Re: Bone tools from 1.5 MYA

On 9.3.2025. 6:49, Primum Sapienti wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

On 6.3.2025. 17:40, erik simpson wrote:

Systematic bone tool production at 1.5 million years ago
>
Ignacio de la Torre, Luc Doyon, Alfonso Benito-Calvo, Rafael Mora, Ipyana Mwakyoma, Jackson K. Njau, Renata F. Peters, Angeliki Theodoropoulou & Francesco d’Errico
>
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that the emergence of stone tool technology occurred before the appearance of the genus Homo1 and may potentially be traced back deep into the primate evolutionary line2. Conversely, osseous technologies are apparently exclusive of later hominins from approximately 2 million years ago (Ma)3,4, whereas the earliest systematic production of bone tools is currently restricted to European Acheulean sites 400–250 thousand years ago5,6. Here we document an assemblage of bone tools shaped by knapping found within a single stratigraphic horizon at Olduvai Gorge dated to 1.5 Ma. Large mammal limb bone fragments, mostly from hippopotamus and elephant, were shaped to produce various tools, including massive elongated implements. Before our discovery, bone artefact production in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was widely considered as episodic, expedient and unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits. However, our results demonstrate that at the transition between the Oldowan and the early Acheulean, East African hominins developed an original cultural innovation that entailed a transfer and adaptation of knapping skills from stone to bone. By producing technologically and morphologically standardized bone tools, early Acheulean toolmakers unravelled technological repertoires that were previously thought to have appeared routinely more than 1 million years later.
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08652-5. Open access

>
         So, did those who were persuading us into thinking that this was episodic, apologize? Or should we encounter misconceptions like this over and over again, just because this is "science", and science doesn't think.

 The conclusion that this used to be considered episodic
was based on the previous body of evidence. But as the
authors above state
 "Before our discovery, bone artefact production
in pre-Middle Stone Age African contexts was
widely considered as episodic, expedient and
unrepresentative of early Homo toolkits."
 New finds, paradigms change

This isn't the only evidence that we have about past, we have a lot of evidence. The problem is in the wrong interpretation of evidence, which is obvious. The interpretation of our raised forehead was that this gave us intelligence. The interpretation of humans and animals was that humans are intelligent, and animals aren't. A mountain of wrong interpretations, over and over again. There is no excuse for wrong interpretation, being so wrong is stupid there is no way around it. How come I had the right interpretation?
See, they willingly choose to neglect some evidence. For example, they find 1.5 million old peach endocarp in China, which is identical to today's peach endocarp. Every plant changes when domesticated. This evidence says that people domesticated peaches at least 1.5 mya. They find ungulate tracks going parallel to lake margin 1.5 my old. The only interpretation can be that those ungulates were herd by humans. But scientists neglect this crucial evidence without blinking an eye just like that, and continue to support the idea that large brain gives you intelligence, despite the fact that they found intelligent human species with small brains. This all is a sea of stupidity. Wrong interpretation after wrong interpretation, massive negligence of crucial evidence. Recently a paper came out, which talks about human footprints. They do mention Laetoli footprints, they do mention 1.5 old human footprints (Koobi Fora), but not a single word about the most important of them all, the Trachilos footprints. And there is always some excuse for this. Somebody is messing big time with this science, this foul behavior has to be addressed, instead we constantly have excuses for such behavior.