# data[].attributes.body
this is Daniel

# data[].attributes.body
gbhjmmmnmmmjnjmmmmjnmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnjmmjn [poiuyygr567uj vbvb

# data[].attributes.body
do you think our learning of how to make tools was mainly based on evolution from the past, or did we figure new things out?

# data[].attributes.body
It is possible that the tools and evidence could be destroyed. Naturally.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Drew said about how we would go about studying these tools before we actually did. Research tools a decade ago are very different from how we go about things now. I feel that if we discovered these tools a decade ago, we would just be slowly getting to the point that we are at now so there wouldn't necessarily be too much of a difference based on how efficient we are on discovering now.
-August

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on who and when discovered it- large or small. Assuming any time period would have had the science- or in a perfect world, knew what it was, there would be major religious push back (as there still is) towards darwinism etc. but it is also plausible that during a certain rennasaince it would have been more valued and studied and we could have advanced farther.

# data[].attributes.body
little less than 5 min left. you need to make your final points now.

# data[].attributes.body
Our growth has been exponential so knowing more at an earlier time would've made a pretty big difference. - Maria N

# data[].attributes.body
I like how you added the information about the library burning and related it to how so many were set back from that.
-Marisol

# data[].attributes.body
Why do you think chance, rather than curiosity or skill, is the reason why we have evolved into the homo sapiens we are today? I understand that we don't know everything about the past but the homo genus was intelligent enough to continue developing the tools, no matter if we created them on purpose or not.
-Abbey

# data[].attributes.body
@Sudi, you also bring up a point that competition between humans to create better, more efficient tools greatly increased the speed at which tools were created.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes! I completely agree. Labels are every where and it seems that everyone seems to want a label and that they somehow feel as if they are much more powerful with a label. A label doesn't define the person as a whole and a label shouldn't have to make any one person "better" than any one else.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what you said about telling your neighbor and it spreading from there. I think that because being on top is human nature therefore when someone does something we always want to do it better.
-Dalais

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of it was circumstantial, I agree. - Maria N

# data[].attributes.body
I like your point, we are people because we decided that's what we are. We also can never be "just people" we have to add more titles and accolades in order so show that yes, we are human but some are better. ("Some animals are equal, but other animals are more equal"  animal farm) What is it about our nature to want to be so MORE than we already are? Why can we never be content with just living?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree a little bit. humans do think of themselves as the top of the food chain, but I believe that the species that created the rock tools did it out of necessity, not out of pride.

# data[].attributes.body
(to Alyssa) I agree that we would have found more, and it could fill in some blanks, like the possible connection between these more recently found primitive tools and the more advanced tools we found earlier

# data[].attributes.body
I think you make a very very good point. I did not think of this, but it would make a lot more sense for the discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you guys because our pride is kind of what keeps us going and without we (as a whole) wouldn't have developed the way we did

# data[].attributes.body
The definition of tool is ambiguous...why not create a clear definition of it before discussing it?

# data[].attributes.body
(to Samantha B.) It was probably written because if it was true then it would be a huge discovery since it would make our original assumption incorrect(that humans were the first to use tools).

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we can't always be sure because we weren't present at the time so this causes us to use the stuff we do know and hypothesize what could have happened at that time period, thus causing no information to be 100% reliable because of the different opinions. -Dalais

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree with the stick/fist beating of people that took your food. I think that humans may have encountered a problem, and with our intelligence, found a way to solve the problem more quickly and efficiently. -Dillon

# data[].attributes.body
I had a similar question that I did not get a chance to ask... how are we sure it was a sapien using this tool? Various animals have been known to adapt their surroundings and use other tools.. I forget the exact example, but wasnt there a species of birds that dropped stones to obtain something? Obviously not the same as knapping- but why do humans count out other animals?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Alyssa that we weren't alive at the time when the knapping first occurred but through technology we have discovered way more information about the homo genus history than we thought was possible. Considering we've come this far, isn't it a possibility that we can uncover even more about our history.
-Abbey

# data[].attributes.body
In the last paragraph on the first page, the author states that there were other sources of evidence that pre-homo species could use tools. I think it can be considered fact now because it can be backed up by multiple sources

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you that the sourcing of the information is most probably guesswork however you must admit that the people back then had the same extremeties as us or close enough that now we have a fairly good chance of guessing their purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what you said about how if someone was stealing their food that it would be easier to beat them with a stick than with just your hands. Life in general and certain situations are a whole lot easier when there is something else there to help aid you through the situation. If person A and person B are fighting and person A has a gun then obviously person A is more powerful.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree the matter depends on the definition of the word tool. We could simply pick up a stick to poke a bee hive and technically call it a tool.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you very much Dante, about the "whacking stick" that is.

# data[].attributes.body
I prefer to call it the Whap Stick. Plus, you make a good point. The article says that we found old tools, but by the definition you use, there could be tools that are way older, but a stabby rock used by humans could look the same as any other stabby rock.
-Arman

# data[].attributes.body
I think it says that we were wrong about how intelligent they were and what they were capable of, meaning we should try and learn more about what else they could do.

# data[].attributes.body
@Dante
Good point. I agree that the very first tools may well have been things that are common such as sticks and rocks, things we can't trace.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this is very likely, since they would have had the thought process to understand things can be used for other things.

# data[].attributes.body
@guy with a cola lanyard
Although your example is funny, I see your point. Maybe through trial and error, humans were able to narrow down natural "tools" and modify them to create an ideal tool.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though there were large differences in environment many tools looked the same but were used for different purposes. What does this say about the human brain? How connected are our thoughts if we can be so similar but different

# data[].attributes.body
I do think the rotting away of the tools is a possibility but I agree with Nathaniel that they likely moved on from an area that was previously populated leaving tools behind that we have just not found, and or what Dante said that we have found previous tools but they are different from today's distinguishable tools so we didn't identify them as possibly being tools. -Emily

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we were able to "flourish" rather than our ancestors because we were able to better adapt to our surroundings whereas our ancestors developed/created tools but there is a possibility that they weren't able to advance farther with stone tools causing them to die off.
- Annahita

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with us not being able to trace back to the earliest times of what tools were used and how they were made.
-Marisol

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the first tools probably would be hard to find. Over time it would've been too damaged to recognized as a tool. The ones we found even were hard to recognize as tools. If the first tool was made of carbon matter then it would've decayed and we wouldn't find it at all. - Maria N

# data[].attributes.body
I think it would be unlikely to discover the first actual tools because in the passage, the author stated that the tools that they had discovered were indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Even with the ones they found being more well made than expected. So those first made are likely indistinguishable from just any other rock sitting around.
-August

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the tools found are probably not the first tools ever made as those would wear out quickly due to poor quality as the makers would not have enough experience in making tools.

# data[].attributes.body
the first tools could also be teeth, right? even the dinosaurs had their tools to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what you said about how their culture was simply just incomplete.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, and I believe that humans are always improving and finding more ways to develop as a species
- Julia

# data[].attributes.headline
Click the three dots and expand to see who wrote a comment ya'll.

# data[].attributes.subject
Click the three dots and expand to see who wrote a comment ya'll.

# data[].attributes.body
This is Mina, I think that both branches may have developed at the same time, we surely must have communicated and mingled

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think that all the sapiens lived near each other? perhaps our gene pools got seperated?

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Neanderthals came to create such things afterwards because creating jewelry is much more than just hitting one rock against the other.
-Dalais

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, location is important. Horizontal vs vertical distance also played a big role. The continent of Asia is more horizontal so there are less differences in climate while the Americas are vertical so the big changed in climate can stop migration and interaction between groups which can stunt development. - Maria N

# data[].attributes.body
I agree; the changes undergone by different hominid species would have differed due to being in different locations and environments/climates. I wonder if varying levels of interaction between groups might have impacted this as well

# data[].attributes.body
I agree. Diverse ecological constraints were definitely a factor in the evolution of homo, as well as war and innovation

# data[].attributes.body
Since humans went to different continents, I think that they would adapt to the environment that they encountered.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, location plays a big part in how species adapt and what they adapt to.
- Julia

# data[].attributes.body
@Eric I don't think a common culture had been established in the time period of when we were just learning to use tools, considering most abstract concepts had not existed yet. These sapiens were just scratching the surface of their capability.
@Bryson In response to your statement talking about how you believed these early tools mentioned in the article were intentional, I personally disagree. What seems like such an obvious solution to us was not obvious to these Sapiens, simply because of how little this
@Sam There's no way to know if our musings are fact, after all science is simply educated guessing, which is why the author of the article didn't use specific vocabulary. With all of the evidence of the use of these tools piling up, it is probable that our hypothesis' are correct. Of course, we'll never know exactly how humanity played out because we don't have a survivor from 3.4 million years ago to tell us how it was.
- Emma Anderson

# data[].attributes.body
we evolved and have technology now, so we should be flourishing more than the homo genus

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you, but I also feel that there is far too much gaps in our research- another predator, a natural disaster, breeding- so many variables can cause other species to die out compared to another. I don't think this is something we can answer today.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that with the evolution of tools came the evolution of everything else. One being food and what we eat, so with more tools being created and becoming more complex came the discoveries of more things we could do with those tools which in the end is a driving factor of most things we have created and discovered. -August

# data[].attributes.body
I find it interesting that humans ended up becoming the most advanced species when there was another species that may have been similarly intelligent and died out. I too wonder why the other species did not evolve when it had over a million years to advance. -Dillon

# data[].attributes.body
I think homo sapiens flourished rather than our ancestors because we adapted/evolved. Our ancestors might have developed the tools, but homo sapiens could have been the first to figure out how to use them within different environments
-Abbey

# data[].attributes.body
@guy with the red lanyard
I think your thinking is correct. Like previous people have said, groups migrated out of Africa and develop their own independent societies. Tool usage would've then developed independently. As a result, certain groups would have different technologies when compared to others.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the reason we flourished is because we kept evolving, and relating back to Ishmael, i think that our species became takers causing a want for things, when previously we only tried to survive instead of strive and become superior like we do today. - Emily

# data[].attributes.body
Not only tools, but also anatomy. Teeth, digestion, stomachs, levels of energy consumption also impacted our transition from vegetation to meat. - Maria N

# data[].attributes.body
-bryson

# data[].attributes.body
This is Josh.
I think that because that these early humans created jewelry and art that creativity is part of being a human.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, being able to create things that don't have to do with survival such as art, to me anyways, is a fair indicator of intelligence.

# data[].attributes.body
I think what caused them to come down was curiosity just like this was most likely the reason that caused them to hit a rock against a rock. Perhaps they also they saw other animals and wanted to interact with their environment
- Dalais .

# data[].attributes.body
yes, some inventions are created by accident, like the popsicle, but most are created from ideas, and not by accident.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it wasn't a matter of intelligence but mental capacity. They were advanced for the structure of their brains but we're advanced to the structure of our brains. - Maria N

# data[].attributes.body
I think that humans are unique in our problem solving abilities and can adapt quicker to situation changes. Our knowledge is constantly evolving to the point that 200 years from now we will be the dumb old historical people who should have figured out that blahblahb lah wouldn't work or that yaddayadda was inevitable. We will be seen as having backwards ideals and technology, especially due to the speed we are changing. Change has become faster, that is the biggest difference between us and the neanderthals.

# data[].attributes.body
Tools do not necessarily correlate with more meat consumption. Ease of access doesn't help in hunting, it wasn't until the invention of spears and bows (As humans hunting procedures had originally consisted of chasing animals until they overheated and died) and inimitably the agriculture revolution that allowed humans to truly expand into the one we know today.

# data[].attributes.body
This is Mina, I think yes it is the complexity of the problem that differentiate

# data[].attributes.body
No of course dogs are not a good example for everything, it is simply what came to mind quickest for me- my point is that if there is a need, all animals will pursue it.

# data[].attributes.body
Be sure to focus on what developments led to the perception of a "sophisticated society" and why, instead of just tool usage.

# data[].attributes.body
I was not attempting to say that other sapiens did not have thumbs, but rather that ours may have simply been better equipped over time and therefore we survived. Sorry I mispoke.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Neanderthals were the start of the whole jewelry thing but obviously we improved upon that. It's really just the beginning of innovation.

# data[].attributes.body
(to Alyssa) If we couldn't find the actual first tools, then what would indicate that they were the first tools?

# data[].attributes.body
So I know very few of the names of the freshman, so I'll refer to you guys by, persay, T-shirts n whatnot.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe your trial-and-error theory is more likely of the two

# data[].attributes.body
@Bryson , where did the motivation for creating the first tools come from?

# data[].attributes.body
I would say that while not every innovation was an accident some had to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Inventions are made from accidents very often, it's the observations we make from them that lead to invention.
-Dante

# data[].attributes.body
Well said. I think it may have started when humans realized that hitting stuff with rocks does good things. Eventually, they ended up hitting rocks with rocks, and it made a sharp rock, and that sharp rock stabbed things. It's the complexity of the human species.
-Arman

# data[].attributes.body
One of the themes in the passage said something similar about "completing the picture"

# data[].attributes.body
The comparison to the dire wolves really helped connection the information for me.

# data[].attributes.body
Commented on how we weren't The homo sapiens, we had to evolve and live around others before we became the dominant homo sapiens

# data[].attributes.body
Great use of the provided article of evidence! @Reagan

# data[].attributes.body
I think the evidence from Neanderthals shows advancement we've made because of tool use.
- Sam Bohn

# data[].attributes.body
Says that curiosity is vital to human development because without it humans wouldn't have been searching for new ways to accomplish survival (tool making)
-Daniel C

# data[].attributes.body
Remember to put your name on your posts. When you put your name on your post, you don't need the @ symbol.

# data[].attributes.body
Good point regarding humans using tools to adapt as the equivalent of other animals having ie claws and fangs, etc...

# data[].attributes.body
Says that being able to create inventions is an adaptation. Ultimately true, since the brain had to be built up through evolution from nothing.

# data[].attributes.body
Talked about part of the Taker society is modifying the environment, I think this shows why Takers are destructive

# data[].attributes.body
I like your use of personal experience in your rebuttal, but is one dogs tendencies good enough to equate to over all tendencies

# data[].attributes.body
Great anecdote. I agree, every species will get creative at some point with their environment