Science Daily: Early Modern Humans Used Fire To Engineer Tools From Stone; Complex Cognition Older Than 72,000 Years?.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2009) — Evidence that early modern humans living on the coast of the far southern tip of Africa 72,000 years ago employed pyrotechnology – the controlled use of fire – to increase the quality and efficiency of their stone tool manufacturing process, is being reported in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Science.
An international team of researchers, including three from the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, deduce that "this technology required a novel association between fire, its heat, and a structural change in stone with consequent flaking benefits." Further, their findings ignite the notion of complex cognition in these early engineers.
"Our illumination of the heat treatment process shows that these early modern humans commanded fire in a nuanced and sophisticated manner," says lead author Kyle Brown, a doctoral candidate at the University of Cape Town, and field and lab director in Mossel Bay, South Africa, for ASU's Institute of Human Origins.
"We show that early modern humans at 72,000 years ago, and perhaps as early as 164,000 years ago in coastal South Africa, were using carefully controlled hearths in a complex process to heat stone and change its properties, the process known as heat treatment," explains Brown.
What's the controversy here? Your posts have a point. This one seems to be that long ago, folks were as smart as we are now.
ReplyDeleteThat's not controversial at all.
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteEven though you think there is a scientific consensus on everything, take it from me everything is controversial.
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke, author, 1999
Science is not consensus. Everyone can think something and it can still be wrong. Everyone used to think the world was flat, they used to think the earth was the center of the universe, they used to think our galaxy was the only one...
ReplyDeleteConsensus sucks. Evidence FTW.
For example, Evolution is a fact. The mechanism of it is debated in journals daily.
The only controversy exists in little-known blogs in the posts of psychoceramic quote-miners and cherry-pickers like AiG, ICR and OiM.
BTW: Gen Con was a blast, I have photos to prove it.
Jeffery,
ReplyDelete"Science is not consensus. Everyone can think something and it can still be wrong. Everyone used to think the world was flat, they used to think the earth was the center of the universe, they used to think our galaxy was the only one...
Consensus sucks. Evidence FTW."
Amen.
"For example, Evolution is a fact."
Bad example.
"BTW: Gen Con was a blast, I have photos to prove it."
ReplyDeletePics of stfu? ... lol.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
ReplyDeleteIt is inescapable. Evolution happened, is happening, will continue to happen on this planet for the next billion years.
I only wish that I could survive in some way to see it unfold before the sun gets too hot for our form of life to handle. By then, beings from Europa or Titan (or from other stars) can come dig our dead asses up and be amazed at the brief span of time we occupied.
If you do not accept the truth of evolution, you are either in denial, of low character, of low IQ, religiously mind-numbed, or do so out a need decieve others.
Pick one. With you I lean toward in denial, but I could be mistaken... perhaps you are a charletan, swiftboating others so you can sell books to the loonies.
If this is, in fact, the case, I get a percentage for helping you work out the inconsistancies.
What are protozoa evolving into?
ReplyDeleteWhat are sharks evolving into?
What are echinoids evolving into?
Evolution is impossible because DNA prevents it. DNA is what it is. Pigs will never fly. The only way to change DNA is through intelligent design.
ReplyDelete"After the fallen angels went into the daughters of men, the sons of men taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order to provoke the Lord." -- Jasher 4:18
What new species have evolved in the last 1000 years? None that I know of.
ReplyDeleteThe tuatara, alleged to the be the fastest evolving animal, hasn't changed at all in 180 million years.
ReplyDelete"And the problem in geology is not only [a] problem of annihilation of species but also a problem of origin of species. In fact the very question of evolution: How could so many species that populate the Earth, and many more have populated without leaving a single descendant, how could so many species evolve just by the mere process of competition? From the original simple form, practically unicellular form, just by competition, can you understand how a crocodile and a bird and a worm and a man and an insect with many legs, all could come to be?" -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966
ReplyDeleteJust because you do not understand something (as evinced by your complete ignorance of it) does not make it untrue.
ReplyDeleteWhat are protozoa evolving into?
ReplyDeleteWhat are sharks evolving into?
What are echinoids evolving into?
These questions indicate that you know nothing about evolution. Please crack a proper science text and get back to me.
Actually, That's quite the Contrary, OiM. Evolution IS fact.
ReplyDeleteHere, let me put it to you this way:
If you are aware of Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, then you must understand what it means. It basically means that in a constant changing environment, animals have to be able to adapt in someway to be able to pass on their genes to the next generation. However, how can they do that if their bodies aren't built with the "tools" and adaptations to survive? Simple. When your DNA replicates, it NEVER makes the EXACT copy of the original strand. This mutation can cause one of three things to happen to the organism, Death, a Genetic Disorder or nothing at all. Actually that "Nothing" may actually be the adaptation the organism was looking for. It may immunity, it may a change in behavior, etc. It may not even be physical appearance. Thus, this individual of that population of species may be able to succeed in passing it's genes on to the next generation. Therefore, there's the success, and the others who did NOT happen to gain this beneficial mutation, perished and thus, extinction. In fact, the environment happened to suit the new mutation and the individual succeeded.
After millions of years, Macroevolution happens and this can involve speciation because a certain parts of it's anatomy have changed that Scientists would no longer consider them close enough to be the same species, thoough they may share the same genus.
Do you get it now, OiM?
Okay, let's say that there was a whole population of Humans on an island, and if half of the island became isolated from the other half, then you've got two separate Gene Pools. If the environment changes on the other half that split off and the other half has not changed positions and the environment has not changed, then what's going to happen to the two populations? They're going to diverge and adapt to two different environments and as their bodies become accustomed to the environment and keep passing on their genes to the next generation, then we'll start to see some variation to the point of speciation as a result of Divergent Evolution.
There's more examples out there OiM. Do you at least, understand the idea? Evolution IS fact! I am also a Christian, so I believe God handled the Mechanisms of evolution VERY discretely, until today. :) Anywho, I've made my point and I rest my case.