oldest stone tools found

[kevin 714]

http://news.yahoo.com/oldest-known-stone-tools-found-kenya-makers-not-170550752.html

At 3.3 million years old, they push back the record of stone tools by about 700,000 years. More significantly, they are half-a-million years older than any known trace of our own branch of the evolutionary tree.

Scientists have long thought that sharp-edged stone tools were made only by members of our branch, whose members are designated "Homo," like our own species, Homo sapiens. That idea has been questioned, and the new finding is a big boost to the argument that tool-making may have begun with smaller-brained forerunners instead.

The discovery was reported by Sonia Harmand and Jason Lewis of Stony Brook University in New York and co-authors in a paper released Wednesday by the journal Nature. The find drew rave reviews from experts unconnected to the work.

 

[CocoLoco]

After watching chimpanzees use simple tools (hell, even birds do) I don't know why any of this is earth shattering news. It's just more proof that humans (homo) are not the be all end all in species evolution.

 

[1sicv8]

no way.... sorry

 

[Corb]

no way.... sorry

I'd really like to know why you disagree.

 

[Wormwood]

After watching chimpanzees use simple tools (hell, even birds do) I don't know why any of this is earth shattering news. It's just more proof that humans (homo) are not the be all end all in species evolution.

My feelings as well. It is another indicator of our heritage.

 

[westie]

Because they look like normal rocks and not sharp edged tools.

 

[Agent Orange]

I wonder how anyone can look at a seeminly simple rock and deduct that chimps used to use it to bash open coconut shells.

 

[Reli]

At 3.3 million years old, they push back the record of stone tools by about 700,000 years. More significantly, they are half-a-million years older than any known trace of our own branch of the evolutionary tree.

lolz, 700K magically becomes half a million

 

[1sicv8]

I'd really like to know why you disagree.

Because they look like normal rocks and not sharp edged tools.

thats the short answer. And I dont believe things to be that old.. but I dont want to gum up this thread with debates on the age of the Earth

Could they be stone tools... perhaps.. Article doesnt give much evidence other then "look at this rock, it was used as a tool"

 

[whitelotus]

http://news.yahoo.com/oldest-known-stone-tools-found-kenya-makers-not-170550752.html

At 3.3 million years old, they push back the record of stone tools by about 700,000 years. More significantly, they are half-a-million years older than any known trace of our own branch of the evolutionary tree.

Scientists have long thought that sharp-edged stone tools were made only by members of our branch, whose members are designated "Homo," like our own species, Homo sapiens. That idea has been questioned, and the new finding is a big boost to the argument that tool-making may have begun with smaller-brained forerunners instead.

The discovery was reported by Sonia Harmand and Jason Lewis of Stony Brook University in New York and co-authors in a paper released Wednesday by the journal Nature. The find drew rave reviews from experts unconnected to the work.

But the earth is only 5000 years old. Why you hate the bible, brah?

 

[tuxumino]

During the Paleolithic period, humans grouped together in small societies such as bands,

so this is the earliest know rock band?

 

[kevin 714]

thats the short answer. And I dont believe things to be that old"

 

[CocoLoco]

I'd really like to know why you disagree.

Dude...check his/her sig...some bible verse from Galatians. Unlike science faith leaves no room for questioning its veracity. Everything dude/dudette will ever need to know is written in a single, divinely inspired text.

 

[Reli]

The Bible was written by men and thus fallable. Most people back then couldn't even count, so why should we believe their 6,000 years stuff? They probably didn't even know the word million.

 

[westie]

During the Paleolithic period, humans grouped together in small societies such as bands,

so this is the earliest know rock band?

Boo hiss boo!

 

[sckego]

lolz, 700K magically becomes half a million

You realize they're talking about two different things, right? 700k years older than evidence of stone tools, 500k older than our branch of the evolutionary tree. The second point is the more significant one...

 

[Reli]

You realize they're talking about two different things, right? 700k years older than evidence of stone tools, 500k older than our branch of the evolutionary tree. The second point is the more significant one...

sorry

 

[carries an axe]

I was just hoping it was a dildo

 

[kevin 714]

I wonder how anyone can look at a seeminly simple rock and deduct that chimps used to use it to bash open coconut shells.

thats the short answer. And I dont believe things to be that old.. but I dont want to gum up this thread with debates on the age of the Earth

Could they be stone tools... perhaps.. Article doesnt give much evidence other then "look at this rock, it was used as a tool"

And Frank Brown of the University of Utah, an expert in determining the age of fossils who has known about the discovery for a couple years and visited the site, said he is "still kind of staggered by it."

The Nature paper describes 149 stones and stone flakes found west of Lake Turkana in a remote area of northern Kenya. Most objects are "cores," which are stones that have been struck to break off sharp-edged flakes. Other stones appear to have been used as hammers or anvils.

Africa is where our own species first appeared, and it has long been a hotbed for finding fossils of our forerunners. The Kenyan site was discovered one day in July 2011, when Harmand, Lewis and a crew set out to survey one area and by accident ended up in another one. There were gullies and hillsides that seemed promising, so they looked around, Lewis recalled in a telephone interview.

Just before tea time, a team member spotted a stone tool on the ground





http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7552/full/521294a.html

theres actually a published scientific article that breaks all this down, if youre interested.

 

[1sicv8]

Just different opinions thats all