective and it's not as though we have…
Please read the article: [Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14464)
On [This](https://geology.rutgers.edu/images/Publications_PDFS/Harmand_et_al_2015_short.pdf) article, says on page 4: See…
Um, no she doesn’t. She’s talking about these being the earliest tools discovered in *this specific area*. Every species of…
Earliest strong evidence of fire use by Homo goes back about a million years, yeah. Weaker evidence suggests the practice could…
Lithics experts (people who study stone tools for a living) are able to identify scarring on the surface of a stone to…
Here's some [source material better than imgur ](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14464#:~:text=We%20report%20the%20discover…
If anything I think this depiction leaned too far away from human. Hominid were already making flaked hand axes by 3.3…
Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that australopiths created stone tools far more complex than those created by chimps…
Early Homo https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14464
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14464
> the earliest we’ve been able identify as probably stone tools so far, are a bit more than 3 million years old and associated…
I mean they've discovered [3.3 million year old stone tools](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14464), which isn't a lawn…
Autralopithecines did have stone tools. Very recent research places stone tools to be 3.3M years old. The technology is called…
I'm not 100% in agreement with you, but I really like this comment because it is focused on practical ways to go forward. We do…
In addition to /u/tea_and_biology's exellent comment, I'd like to address one misconception you have. The idea stone tools were…
> If umbilical cords need to be cut how were humans expected to cut them tens of thousands of years ago before the invention of…
Just chiming in to mention two of my professors have found evidence of tool use even older than what the article you've linked…
Stone tools predate the genus 'homo' by 3 million years. They most definitely used tools. https://www.nature.com/articles/natur…
Measuring intelligence by means of the ratio of brain to body size in living species (especially those that have a…
The [expensive-tissue hypothesis](http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext
> Chimpanzee and monkey stone tools look very primitive. But then again, our ancestors' stone tools were just as primitive too…
Technology is only unsustainable because we've made it unsustainable. Few technologies are inherently unsustainable, but how we…
I think the omnivore in this argument isn't making much sense, but one could be charitable and assume the argument is something…
Your the one doubling down. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/full/nature14464.html?foxtrotcallback=true "New…
This is very misleading, from a zoological perspective. It assumes all carnivores are like lions, but not all carnivorous…
[3.3 million years old](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/full/nature14464.html), actually. I don't think the…
Only if you're willing to ignore an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary. I'm not really interested in getting into a…
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14464.epdf?referrer_access_token=7SXZ9gBMO9LTyj2lRPe_P9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PITTQVev_33gWVYQX…
> **To the untrained eye, the tools look unremarkable – barely distinguishable from ordinary rocks.** But to scientists…
You probably wouldn't use uranium-lead on dating anthropological specimens, though, specifically because it's good for dating…
Did you see this? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/full/nature14464.html
The actual journal article in Nature for those interested: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/full/nature14464.html
The actual journal article in Nature for those interested: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/full/nature14464.html