• Language is a software tool

    From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 15 16:29:03 2021
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111154244.htm

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 16 04:57:12 2021
    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".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 16 18:52:27 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 16 12:33:49 2021
    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"...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 16 23:10:06 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 16 14:30:21 2021
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Wed Nov 17 00:57:20 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 16 17:00:44 2021
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Tue Nov 16 17:12:11 2021
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Tue Nov 16 17:06:20 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Tue Nov 16 17:12:59 2021
    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..?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From littoral.homo@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 16 23:02:55 2021
    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".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Wed Nov 17 01:43:40 2021
    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".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to littor...@gmail.com on Wed Nov 17 19:29:21 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Wed Nov 17 13:08:12 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 17 22:59:13 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Thu Nov 18 01:08:41 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 18 19:43:06 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Thu Nov 18 23:07:08 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 19 20:45:04 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Fri Nov 19 23:16:34 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 20 15:35:09 2021
    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.

    Of course, you only lack the evidence for this claim.

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sat Nov 20 13:30:51 2021
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 21 07:11:18 2021
    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

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00955-z
    300ka Israel cave, stone flint blades heat-treated in temperature controlled fire

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 21 18:05:05 2021
    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.

    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.

    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.

    Not for humans, as we can see.

    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

    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better. Only if you are used to burned meat from the very beginning.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Sun Nov 21 18:07:15 2021
    On 21.11.2021. 16:11, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    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://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00955-z
    300ka Israel cave, stone flint blades heat-treated in temperature controlled fire

    What about Oldowan, or Acheulean?

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Sun Nov 21 09:35:35 2021
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.

    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.

    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 22 08:47:54 2021
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.

    I would start from the beginning.

    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.

    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.

    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.

    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q

    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.

    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Mon Nov 22 06:10:32 2021
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.

    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language. Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 22 17:40:08 2021
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> 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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?

    Of meat eating.

    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.

    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.

    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.

    Or anything.

    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language. Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Mon Nov 22 13:39:06 2021
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?

    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like >>>> burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 23 02:09:05 2021
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter >>>>>> once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?

    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think
    that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut
    by Stone Age obsidian tools.

    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like >>>>>> burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Mon Nov 22 17:39:30 2021
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter >>>>>> once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think
    that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut
    by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like >>>>>> burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    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
    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 23 03:01:08 2021
    On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter >>>>>>>> once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think
    that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut
    by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like >>>>>>>> burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.

    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance
    in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat
    with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Tue Nov 23 04:03:51 2021
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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.

    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter >>>>>>>> once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think
    that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut
    by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance
    in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat
    with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-e...@googlegroups.com
    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 23 22:25:26 2021
    On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter >>>>>>>>>> once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think >>>> that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut >>>> by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance
    in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat
    with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.

    The bullet would be hurt.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Tue Nov 23 18:08:26 2021
    On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think >>>> that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut >>>> by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance
    in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat
    with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.
    The bullet would be hurt.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-e...@googlegroups.com
    I'll get the obsidian scalpel ready.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 24 07:33:53 2021
    On 24.11.2021. 3:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think >>>>>> that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut >>>>>> by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum.


    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.
    Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks.

    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance
    in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat
    with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.
    The bullet would be hurt.

    I'll get the obsidian scalpel ready.

    Just careful with that obsidian scalpel, Daud. https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Wed Nov 24 17:17:05 2021
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.11.2021. 3:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat.
    It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think >>>>>> that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut >>>>>> by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum. >>>>>>>>>>>

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>> Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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
    Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks. >>>>>>>>>
    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance >>>> in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat >>>> with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.
    The bullet would be hurt.

    I'll get the obsidian scalpel ready.
    Just careful with that obsidian scalpel, Daud.
    https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk

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

    NOTE: MY PHONE IS WRITING ONLY IN CAPITOL LETTERS. I'M NOT SHOUTING.
    IT'S HAFTED.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 25 03:06:00 2021
    On 25.11.2021. 2:17, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.11.2021. 3:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>> On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote: >>>>>> On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think >>>>>>>> that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut >>>>>>>> by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very
    beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance >>>>>> in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat >>>>>> with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.
    The bullet would be hurt.

    I'll get the obsidian scalpel ready.
    Just careful with that obsidian scalpel, Daud.
    https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk

    NOTE: MY PHONE IS WRITING ONLY IN CAPITOL LETTERS. I'M NOT SHOUTING.
    IT'S HAFTED.

    I hope that it reads small letters. Otherwise, not strange that you
    don't understand what I am talking about.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Thu Nov 25 04:44:43 2021
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:06:01 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 25.11.2021. 2:17, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.11.2021. 3:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think
    that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut
    by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting.

    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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance >>>>>> in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat >>>>>> with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.
    The bullet would be hurt.

    I'll get the obsidian scalpel ready.
    Just careful with that obsidian scalpel, Daud.
    https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk

    NOTE: MY PHONE IS WRITING ONLY IN CAPITOL LETTERS. I'M NOT SHOUTING.
    IT'S HAFTED.
    I hope that it reads small letters. Otherwise, not strange that you
    don't understand what I am talking about.

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-e...@googlegroups.com
    I DON'T SPEAK CROAtIAn. YET.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mario Petrinovic@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 25 21:10:09 2021
    On 25.11.2021. 13:44, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:06:01 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 25.11.2021. 2:17, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.11.2021. 3:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think
    that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut
    by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea.

    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance >>>>>>>> in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat >>>>>>>> with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.
    The bullet would be hurt.

    I'll get the obsidian scalpel ready.
    Just careful with that obsidian scalpel, Daud.
    https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk

    NOTE: MY PHONE IS WRITING ONLY IN CAPITOL LETTERS. I'M NOT SHOUTING.
    IT'S HAFTED.
    I hope that it reads small letters. Otherwise, not strange that you
    don't understand what I am talking about.

    I DON'T SPEAK CROAtIAn. YET.

    Ah, I see.
    But, you do smoke ganga, don't you?

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_l@21:1/5 to Mario Petrinovic on Thu Nov 25 13:12:56 2021
    On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 3:10:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 25.11.2021. 13:44, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 9:06:01 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 25.11.2021. 2:17, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 1:33:53 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 24.11.2021. 3:08, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 4:25:27 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 13:03, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 9:01:09 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 23.11.2021. 2:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 8:09:06 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 22:39, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 11:40:08 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 22.11.2021. 15:10, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:47:55 AM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    On 21.11.2021. 18:35, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
    On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:05:07 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
    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,

    I'm talking about human ancestors who had complex language software tool associated with complex stick and stone artifacts hardware tools.
    I would start from the beginning.
    Of what?
    Of meat eating.
    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.

    Orangutans eat hard nuts and fruits, gorillas don't, chimps and humans use tools but chewed a lot until milling advanced.

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Obsidian is brittle laterally (bending to the side), but perfect cutting straight through meat.
    It is brittle glass. It would cut throat.
    Perfect for cutting meat.
    Cutting, yes. Inedible meat.
    Shatter? Flint knives don't shatter cutting meat. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will (from time to time), it is brittle. It is enough to shatter
    once, to brake my tooth.
    Then you pushed the blade laterally or hit the bone and pried or twisted the blade.
    Or anything.

    Have you ever touched obsidian?
    You seem very uninformed about it.
    Did you confuse it with something else?
    No, I never touched obsidian, I really am uninformed about it. I think
    that it is a form of glass. This is why it is so sharp.
    I am absolutely convinced that it is gravely dangerous to eat meat cut
    by Stone Age obsidian tools.
    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.

    Sharp cutting into slices, then chewing like bubblegum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for humans, as we can see.

    Because humans quit swinging and started cutting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. Because if you are used to raw meat taste, you will not like
    burned meat better.
    Cats like my hamburgers well done.
    https://youtu.be/YSd413Xrk_Q
    Only if you are used to burned meat from the very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning.

    As I said, humans cooked terrestrial meat to return it to living temperature, but didn't cook seafood since it was coldblooded.
    You have very good imagination, but this is pure bollocks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks, a good scientist uses imagination as a software tool, like language.
    Hard: obsidian
    Tough: rubber
    Hard and tough: steel

    rocks don't burn, and
    if they would burn, we still can jump into sea. >>>>>>>>>>
    Be logical. To make an obsidian blade, one must knap it from the side. You can't knap it with meat, it won't chip off, it will cut through.
    I don't play Russian roulette. You say, well, there is only 1 chance >>>>>>>> in 6 that I'll die, so odds are on my side. I'd rather chop off meat >>>>>>>> with my teeth, until people invent hematite.
    https://youtu.be/OUZeDOaheUE

    A BULLET TO YOUR BRAIN WOULD DO NO DAMAGE.
    The bullet would be hurt.

    I'll get the obsidian scalpel ready.
    Just careful with that obsidian scalpel, Daud.
    https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk

    NOTE: MY PHONE IS WRITING ONLY IN CAPITOL LETTERS. I'M NOT SHOUTING.
    IT'S HAFTED.
    I hope that it reads small letters. Otherwise, not strange that you
    don't understand what I am talking about.

    I DON'T SPEAK CROAtIAn. YET.
    Ah, I see.
    But, you do smoke ganga, don't you?

    --
    https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
    human-e...@googlegroups.com
    Only if I had an obsidian pipe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)