https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111154244.htm

Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 01:29:04 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111154244.htm

Yes, 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.

IOW, only incredible idiots still believe their ancestors ran after antelopes.

Google
"speech language origins PPT verhaegen".

On 16.11.2021. 13:57, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 01:29:04 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111154244.htm
>
> Yes, 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.
>
> IOW, only incredible idiots still believe their ancestors ran after antelopes.
>
> Google
> "speech language origins PPT verhaegen".

Stone tool use started in Pliocene, 3.3 mya the latest. Shellfish tool
use should predate that. Language should predate shellfish tool use.
They may evolve in unison, but, the above sequence of things should be
correct.
Further still, just like I am always saying, the difference between
Australopithecus and Kenyanthropus/Homo should be in language use. If
Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level
that is necessary for the development of tool use.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 18:52:28 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
> undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level

:-DDD

Mario, Mario, Mario...

Dogs also have "language"...

On 16.11.2021. 21:33, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 18:52:28 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>> Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
>> undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level
>
> :-DDD
>
> Mario, Mario, Mario...
>
> Dogs also have "language"...

Australopithecuses aren't dogs. In their evolution water was a major
thing, just like it was in our evolution. And water is excellent for
acquiring language, ask any seal.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 23:10:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> >> Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
> >> undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level

> > :-DDD Mario, Mario, Mario...
> > Dogs also have "language"...

> Australopithecuses aren't dogs.

Yes, Mario, yes... I meant, of course, dogs & most mammals make different kinds of sounds,
but that isn't language: apiths did NOT speak.

BTW (this has 0 to do with your nonsense about speaking apiths),
did dog domestication begin with cooperation between wading early H.sapiens, chasing e.g.ducks or waterdeer between reeds, & wolves waiting at the waterside?

On 16.11.2021. 23:30, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 23:10:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
>>>> Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
>>>> undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level
>
>>> :-DDD Mario, Mario, Mario...
>>> Dogs also have "language"...
>
>> Australopithecuses aren't dogs.
>
> Yes, Mario, yes... I meant, of course, dogs & most mammals make different kinds of sounds,
> but that isn't language: apiths did NOT speak.
>
> BTW (this has 0 to do with your nonsense about speaking apiths),
> did dog domestication begin with cooperation between wading early H.sapiens, chasing e.g.ducks or waterdeer between reeds, & wolves waiting at the waterside?

Whenever I am thinking about dog domestication, I always look at
Gelada baboons and Ethiopian wolf.
I mean, we are natural partners. We eat meat, but we cannot eat bones.
On the other hand, dogs are excellent alarm devices. The are small
enough so they cannot harm a group of people (when dogs hunt, they
always single out one individual).
So you have a situation where you have a group of people, and a bunch
of bones around them. And dogs come, and eat those bones. They are not
offensive, and they are great alarming devices, so why not secure them
around by leaving some meat on those bones?
Similar thing with cats, when humans started to stock cereals, a lot
of mouses moved around it. After mouses cats came. Just the other day a
neighbor cat left a dead mouse in front of my door. Maybe she wanted to
establish some kind of bond, she catches mouses for me, while I feed
her. It is good for times when there are no cat food around, so that I
can provide her with a food all year around.
So, this "domestication" can happen when we started to eat terrestrial
meat, with ease. I mean, how dingos came to Australia? On a cruise ship?

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:57:12 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 01:29:04 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> > https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111154244.htm
>
> Yes, 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.
>
> IOW, only incredible idiots still believe their ancestors ran after antelopes.
>
> Google
> "speech language origins PPT verhaegen".
-

See topic: Language is a software tool.

>
> IOW, only incredible idiots still believe their ancestors slept in water.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 12:52:28 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 16.11.2021. 13:57, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 01:29:04 UTC+1 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
> >> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111154244.htm
> >
> > Yes, 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.
> >
> > IOW, only incredible idiots still believe their ancestors ran after antelopes.
> >
> > Google
> > "speech language origins PPT verhaegen".
> Stone tool use started in Pliocene, 3.3 mya the latest. Shellfish tool
> use should predate that.

When do stick tool use begin? All hominoids use stick tools. Some use stone tools.

Language should predate shellfish tool use.

Just like sea otters & parrots! Wait...

> They may evolve in unison, but, the above sequence of things should be
> correct.
> Further still, just like I am always saying, the difference between
> Australopithecus and Kenyanthropus/Homo should be in language use. If
> Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
> undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level
> that is necessary for the development of tool use.
>

What do capuchins, macaques & baboons talk about while eating shellfish and shark egg cases?

> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 5:30:22 PM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 23:10:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> > >> Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
> > >> undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level
>
> > > :-DDD Mario, Mario, Mario...
> > > Dogs also have "language"...
>
> > Australopithecuses aren't dogs.
> Yes, Mario, yes... I meant, of course, dogs & most mammals make different kinds of sounds,
> but that isn't language: apiths did NOT speak.
>
> BTW (this has 0 to do with your nonsense about speaking apiths),
> did dog domestication begin with cooperation between wading early H.sapiens, chasing e.g.ducks or waterdeer between reeds, & wolves waiting at the waterside?
- All life communicates, most mammals communicate via sound partially.
Human language is coded sound & sight, words and gestures, and recently script.
Human language became complex due to living in groups and sleeping (parent & child) in thin-walled domeshields.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:57:20 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 16.11.2021. 23:30, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 16 november 2021 om 23:10:07 UTC+1 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
> >
> >>>> Australopithecus had language (it probably had), this language was very
> >>>> undeveloped. It is coastal living that develops language to the level
> >
> >>> :-DDD Mario, Mario, Mario...
> >>> Dogs also have "language"...
> >
> >> Australopithecuses aren't dogs.
> >
> > Yes, Mario, yes... I meant, of course, dogs & most mammals make different kinds of sounds,
> > but that isn't language: apiths did NOT speak.
> >
> > BTW (this has 0 to do with your nonsense about speaking apiths),
> > did dog domestication begin with cooperation between wading early H.sapiens, chasing e.g.ducks or waterdeer between reeds, & wolves waiting at the waterside?
> Whenever I am thinking about dog domestication, I always look at
> Gelada baboons and Ethiopian wolf.
> I mean, we are natural partners. We eat meat, but we cannot eat bones.
> On the other hand, dogs are excellent alarm devices. The are small
> enough so they cannot harm a group of people (when dogs hunt, they
> always single out one individual).
> So you have a situation where you have a group of people, and a bunch
> of bones around them. And dogs come, and eat those bones. They are not
> offensive, and they are great alarming devices, so why not secure them
> around by leaving some meat on those bones?
> Similar thing with cats, when humans started to stock cereals, a lot
> of mouses moved around it. After mouses cats came. Just the other day a
> neighbor cat left a dead mouse in front of my door. Maybe she wanted to
> establish some kind of bond, she catches mouses for me, while I feed
> her. It is good for times when there are no cat food around, so that I
> can provide her with a food all year around.
> So, this "domestication" can happen when we started to eat terrestrial
> meat, with ease. I mean, how dingos came to Australia? On a cruise ship?
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com
- They swam there..?

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".

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 2:02:56 AM UTC-5, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Only imbeciles believe their ancestors could never have slept on water.

Imagine that.

>
> 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".

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. 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.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

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. 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.
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com
- Molar hammering crushing cracking
Carnassial. shearing
Incisor gnawing
Canine tearing, piercing
Homo replicated these functions by hand using various materials

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. 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?
Antlers? With antlers you can pierce. But, what's the use of piercing?
If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
Shearing. Stone? It will break your teeth? 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?
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.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

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.

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.

> 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.

> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.

A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.

> 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

>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

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-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> 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.

You are comparing natural shell to knapped stone?

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.

Probably not.

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?

Sticks and stones mostly.

> > 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.

Nut cracking, clam cracking...

> >> 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?

Knapped stone flakes slice thin meat.

> >> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.

Thin slices.

> > A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
> No way that I would eat this flesh.

Tartare.

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.

Don't eat stone, eat meat.

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.

Silly fantasy. You burn your house down and then eat the burnt rats?

>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

On 19.11.2021. 8:07, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You are comparing natural shell to knapped stone?

But, for god's sake, why would I compare natural shells to metal
knives? Yes, today we are using metal knives and not natural shells,
this isn't a question. The question we are trying to answer in this news
group is, how all this *started*. Why we *started* to knap stones in the
first place? We just saw stones around, and decided, why wouldn't we
knap them, just for fun?

> 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.
>
> Probably not.
>
> 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?
>
> Sticks and stones mostly.

https://youtu.be/iv25o_zzqrE

>>> 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.
>
> Nut cracking, clam cracking...
>
>>>> 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?
>
> Knapped stone flakes slice thin meat.

And leave stone particles in that meat. Knapped flakes are made of
brittle type of stones, otherwise you wouldn't be able to knap it.
Brittle, it means that it shutters easily. I wouldn't eat meat with
those tiny particles in it, if I want my teeth to remain whole.

>>>> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
>
> Thin slices.
>
>>> A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
>> No way that I would eat this flesh.
>
> Tartare.
>
> 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.
>
> Don't eat stone, eat meat.

Try it yourself.

> 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.
>
> Silly fantasy. You burn your house down and then eat the burnt rats?

What house? We were living on rocky sea cliffs, rocks don't burn, and
if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 19.11.2021. 8:07, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > You are comparing natural shell to knapped stone?
> But, for god's sake, why would I compare natural shells to metal
> knives? Yes, today we are using metal knives and not natural shells,
> this isn't a question. The question we are trying to answer in this news
> group is, how all this *started*. Why we *started* to knap stones in the
> first place? We just saw stones around, and decided, why wouldn't we
> knap them, just for fun?

Stones as hammers against stone anvils sometimes shatter producing sharp edges. The nut meat is still edible.
If the alternative was cracking nuts with teeth, risking broken jaw or teeth, hammering is more efficient.

> > 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.
> >
> > Probably not.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Sticks and stones mostly.
> https://youtu.be/iv25o_zzqrE
> >>> 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.

Have you ever eaten nuts?

> >
> > Nut cracking, clam cracking...
> >
> >>>> 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?

Stab, kill, slice, eat.

> > Knapped stone flakes slice thin meat.
> And leave stone particles in that meat.

Only if hit against hard bone. If slicing flesh, no chips unless flake is from poor stone.

Knapped flakes are made of
> brittle type of stones, otherwise you wouldn't be able to knap it.
> Brittle, it means that it shutters

you mean splinters? Only if hit hard against bone or if stone flake is from poor stone source.

easily. I wouldn't eat meat with
> those tiny particles in it, if I want my teeth to remain whole.

Then don't eat gritty shellfish, lots of quartzite grit. I ate some from a tin can, so much sandy grit.

> >>>> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
> >
> > Thin slices.
> >
> >>> A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
> >> No way that I would eat this flesh.
> >
> > Tartare.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Don't eat stone, eat meat.
> Try it yourself.

You don't understand meat processing & eating. Do you worry about metal or plastic fragments & particles when using fork & spoon?

> > 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 ate everything raw.

We burned surroundings for safety, not for food.
> >> But, this burning gave us food. So, this is how we acquired eating
> >> burned food.
> >
> > Silly fantasy. You burn your house down and then eat the burnt rats?
> What house? We were living on rocky sea cliffs,

Geladas don't burn down the forest.

rocks don't burn, and
> if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com

On 20.11.2021. 8:16, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.11.2021. 8:07, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You are comparing natural shell to knapped stone?
>> But, for god's sake, why would I compare natural shells to metal
>> knives? Yes, today we are using metal knives and not natural shells,
>> this isn't a question. The question we are trying to answer in this news
>> group is, how all this *started*. Why we *started* to knap stones in the
>> first place? We just saw stones around, and decided, why wouldn't we
>> knap them, just for fun?
>
> Stones as hammers against stone anvils sometimes shatter producing sharp edges. The nut meat is still edible.
> If the alternative was cracking nuts with teeth, risking broken jaw or teeth, hammering is more efficient.

I believe people have problems grasping this. Not every stone is the
same. Some stones easily shutter, some don't. Flint easily shutters. I
believe that basalt stones don't. You can crack nuts with those that
don't, but those don't produce sharp edges, those that shutter produce
sharp edges. So, you cannot cut meat with a stone. Those that don't
shutter aren't sharp, those that shutter are sharp, but can leave stone
particles in meat.
I am talking about eating meat. Primates don't eat meat, we do. Hence
our diet moved in the direction of meat eating.

>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Probably not.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Sticks and stones mostly.
>> https://youtu.be/iv25o_zzqrE
>>>>> 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.
>
> Have you ever eaten nuts?
>
>>>
>>> Nut cracking, clam cracking...
>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>
> Stab, kill, slice, eat.
>
>>> Knapped stone flakes slice thin meat.
>> And leave stone particles in that meat.
>
> Only if hit against hard bone. If slicing flesh, no chips unless flake is from poor stone.

What bloody "poor stone"? Every stone that can be sharp is "poor
stone", this goes hand in hand. It is sharp because it is "poor".

> Knapped flakes are made of
>> brittle type of stones, otherwise you wouldn't be able to knap it.
>> Brittle, it means that it shutters
>
> you mean splinters? Only if hit hard against bone or if stone flake is from poor stone source.
>
> easily. I wouldn't eat meat with
>> those tiny particles in it, if I want my teeth to remain whole.
>
> Then don't eat gritty shellfish, lots of quartzite grit. I ate some from a tin can, so much sandy grit.

This is why I did acquire the trait of thick enamel, precisely for
this reason.

>>>>>> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
>>>
>>> Thin slices.
>>>
>>>>> A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
>>>> No way that I would eat this flesh.
>>>
>>> Tartare.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Don't eat stone, eat meat.
>> Try it yourself.
>
> You don't understand meat processing & eating. Do you worry about metal or plastic fragments & particles when using fork & spoon?

Of course I don't, because (ground) metal doesn't shutter. It is you
who doesn't understand anything. By grinding hematite you get ochre. Red
ochre is the evidence that we ground metal. Metal becomes sharp by
grinding, but it doesn't shutter after that. Good morning.

>>> 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 ate everything raw.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:35:09 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 20.11.2021. 8:16, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 19.11.2021. 8:07, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> You are comparing natural shell to knapped stone?
> >> But, for god's sake, why would I compare natural shells to metal
> >> knives? Yes, today we are using metal knives and not natural shells,
> >> this isn't a question. The question we are trying to answer in this news
> >> group is, how all this *started*. Why we *started* to knap stones in the
> >> first place? We just saw stones around, and decided, why wouldn't we
> >> knap them, just for fun?
> >
> > Stones as hammers against stone anvils sometimes shatter producing sharp edges. The nut meat is still edible.
> > If the alternative was cracking nuts with teeth, risking broken jaw or teeth, hammering is more efficient.
> I believe people have problems grasping this. Not every stone is the
> same. Some stones easily shutter, some don't. Flint easily shutters. I
> believe that basalt stones don't. You can crack nuts with those that
> don't, but those don't produce sharp edges, those that shutter produce
> sharp edges. So, you cannot cut meat with a stone. Those that don't
> shutter aren't sharp, those that shutter are sharp, but can leave stone
> particles in meat.
> I am talking about eating meat. Primates don't eat meat, we do. Hence
> our diet moved in the direction of meat eating.
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Probably not.
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> Sticks and stones mostly.
> >> https://youtu.be/iv25o_zzqrE
> >>>>> 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.
> >
> > Have you ever eaten nuts?
> >
> >>>
> >>> Nut cracking, clam cracking...
> >>>
> >>>>>> 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?
> >
> > Stab, kill, slice, eat.
> >
> >>> Knapped stone flakes slice thin meat.
> >> And leave stone particles in that meat.
> >
> > Only if hit against hard bone. If slicing flesh, no chips unless flake is from poor stone.
> What bloody "poor stone"? Every stone that can be sharp is "poor
> stone", this goes hand in hand. It is sharp because it is "poor".
> > Knapped flakes are made of
> >> brittle type of stones, otherwise you wouldn't be able to knap it.
> >> Brittle, it means that it shutters
> >
> > you mean splinters? Only if hit hard against bone or if stone flake is from poor stone source.
> >
> > easily. I wouldn't eat meat with
> >> those tiny particles in it, if I want my teeth to remain whole.
> >
> > Then don't eat gritty shellfish, lots of quartzite grit. I ate some from a tin can, so much sandy grit.
> This is why I did acquire the trait of thick enamel, precisely for
> this reason.

Like orangutans, who never eat shellfish?

> >>>>>> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
> >>>
> >>> Thin slices.
> >>>
> >>>>> A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
> >>>> No way that I would eat this flesh.
> >>>
> >>> Tartare.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Don't eat stone, eat meat.
> >> Try it yourself.
> >
> > You don't understand meat processing & eating. Do you worry about metal or plastic fragments & particles when using fork & spoon?
> Of course I don't, because (ground) metal doesn't shutter.

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 4:30:52 PM UTC-5, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:35:09 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > On 20.11.2021. 8:16, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > >> On 19.11.2021. 8:07, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> You are comparing natural shell to knapped stone?
> > >> But, for god's sake, why would I compare natural shells to metal
> > >> knives? Yes, today we are using metal knives and not natural shells,
> > >> this isn't a question. The question we are trying to answer in this news
> > >> group is, how all this *started*. Why we *started* to knap stones in the
> > >> first place? We just saw stones around, and decided, why wouldn't we
> > >> knap them, just for fun?
> > >
> > > Stones as hammers against stone anvils sometimes shatter producing sharp edges. The nut meat is still edible.
> > > If the alternative was cracking nuts with teeth, risking broken jaw or teeth, hammering is more efficient.
> > I believe people have problems grasping this. Not every stone is the
> > same. Some stones easily shutter, some don't. Flint easily shutters. I
> > believe that basalt stones don't. You can crack nuts with those that
> > don't, but those don't produce sharp edges, those that shutter produce
> > sharp edges. So, you cannot cut meat with a stone. Those that don't
> > shutter aren't sharp, those that shutter are sharp, but can leave stone
> > particles in meat.
> > I am talking about eating meat. Primates don't eat meat, we do. Hence
> > our diet moved in the direction of meat eating.
> > >>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> Probably not.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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?
> > >>>
> > >>> Sticks and stones mostly.
> > >> https://youtu.be/iv25o_zzqrE
> > >>>>> 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.
> > >
> > > Have you ever eaten nuts?
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> Nut cracking, clam cracking...
> > >>>
> > >>>>>> 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?
> > >
> > > Stab, kill, slice, eat.
> > >
> > >>> Knapped stone flakes slice thin meat.
> > >> And leave stone particles in that meat.
> > >
> > > Only if hit against hard bone. If slicing flesh, no chips unless flake is from poor stone.
> > What bloody "poor stone"? Every stone that can be sharp is "poor
> > stone", this goes hand in hand. It is sharp because it is "poor".
> > > Knapped flakes are made of
> > >> brittle type of stones, otherwise you wouldn't be able to knap it.
> > >> Brittle, it means that it shutters
> > >
> > > you mean splinters? Only if hit hard against bone or if stone flake is from poor stone source.
> > >
> > > easily. I wouldn't eat meat with
> > >> those tiny particles in it, if I want my teeth to remain whole.
> > >
> > > Then don't eat gritty shellfish, lots of quartzite grit. I ate some from a tin can, so much sandy grit.
> > This is why I did acquire the trait of thick enamel, precisely for
> > this reason.
> Like orangutans, who never eat shellfish?
> > >>>>>> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thin slices.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
> > >>>> No way that I would eat this flesh.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tartare.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> Don't eat stone, eat meat.
> > >> Try it yourself.
> > >
> > > You don't understand meat processing & eating. Do you worry about metal or plastic fragments & particles when using fork & spoon?
> > Of course I don't, because (ground) metal doesn't shutter.
> Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
> It is you
> > who doesn't understand anything. By grinding hematite you get ochre. Red
> > ochre is the evidence that we ground metal. Metal becomes sharp by
> > grinding, but it doesn't shutter after that. Good morning.
> > >>> 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 ate everything raw.
> > Of course, you only lack the evidence for this claim.
> Since tetrapods left the sea, raw food was the norm.
> > > We burned surroundings for safety, not for food.
> > >>>> But, this burning gave us food. So, this is how we acquired eating
> > >>>> burned food.
> > >>>
> > >>> Silly fantasy. You burn your house down and then eat the burnt rats?
> > >> What house? We were living on rocky sea cliffs,
> > >
> > > Geladas don't burn down the forest.
> > There is no forest where Geladas live, there is only grass. And
> > Geladas eat grass.
> Right, they don't burn it to make it taste better
> > >
> > > rocks don't burn, and
> > >> if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.
> >
> > --
> > https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> > human-e...@googlegroups.com

On 20.11.2021. 22:30, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 9:35:09 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 20.11.2021. 8:16, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:45:04 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.11.2021. 8:07, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:43:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are comparing natural shell to knapped stone?
>>>> But, for god's sake, why would I compare natural shells to metal
>>>> knives? Yes, today we are using metal knives and not natural shells,
>>>> this isn't a question. The question we are trying to answer in this news
>>>> group is, how all this *started*. Why we *started* to knap stones in the
>>>> first place? We just saw stones around, and decided, why wouldn't we
>>>> knap them, just for fun?
>>>
>>> Stones as hammers against stone anvils sometimes shatter producing sharp edges. The nut meat is still edible.
>>> If the alternative was cracking nuts with teeth, risking broken jaw or teeth, hammering is more efficient.
>> I believe people have problems grasping this. Not every stone is the
>> same. Some stones easily shutter, some don't. Flint easily shutters. I
>> believe that basalt stones don't. You can crack nuts with those that
>> don't, but those don't produce sharp edges, those that shutter produce
>> sharp edges. So, you cannot cut meat with a stone. Those that don't
>> shutter aren't sharp, those that shutter are sharp, but can leave stone
>> particles in meat.
>> I am talking about eating meat. Primates don't eat meat, we do. Hence
>> our diet moved in the direction of meat eating.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sticks and stones mostly.
>>>> https://youtu.be/iv25o_zzqrE
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Have you ever eaten nuts?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nut cracking, clam cracking...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Stab, kill, slice, eat.
>>>
>>>>> Knapped stone flakes slice thin meat.
>>>> And leave stone particles in that meat.
>>>
>>> Only if hit against hard bone. If slicing flesh, no chips unless flake is from poor stone.
>> What bloody "poor stone"? Every stone that can be sharp is "poor
>> stone", this goes hand in hand. It is sharp because it is "poor".
>>> Knapped flakes are made of
>>>> brittle type of stones, otherwise you wouldn't be able to knap it.
>>>> Brittle, it means that it shutters
>>>
>>> you mean splinters? Only if hit hard against bone or if stone flake is from poor stone source.
>>>
>>> easily. I wouldn't eat meat with
>>>> those tiny particles in it, if I want my teeth to remain whole.
>>>
>>> Then don't eat gritty shellfish, lots of quartzite grit. I ate some from a tin can, so much sandy grit.
>> This is why I did acquire the trait of thick enamel, precisely for
>> this reason.
>
> Like orangutans, who never eat shellfish?

We are talking about first apes, who didn't look like orangutans, but,
like us. They had thick enamel, this is why orangutan *still* has thick
enamel. This is a vestigial trait.

>>>>>>>> If you don't have carnassials you cannot eat what you pierced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thin slices.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A sharp obsidian flake slices thinly through flesh & sinew.
>>>>>> No way that I would eat this flesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tartare.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't eat stone, eat meat.
>>>> Try it yourself.
>>>
>>> You don't understand meat processing & eating. Do you worry about metal or plastic fragments & particles when using fork & spoon?
>> Of course I don't, because (ground) metal doesn't shutter.
>
> Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.