Why do we cook are food? Obviously I know WHY we cook our food,

>>8021628
we probably found it was easier to digest when cooked, or tastier, and maybe we even used to get sick occasionally when eaten food raw. somewhere we decided cooking some things are better. we probably cant handle raw stuff like we used to, but i dont think our immune systems got weaker. its more specific though

Oh the good old days when you could light a forest on fire, watch as it fell before, and claim your reward of cooked animals and herbs.

Agriculture.

Wild animals and plants are totally edible raw. Our agricultural processes make then unsafe. The reason why cooked meat is tastier is because it's more boo available to us. Evolution makes us like foods high in nutrients (double edged sword making us love fatty sugary salty foods), so naturally we prefer cooked plants and meat.

Raw food diets aren't based on science btw.

>>8021664
>Our agricultural processes make then unsafe.

how so senpai?

we can eat food without cooking/processing anything. it's just extremely hard and energy intensive, to the point where 99% of the population would die off if we all committed to it. our immune systems have not got 'weaker' but we have indeed evolved to eat cooked food - and a recent theory suggests that we evolved BECAUSE we ate cooked food.

File: 1468512383137.gif (1MB, 245x200px)

1MB, 245x200px

>>8021628
I am not gonna eat worms and leafs

>>8021674
This, besides the "99% would die off" part. That seems a bit too extreme.

Cooking is like pre-digesting our food for us, saving us a lot of energy that we can use for our brains or whatever.

>>8021628
Cooking our food is what made us what we are today.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7JuMTlZVvM
There's another 90 minute documentary that talks about it, but I can't remember what it was called, nor can I find it.

>>8021628
Tampons can't cook

Nice speculation ITT, but the real reason human beings started cooking food is because of three things: abundance, ability and curiosity.

Japanese macaques have been observed doing rudimentary food preparation. See, because the macaques now have an abundance of food and no longer need worry about starving to death, they can experiment with their food without concern that what they do will lead to their starvation. One macaque started by washing her potatoes in a freshwater spring. This removed the soil and improved the potato's flavour. Soon, all the other macaques in her group followed suit. One day, she made the fortuitous mistake of washing her sweet potato in a saltwater spring (or the ocean, I forgot which) and was like "Holy shit! Salt makes things taste good!" So she began using /only/ saltwater sources for her potatoes. Again, all the other macaques followed her example.

Basically, give an animal with the ability to experiment with new things an abundance of things with which to experiment while meeting all four of its basic needs and it will begin to experiment. Thereafter, it's only a matter of time until seasoning is discovered. Then fermentation. Then cooking.

>>8021737

look at that very speculative post.

>>8021737
>At this rate Macaques will launch a shuttle into space before an African nigger does
It really tickles your neurons.

>>8021737

>seasoning before fermentation

kek

Chewing takes a lot of energy, basically.
Have a look at how much of a primate's day is spent chewing, and think about how cooking cuts down on that.

>>8021628
Cooking food breaks down the cell walls and allows more nutrients to be released.

>>8021758
>Have a look at how much of a primate's day is spent chewing, and think about how cooking cuts down on that.
>Pseudoscience - The Post
The reason primates, and every other herbivore spends the majority of the day grazing is because of the caloric content of a plant based diet.

>>8021763

wouldn't be if they cooked it

>>8021755
Absolutely seasoning occurs before fermentation. Well, seasoning on purpose occurs before fermenting on purpose, anyway.
As seen with the macaques, who purposefully season their potatoes in saltwater and have yet to be observed purposefully fermenting their food for consumption.

>>8021751
The Africans don't have their four basic needs met yet, so are unable to participate regularly in innovation. The don't have shelter, food, water and security. The macaques do.

>>8021780

you are talking out of your ass. fermented foods are everywhere in the wild.

>>8021628
Cooking food improves digestion and nutrional intake. It isn't an understatement to say that cooking is what gave us the nutrition to evolve into the apex species on the planet. We owe our intelligence and large brain to cooking almost entirely. See also >>8021643
>>8021674
>>8021706
>>8021711

>>8021780
>The Africans don't have their four basic needs met yet, so are unable to participate regularly in innovation. The don't have shelter, food, water and security. The macaques do.
>Monkey's are literally 10000% better at being upstanding human citizens than Africans.

>>8021773
You dont cook a salad

>>8021780
why dont africans have their basic needs though? it can't just be because of the climate, right?

>>8021784
>he doesn't understand the difference between an animal fermenting X on purpose v finding X that simply fermented by happenstance

>>8021786
We owe it to meat eating and we owe meat eating to females.

>>8021812
rice salad you obstinate cunt

>>8021821
>We owe it to meat eating and we owe meat eating to females.
>we owe meat eating to females

Is this a pun about eating pussy or women working in the kitchen or... what?

Cause i'm pretty sure the whole "kill a wild animal, then cook it" operation was more of a partnership shared by everyone who didn't want to fucking die.

>>8021823
Females are likely the first to create tools, including weaponry. With most intelligent species, tools are first implemented by the females of the group, often to level competition with males which tend to be stronger and larger. Female dolphins use tools to help catch fish. They teach this to their offspring, though their sons tend to not care much and most won't follow what they're taught. Female elephants have been observed using tools to swat flies they can't reach with their trunks.

Similarly, female primates are observed hunting with simple spears and fishing with rudimentary harpoons far more than are males. Bonobos, which have a culture more centred on communal sharing than most other primates, have their females using tools for grooming and shelter than for hunting and warding off unwanted advances by males. Bonobo females even make and use dildos.

Female chimpanzees use spears to kill and eat bushbabies and female orangutans use harpoons to fish (or, more accurately, to steal fish caught in fishermen's nets)

It's highly likely that human females were the first of our species to use tools and weaponry, too, just as females in most other species are the first to use tools in theirs.

>>8021822
100g of raw rice is more nutritious and calorific than 100g of cooked rice.

>>8021840
> tools are first implemented by the females of the group, often to level competition with males which tend to be stronger and larger

this is nonsense.

men create the tools to better compete with other males, as well as to provide for their families better.

furthermore, look at the evolution of tools in all of recorded human history, almost all are made by men.

>>8021821

you have one single example of an animal 'seasoning' a food and you're extrapolating a linear progression of evolved culinary behaviours in the wild. it's stupid. there are many examples of animals preferentially selecting fermented foods, washing them, acidulating them, even heating them... you aren't gonna win a nobel prize cause you heard some podcast on macaques or some shit once

>>8021840
>Bonobo females even make and use dildos.

Male bonobos have made pocket vaginas out of any number of small animals.

>>8021628
>are food
Of course cooking food is a novel concept to a savage nigger who can barely write.

>>8021821
>we owe meat eating to females

preposterous, since its males that did the hunting inorder to provide that meat (as well as themselves partaking of the meat after the hunt before bringing it back to the family, so as to replace nutrients lost in the hunt.

hunting is an all day affair.

>>8021812

what the fuck is that supposed to mean

>100g of raw rice is more nutritious and calorific than 100g of cooked rice.

this is clever bait tho

>>8021848
prove it. eat 100g of raw rice and post the video. cretin.

>>8021812
in much of the history of european cuisine, all vegetables where cooked.

this is because the fertilizer/manure used was sometimes also human in origin.

>>8021628

Animals can be susceptible to food-borne illnesses as well, particularly parasitic illnesses. It's not so much that humans have evolved a weakness, that other animals, particularly carnivores and even more so carrion-eaters, have evolved to tolerate consumption of pathogens in food.

>>8021628
Because of agriculture and factory farming. You can easily have a full raw food diet if you live in a western country, though it might cost you a bit.

Grains and most legumes need to be cooked to be edible, the vegetables that can be eaten raw are harder to mass produce and to keep fresh over long periods of time without destroying nutrients and flavor.

Most meats can theoretically be eaten raw too if it comes from a healthy animal, which is something you won't find in a factory farm. If you go hunting in the wild and kill an animal with barely or no contact to humans then it will probably be less dangerous to eat raw. Though you might still catch worms other parasites, so I wouldn't suggest it.

cooking is essentially an invention created by early man and paired with agriculture so that we could enjoy the convenience of eating stock-piled food instead of grazing like animals.

essentially cooking food turned humans into carrion feeders.

>>8021895

carrion feeding isn't hunting anon.

no

my expectation is that drying of meats came before cooking of them, especiallybin climates suitable for that.

smoking probably came very close behind cooking.

boiling was probably later, due to the difficulty of creating cooking vessels that can withstand the heat required to boil water and the food in it.

as to cooking over an open fire, i expect early man found a warm meal more satisfying than a cold raw one, as well as the maillard effect making grilled meat particularly tasty

>>8021905

>as to cooking over an open fire, i expect early man found a warm meal more satisfying than a cold raw one

much more likely to have been because it's much easier to eat.

>>8021905
adding to this, there is one thing i find perplexing and have never looked into.

our ancestors certainly did not boil their water before consumption so as to kill pathogens/parasites, but any modern man is more or less forced to.

i hope this is simply the result of lack of exposure and subsequent lack in immune efficienc of an individualy, rather than a congenital trait.

i find it shameful that i cant drink from a stream as my ancestors did in the wilderness, without having ro worry i will shit my guts out afterwards.

>>8021912

i'll do it for you and you can get my poop transplanted into you if you pay me a couple thousand bucks

>>8021908
warm food feels good

and the flavor of cooked meat is improved, atlesst to a human palate.

there are two different accounts of what condition the teeth of our ancestors had. one says they experienced more wear, and mechanically degraded faster, while the other puts of much of modern tooth decay to rest mostly on sugar in our diets.

there is also a social aspect to cooking meat over an open fire that i think is significant even in the time of our distant ancestors. much more so than sitting in a circle around an uncooked carcass.

i dont put much weight on the "ease of eating" thing. when you are hungry, thats the last thing on your mind.

if your teeth are good, its not much harder to eat raw meat than it is cooked meat. you just chew in a different way, or simply swallow it in chunks.

and dried meat is even harder to chew than fresh uncooked meat, and dried meat mostly certainly was a staple very early on.

>>8021912
Don't worry anon. Your ancestor had to worry about that to. That's why he learned to boil water in the first place, so he didn't shit his brains out and die of dehydration.

>>8021917
im a registered nurse and have colleagues working in poop transplantation. fascinating field, since it really does seem to work.

dunno about it increasing capability to withstand water born pathogens though.

still, i find it a mark of shame that i cant drink from a stream my ancestors would have. makes me feel like i have degenerated.

>>8021812
Nor do you make friends with it.

>>8021920

>i dont put much weight on the "ease of eating" thing. when you are hungry, thats the last thing on your mind.

it makes an enormous difference when you're talking about a big working muscle on a wild animal. it's like ten times harder if you don't break it down with cooking.

>>8021922
difficult to boil water though, cos you need a vessel in which to do it. even harder to provide for a larger community say of 6-12 people.

i suppose they could have used wooden vessels or rock cauldrons, but in my limited knowledge, i dont think these have much archaelogical evidence.

>>8021628
I just ate a raw Apple tho

>>8021928
ill take your word for it, ive never tried.

nonetheless, when it comes to the meat from a large animal, it would have been too much to eat, even cooked, before it spoiled.

drying would naturally be the way to preserve the excess.

>>8021669
We make piles of cows so high that by the point the first cows shit gets to the bottom we have already elected a new president

>>8021929
Some finds have indicated use of dropping heated stones into clay pots or tightly woven baskets.

mostly for soupish kinds of things, not just boiling water, either way he really didn't need to boil it, just raise the temp above 140 as thats when most bacteria is killed off.

>>8021737
How about the fact that cooked food doesn't immediately rot without a fridge?

>>8021944
yeah ive seen that done with heated stones.

must have been remarkable and almost magical to early humans to see what happens to the water when you put a hot stone into it.

wpuld still require quite a large cooking vessel though, and if there is food in it, gets even harder to keep the temperature up.

dunno about clay vessels in the stone age.
woven baskets perhaps. ive seen some baskets made of birch bark with hot stones i them (think it was a Ray Mears episode)

quite a romantic thought to think that perhaps our ancestors constructed large baskets, like a meter in diameter, for boiling water or boiling meals with heated stones at the bottom.

>>8021780
Well they don't really need shelter that much in Africa and i have seen them hunt, they pretty much while out everything that moves and strip the flesh and cook it for consumption so that's two
They bring water from the river, not sure why they haven't figured out its easier to live next to the river tho and as security their only risk are other Africans.
Maybe they had so much available food they just reproduced so fast it reached a point food became scarce and this happened way before they could develop science

>>8021945
yes, but not by much.

does make it harder for fly maggots to find purchase in it though i think, especially in grilled meat.

i stand by the expectation that most of the leftover meat was probably dried thoughm rather than còoked.

in some climates the meat could simply be frozen in winter ofc.

i think there is some archaeological evidence of rudimentary underground food storages that had lower tempersture as well as protecting the food from insects etc.

>>8021970
just off the top of my head, considering the african environment, sources of water are often also where predators and large animals dangerous to humans live.

this is less of an issue in europe, and i think europe overall has more riverways and lakes than africa ever has, per square kilometer.

>>8021849
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense at all.
The first tools and i mean crafted tools beyond picking up a stick or a rock where likely to be hammers not something sharp, stabbing is just stabbing and anyone can stab but a hammer is based on strength. Some chimpanzee that live tnear mostly only fruit based food have actively developed hammers to gbreakshit open and that's considered to be the most advanced we have seen yet

>>8021854
Where are the examples of animals collecting and fermenting food then repeating the behaviour, thereby proving they understand that doing X will yield Y result?

>podcast
I don't even really know what one is exactly and I certainly have never listened to or watched one.

>>8021849
>>8021860
First and foremost, men create the tools /today/. Prehistoric females, however, were the first. Secondly, this "men hunt, women don't" thing shows you know nothing of anthropology.
Observing hunter-gatherer societies that still exist today, especially the various uncontacted peoples of the world, imply that the idea of labour being split according to gender is near-to nonexistent. Men are seen gathering food and women are seen hunting. This implies that paleolithic societies did the same and has been very, very well documented by Steven Kuhn, among others.
As we have no early humans to observe to see the genesis of tool-making, we can only observe its occurrence among non-human primates. These observations show that it is unilaterally female primates which first use and implement tools. Some males, usually offspring of a tool-using mother, occasionally follow thereafter, but daughters of tool-using mothers will always use tools.
We see weaponised tools being used by female primates on hunts, to fend off unwanted males and to help in gathering. It is also observed that males that learn to use tools do so less successfully than females. It's been proposed that it's likely because male primates are preoccupied, no joke, with masturbating, playing and doing fuck knows what else while the females learn from their tool-using mothers how to best utilise tools.

>>8021937

primitive methods of drying would also break down the connective tissues.

>>8021979
Well animals don't often approach big tribes of noisy humans

>>8021991
Well if you are talking about animals who eat tons of fruit and don't really have any particular interest in spice it's likely they will discover fermentation before.
There are monkeys in Brazil that steal tourists drinks and actively go for alcoholic fruity ones over cola

>>8021988
yes, and there is also the issue of protecting your tribe against the males from other tribes.

a weapon, no matter how crude, is a huge advantage over bare hands.

as to the evolution of tools, i suppose simply using a rock for crushing came before the evokution of the simple but effective spear.

spear probably came somewhere after uumans discovered they can throw rocks and kill things, realising that a pointed stick is more effective both thrown and as a stabbing tool against larger prey or human opponents.

in anycase, it would have been men that developed them, primarily as weapons for defence and killing things.

using stones to crush grains may have been somewhat concurrent.

cutting instruments, dunno. certainly necessary for dismembering a carcass.

>>8021991
Chimpanzee is likely to develop spears because they can naturally sharpen wood with their strong teeth and jaw. Female chimpanzee could easily develop spears before male chimpanzee.
Humans don't have the hability to sharpen using teeth, it's unlikely that sharp was our first concept of crafting

>>8021887
>>8021895
Anthropologist Gerald (?) Diamond proposes that the development of agriculture, likely created by females as a means to make gathering simpler, is the point at which female primates stop developing tools and start to lose standing in society.
From that point, they stay put and tend fields. With this relative ease of living, they start having multiple pregnancies, often one after another, and become busy with caring for offspring.

>>8021988
The first tools were spears, sharpened either by teeth or by grinding down on a rough surface. This is seen today with prisoners making shivs of toothbrushes. They aren't making hammers. Spears are the simplest weapon and therefore the first ones used.

>>8022004
>discover fermentation
That's not enough. They need to understand it and reproduce it. The macaques mentioned earlier understand seasoning. They get that a potato tastes better with salt on it than without. They dip potatoes in salted water to reproduce that experience. We do not have examples of any animals actively gathering items for fermentation in order to consume it.

>>8022010
see >>8022015
They also grind spears even sharper by grinding them on rough surfaces, like certain sorts of stones. We can say that the stone is the first tool and thrown stones the first weapon, but the spear is undoubtedly the first weapon made.

>>8022010
>>8022015
I see you have replied to my post, here is another post you may want to reply I wrote too

>>8021991
you are completely wrong.

almost all hunter-gatherer tribes existant today share this division of labor among the sexes.

the reaso being that males are physically more fit for hunting, as well as having a better conception of 3d space as is useful especially in thrown implements and bows. the males also gather during their hunts should opportunity present itself and especially if no game is forth coming.

furthermore, someone has to take care of the children who cannot be left alone. women, as the one who has carried the child to term and then breastfed it for much of its young life, are better suited to this role.

women may have developed tools such as a needle and rudimentary threads, or been the first to grind seeds or grain, possibly.

but the onus on hunting and defence of the tribe against other tribes, is on the males, and the development of tools as weapons naturally follows feom this and from them.

as to males learning to use tools slower, it is demonstrated than men have a slower process of development into their adult prime. women mature earlier, probably as a function of being able to breed earlier.

Also, these earlier mothers would have focused their socialisation and education on their daughters, so as to prepare them for their roles and related to which tasks the mother knows best.

its only later in age, probably around puberty, that males are invited to join the males on their hunting trips. before that, they would have practiced some rudimentary skills related to that future hunting role with their other male children counterparts.

>>8022015
>This is seen today with prisoners
Ok I'm being trolled

>>8022025
Who are you quoting?

>>8022004
yes

many animals partake of partially fermented fruits in the fall. birds love them, squirrels love them and even cows love fermented apples and pears.

>>8021628
>Have our stomachs and immune systems gotten weaker?

I'm sure our immune systems have gotten weaker, but that's not really relevant. The issue is other parts of our body. Mainly our jaws.

Near-human primates have much larger jaw muscles than we humans do. They need this to chew up plant fiber to make it digestible, and they also spend a massive amount of their time during the day doing so. Cooking food is a massive evolutionary advantage because it means that we don't have to sit on our butts for 10 hours a day chewing.

>>8022023
No, I do not concider pensioners making sharp toothbrushes as suficient proof that the first crafted tools where spear

File: salad4.jpg (2MB, 3872x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3872x2592px

>>8021628
You don't have to OP

>>8022010
chewing on a stick doesnt sharpen ypur teeth.

the enamel on uour teeth is many times over far harder than any stick.

you are confusing humans and primates with rodents, that have teeth which continue to grow in length throughout their lifetime.

im primates and apes, that does not happen.

>>8022028
I would like the fact that different animals with different bodys being more likely to develop different tools acknowledged please
Putting a stick between two sharp rocks seems like a much more advanced thought that put hard rock that I already use to smash in long stick I already use to reach the same way chew on stuck o stick sharp is likely easy for a chimpanzee

>>8022039
I meant sharpen the stick you master ruseman

>>8022026
>all this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>>8022006
>cutting instruments, dunno.

Cutting instruments were very early forms of technology because they are so easy to make.

Smack one rock against another rock so that it breaks. Now you have a razor sharp edge, though perhaps with a not-so-ideal shape. Do that a few more times and you can make a knife, scraper, etc.

You can also source cutting edges from natural sources: teeth, tusks, etc. Many are naturally sharp. Others (like a piece of bone) can be made sharp by rubbing it against a rock.

>>8022010
>> it's unlikely that sharp was our first concept of crafting
I agree. A crushing implement (hammer, club) was surely first. Simply picking up a rock or a tree branch would make a crude one.

....but humans don't need their jaw to sharpen a stick. They could simply rub it against a stone.

>>8022015
>The first tools were spears
this is false.

the first tool was a rock, which can be used for bashing, grinding and throwing with no modification.

>>8022047
Huh?

>>8022039
Then again you where never very sharp where you?
And who needed stones and who needed sticks? Men because men hunted because we know that our form of society is based on women staying at home and carrying pregnancy, maybe harvesting fruits while men risk their lives
I mean just fucking look at our bodys, men are designed to hurt

>>8022055
>first tool was a rock
See >>8022023
I think Anon said 'tool' but meant 'weapon.'

>>8022055

I assume we mean "tool that humans actually created", as opposed to picking up a stick or a rock.

>>8022054
But we are talking about the first concept of crafting taking something and making it something else with the purpose of making it useful we are talking about tools.
Stones and sticks where around, it's easy to pick one and figure what's good for, the idea of turning it to something else is more advanced, there was no other purpose for hitting the stick with the rock but to sharpen it couldn't have been done with any other purpose or by mistake
Stones where already being used for crushing, stone to hammer is an easy upgrade.
That's why boiling wasn't the first way of cooking you can't boil if you aren't trying to boil but you can drop meat on firr

>>8022057
>look at our bodies
>men are designed to hurt
That's been covered as an explanation of why females developed tools first. See >>8021991 and >>8021840

>>8022015
>likely created by females as a means to make gathering simpler,

gathering requires no tools.

the earliest primitive tool for this, would have been a simple stick used for knocking fruit out of trees beyond reach, or digging for tubers/grubs.

nonetheless, there is no reason to conclude that men would not have developed this use first (as well as its usefulness in tribal defence/offence and bashing animals on the head out of reach) as well as in their own foraging before females did.

the first need for a tool, would have been for killing and defence, which would have been the most importsnt fundamenþal needs.

pri ate young are vulnerable, it wojld have been unsound for the female to venture far out with her children along. the men instead took on this task, freeing the women to care for the children (which is in the males interest as well, as it is his progeny).

>>8022066
>there was no other purpose for hitting the stick with the rock but to sharpen it couldn't have been done with any other purpose or by mistake

Are you drunk? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>>8022067
There is a reason why hunter gaderer society's today are hunter gaderer society's today you can't just assume they stopped evolving even if they remained tribal

>>8022023

>The macaques mentioned earlier understand seasoning. They get that a potato tastes better with salt on it than without. They dip potatoes in salted water to reproduce that experience.

you are making a metric fuckton of assumptions here.

>>8022072
>society's
>'s
>'

Why do you do this?

>>8022068
Literally everything in this post strengthens the argument in the post you've replied to.

>the first need for a tool, would have been for killing and defence, which would have been the most importsnt fundamenþal needs.
Except no. The first tools were used to crack gathered things open. And to defend. And females, being smaller than males and therefore at a disadvantage, created tools for defense out of necessity. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.

>>8022070
If I give you a stick and a stone and i tell you you can hit with stick hard and hit with stone hard and could either combine the two to hit harder or come up with a tool the world has never seen before which one are you most likely dto do?
Hitting hard as a concept already existed, sharp didn't,

>>8022077
My phone does it, I'm a human phone hibryd I don't fully control the text input because there is a little bit of code on me that corrects my text even tho it doesn't work at all

>>8022075
>you're making assumptions
Hardly.
We're making observations. The macaques, when given a potato, actively seek out a saltwater source. They originally ate the potato as is. Then, some female began washing off the dirt from her potatoes in freshwater.
Then, other macaques followed her example. Later, she began using a saltwater source instead of freshwater. Still after, the other macaques followed her example. Now, all the macaques in that group use a saltwater source to wash potatoes exclusively and do not use freshwater for that purpose at all.
Why else would they actively seek out saltwater for this use rather than use freshwater?

>>8022079
The first tool wasn't crafted it was either a stick or a stone that's not creation
And no a hammer is a tool that serves men because even tho anyone hits harder with a hammer men have the upper body strength to use it correctly, a tribal woman with a hammer still couldn't break open a coconut

>>8022054
>Cutting instruments were very early forms of technology because they are so easy to make

Not so easy. You need a particular kind of stone that can form an edge, another stone suitable to create that edge with, and time/patience/diligence and coordination to create the edge.

Thats a lot, plus the cognitive hurdle of even understanding what a cutting edge is and what you can do with it.

Teeth and claws are pointed, not cutting instruments. Sharpening a bone to create a cutting edge is very very difficult, and its a material unsuitable to that purpose.

Bone knifes exist, but primarily in regions where stones suitable for creating a cutting edge (primarily flint) are unavailable or they simply stuck with bone instead (such as among many inuit populations in the far north).

TLDR: A cutting edge is a huge step forward, far more difficult to produce, and requires a higher level of intelligence to even conceive of.

A rock as a bashing tool, and a spear as a poi ted tool, are far simpler on all 3 accounts.

>>8022091

they either understand that a sweet potato dipped in the sea tastes good or they simply have the habit of doing it without a notion of cause. either way, it doesn't mean they understand seasoning.

>>8022063
a weapon is a specialised tool
most tools can be used as weapons.
the difference is semantic.
a pencil is a deadly weapon.

>>8022065
yes, there is a distinction between a "man made" tool, and one simply picked out of nature.

but the difference in human evokution is arbitrary, since one you make a rock or stick a tool, eventually we began improving on that rock or stick, turning them into cutting edges and spears.

>>8022094
It must have been the aliens then.
Honestly a hammer is pretty basic as far as creation goes, sharp was like the first amazing discovery, it's like discovering math or machin

>>8022100
A hammer is a tool that's made for men and server men biology

>>8022067
this again, is nonsense.

the males in a tribe would have been related to the females in that tribe.

they have no reason to hurt them, or for the women to defend themselves, against their own family.

furthermore, would have been largely pointless anyways, men are physically larger and more powerful. an attempt by a woman to rebuff an assault by a male would have been completely useless on her own unless the social units males defended her against her aggressor.

>>inb4 rape culture existed in the stone age

>>8022105
Plus men have an y chromosome that women don't have.
It's entirely possible for men to develop this knowledge and women not to but it's impossible for the opposite to happen.
We can't know what happened unless we are there but there is a thing as too many convenient things pointing this way

>>8022092
Hartmut Thieme, Reinhard Maier and shit, even Rebecca Stetoff, who writes anthropology books for children (which you seem to need to read, kiddo) would all like a word with you.

Spears are widely understood throughout anthropology and paleontology as being the first tools crafted, with evidence dating back 300000 years.
Once evidence dating to earlier than the Schöningen spears are unearthed, you might have something to talk about, otherwise, you've not a leg to stand on.

>>8022079
false

men did the gathering at first, and once we evolved into more complex social froupings with more advances in rudimentary tools (created by men for that purpose), it became pragmatic for men to go on longer forays with the intent of finding meat with other males.

this allowed women to do more gathering, rather than remain in the protection of the homeplace, alongside younger males to help defend them and availing themselves of some of the tools men had managed to create for defence and more efficient gathering.

your argument that "women are weaker, and hence created tools to compete with males" is ridiculous, sexist and irrational.

men where better suited to the role of provider, women ro the role of nurturer. both are required for the develooment of a young human child and in the situation these humans lived in, it was an equitable exchange of roles for which both are best suited and efficient.

>>8022091
the fact it was a female macaque, is irrelevant.

it is said that the way the potato arrived in Ireland, was in bushels that landed on the shores there when women where gathering cockels and seaweed, feom the destroyed Spanish Armada.

That doesnt mean women invented potatos or their use as food. Just means nobody in Ireland had access to them and nobody thought them useful until this event occured.

>>8022105
Every single anthropologist the whole world over would disagree with you entirely, but I'm sure some armchair expert NEET knows more than someone with a PhD in anthropology or related field, such as cognitive science. But please, tell me more about the ideas you came up with in the last 52 minutes. I'd love to hear more.

>>8022117
Oh please call them, it seems like I need to talk with someone that can actually argue an explain a point instead of hiding behind long names and half concepts.
If you believe spears where first you should be able to logically prove it beyond we found an old spewr.
You are clearly not looking for evidence to figure out the truth but for evidence to justify the truth you already belive you have

>>8022120
Who are you quoting?

>>8022150
I already demolished your theory anyways. If a female invented a tool the knowledge would inevitably be passed to either sex, if the male invented tools it is possible for the knowledge to be passed only from father to son.
Look at the modern world, does it seem that tools are created equally between sexes?

>>8022150
Huh?

>>8022117

>>8022155

>>8022155
Who are you quoting?

>>8022149
you are quite wrong.

strongest evidence is that early human tribal/family structure was largely communal, with the entire unit collectively serving each others needs.

unlike most animals on this world, our young are born almost completely incapable of caring for themselves and need years of nurture.

the most efficient and amicable relationship, is the male doing the bulk of the providing and defence of the community, whilst women do the bulk of the care for those young.

this is anthropologically universally accepted and demonstrated both in archaeology as well as existing examples of primitive communities.

>>8022166
Huh?

>>8022161
I'm using free independent thought, if you do not possess the capacity what's the point in arguing with you? Just drop your sources and I can figure the truth for myself, you are nothing to me but a broken phone

>>8022153
a woman, several mo ths pregnant, is no co petition for an adult male.

a woman fettered with a child, is no competition for an adult male.

>>8022166
See >>8022015
We're talking about much, much earlier before then, Anon. Do try to keep up.

>>8022155
knowledge is not genetic.

you fail.

>>8022166
The invention gene is likely to be only in the y chromosome anyways because if it was on the x chromosome inventions should be equally split between sexes

>>8022173
What's knowledge? Baby's are born knowing how to suck milk out of the mothers tit

>>8022175
>inventions should be equally split between sexes

How do we know they aren't?

And if you point to patent holders mainly being men, how do we know that the discrepancy isn't due to an unrelated factor--something cultural rather than genetic.

>>8022173
Baby's develop the skill to crawl on their own too even tho there is no need for a baby to crawl. It has food, it has safety,

yeah, but who is calling the shots. It is not the non cooking animals.

>>8022181
Because we have written speech that records a couple thousand years of inventions

>>8022172
i am the one talking much earlier.

i am talking before the development of agriculture.

Either you are getting confused between posters, or you are trying to use semantics and ambiguation to cover your losing position.

>>8022183
some researchers say learning how to cook is were we got this big brain.

https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=en

>>8022181
No because it would be impossible for women to have created things and to have broken records then which did absolutely happen in different places of the world all across history.
Greeks invented things, so did Romans. Rome had women so powerful that no man could stand to th

>>8022191
What position?
Here are a bunch of names and two anecdotal evidences I know of?

>>8022185

Right. So how do we know whether or not the discrepancy in that record is due to what you claim, or some other factor, like bias in record keeping?

For example, many cultures (espeically historically) are patriarchal. It could very well be that men and women invented things equally, yet the men took credit for those inventions, either deliberately or inadvertently?

>>8022179
that is not knowledge, its hardcoded genetic behavior.

ive studied developmental psychology.

the needs of a human child are extremely complex and in large part require external stimulation from an external source inorder to develop various cognitive andeven physical capabilities.

Babies are genetically coded to present certain behaviours which parents are coded ro respond to, so as to provide the developmental stimulus the child needs to gain those capabilities.

You are grossly understating and unaware of just how helpless a baby is, and how much of its development is crucially tied to stimulus, care and action by an external source.

>>8022207
Because it's not one record made by father time but the collection of thousands of writers speaking hundreds of different languages living all across the planet and different time periods?

>>8022182
this is superficial and besides the point.

studies show that in different cultures, babies learn to walk at vastly different ages, some bypassing crawling almost entirely.

there are develoomental stages in a baby related to its skeletal, muscular structure and its brains development in terms of gross/fine motor skills, but these are independant and separate feom how the child is nurtured,.

Such as only children of a certain age can sit upright, and only children of a certain age can grasp at and release objects presented to it, much less even see them as graspable objects.

>>8022207
Because there are women accredited fori nventions?
Because they are still celebrated today for the things they invented?
Because if it's genetic then they should have half the inventions of the last couple of years in the civilized world?

>>8022198
Your position is that women created the first tools.

You have not shown sufficient or probable evidence for that, inlight of the vast majority of established anthropology to the contrary.

>>8022219

Soo...do you have some kind of source or citation that aggregates all invention records from all cultures, corrects for known biases, and presents this information somehow? If so, I'd love to see it.

>>8022208
How do you know the drive to invent isn't rooted in hardcore genetic behavior? It sure seems to be. Drive isn't enough knowledge is also necessary, we have equal access to knowledge today

>>8022229
Yes the internet, I can access to any record you want me to.
Wich one proves me wrong?

>>8022228
I'm not her dude I'm just making fun of her she already lost

>>8022223
But they still learn to walk and they still have no survival need for walking.

>>8022232
where have i claimed that?

i stated that human babies are unusually dependant on their parents in humans, compared to the rest of the natural world.

a human baby sucking on its mothers tit did not invent it, nor did it invent how to walk.

these are complex developmental chains, partly genetic, partly a result of stimulus on genetic effects, which together form the maturation and development of a human child.

as to invention, which you shoehorned in onto my comment which did not involve that, yes, i think there is somewhat of a genetic precursos for the trait of inventiveness.

primarily those of intelligence and curiosity, which both nonetheless arguably are still largely affected by nurture, rather than nature.

>>8022094
>Not so easy. You need a particular kind of stone that can form an edge, another stone suitable to create that edge with...

You're being deliberately obtuse. Sure, some rocks are better for this than others. But didn't you fuck around outdoors as a kid and smash rocks together? You don't need perfect flint to make a simple cutting tool. Most rocks work. And nearly any rock can be used to sharpen a bone or piece of wood into a point or edge.

>Thats a lot, plus the cognitive hurdle of even understanding what a cutting edge is and what you can do with it.

I don't think it's much of a cognitive hurdle. Anyone interacting with the wild will experience the concept of cutting one way or another, likely by accident.

>Teeth and claws are pointed, not cutting instruments.

Not necessarily. Many kinds of reptile, fish, and shark teeth are naturally sharp and could be gathered from a beach or a carcass. The tusks on a pig are naturally very sharp.

>> Sharpening a bone to create a cutting edge is very very difficult,

Lol, no. It's really easy. I remember doing so as a kid, about 8 years old, while I was bored at summer camp listening to some counselor drone on about trees. Rub bone against the big-ass rock I was sitting on. Pointy knife done in about 30 minutes (then it got confiscated).

>A rock as a bashing tool, and a spear as a poi ted tool, are far simpler on all 3 accounts.

I agree 100% that both of those are simpler than a cutting edge and likely came about first. But "far simpler"? No. Cutting edges are a lot easier to make than you seem to think they are.

>>8022235
>Soo...do you have some kind of source or citation that aggregates all invention records from all cultures, corrects for known biases, and presents this information somehow

>Yes the internet

you are a stupid person.

>>8022254
Either you are bipolar or I'm arguing with at least 3 different people
We aren't unusually dependant, it's a scientific fact that our long formative childhood is linked to the complexity of out brain's, we need more and see need longer because we are much more evolved.
The baby was never taught how to suck on the tit. Both male and female baby's know how to do it I'm not linking tot sjckiing with invention just with the fact because it's a fact that some knowledge is passed down in a genetical way, this isn't new, we already store information in DNA.
Male humans obviously have a genetical drive to invention that's why the world mirrors that. This drive can be learned by female humans because it has been recorded as happening and we have female human inventors that are alive today however it's not inherit in them as it is in males

>>8022263
So you are telling me k can't download a couple million books right now?
What else could be proof?

>everyone is confused about who said what to whom at what time
>they're still arguing with each other
>many posts agree with the posts they're replying to, but in an angry, pissy manner as though the poster thinks he's refuting something in the post to which he replies
This whole thread is a jumbled mess and most of you are unobservant and unable to keep track of your own conversation, never mind identify one another by writing style alone. Yet, you're still up in arms at each other.

>>8022249
they only learn to walk, if they are provided stimulus and support inorder to do so.

a child that has been carried its whole life to the age of say 5yrs, wil not know how to walk when finally put down on the ground.

the key in developmental psychology, and in our evolution as to the nurturingof our unusually dependant offspring, is in the external stimulus of a parent/ģuardian to the hardcoded behaviour of babies.

They are like to interlocking pieces of a puzzle. If the child, for example, does not see the facial expressions of someone, it will not understand them innately. They learn to smile and frown by mimicing what they see, which in turn develops that part of their brain as well as facial muscle control.

If a child never hears a human speak to it, it will not start babbling and exploring its language centers or the fine motor skills of formulating language.

Babies are like a largely blank slate, possibly with some genetic disposition in terms of perso ality (unconfirmed), with a limited set of instinctual behaviours designed to elicit stimulus and response feom its carers.

If those stimulus are not provided in response, the childs capacities to develop related centers of its brain will rapidly atrophy as myelenisation takes place and early brain development makes structural differences.

Its the evokutionary tradeoff.
Homo sapiens sapiens produce the only recognised sentient offspring we know of on this world.

But the co p,ications involved in brain development, phsychologically and pnysically, MUST be provided by a caregiver, or the child will not develop them autonomously.

>>8022279

you will never ever persuade anybody of anything if you respond to a request for evidence with 'look it up hyuk hyuk', just saying.

>>8022283
Well let's recap
The first crafted tool was a hammer
Hammers are tools designed to be used by men
So that's one proof
Human society is mostly organized in such way as the men hunt and women gather fruit and give birth, there is no need for hammers in women
Second proof
There is obviously a genetic component that favour men inventing over women
There being a invention gene that favour women over men ks impossible
But we see men over invent women
That means that inventing is something men has been doing since there was a thing as men
Proof number thrre

>>8022279
>So you are telling me k can't download a couple million books right now?

Sure you can. But how do you know which ones are accurate and which are fiction? Which ones have biases?

>>what else could be proof
There isn't any. It's a speculation that's all in your head.

I'll give you a real-world example of how records--even modern ones--can be very misleading.

I manage a Polymer research lab at a major university. Our group generates about 5 or 6 US patents every year. The group has 4 full time female staff, 2 full time male staff, and one director (male). The graduate students are 50/50 male/female. Thus, the inventions that our group patents are about 50/50 male- and female- generated. However, patents themselves are expensive. So the way things work is that you can either pay for the patent yourself in which case it's 100% in your name, or you can let the director file the patent and you get a share of the rights (for free). The latter is what almost always happens. So in the 10 years I've worked here, we've had a little over 50 inventions--roughly half men and half women. Yet if you look at the patent record, you see 49 instances of the same male's name, and only 1 female. This had nothing to do with who actually came up with the invention, but rather who had the resources to pay for it.

A similar sort of problem could theoretically exist for ANY record. So how do you know to correct for this with all the "couple million books" you're downloading?

>>8022293
No I offered to look it up myself and asked you what should I be looking for
You will never win an argument by questioning that all recorded human history is wrong I'm just humoring you because I find your fallacy's humorous and I want to see how far can you gohistory is wrong is a fallacy, I can refute anything with history is wrong

>>8022259
1) Youve clearly nver tried to create a sharp cutting rock. Rocks split, are of varying consistency. Most rocks do most definately NOT work.

2) Ask yourself how far off dogs or cats are from developing and making a knife, then return to me about cognitive difficulty.

3) You are wrong about teeth. Sharks have sharp, saw edged cutting teeth. I cant think of even one mammal that has cutting edges on its teeth, rather than simply a sharp point.

4) Bone knives are very dulll and soft, and you require a very large bone to make one. Something along the lines of a tusk from an elephant or a narwhals "horn".

5) A rock or a stick needs no modification. Cutting edges need attention and deliberate purpose to create.

>>8022305
We can't know that history really happened, we can't know anything is real but we must assume so because the opposite leads only to uncertainty and no way of finding a solution ever.
It's ok to question something because it seems dubious but to throw away all human history is retarded, you may aswell argue matrix right now, the less proof you got the further you drift from reality and tangible and logical, this discussion has reached its logical end you don't provide thought of argument kr facts you just question

File: Indian-Mortar-Pestle.jpg (98KB, 600x816px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 600x816px

>>8022298
>The first crafted tool was a hammer
Yes
>Hammers are tools designed to be used by men
No.

>Human society is mostly organized in such way as the men hunt and women gather fruit and give birth
Yes
>there is no need for hammers in women
No. Woman uses the hammer in food preparation while the man is out trying to kill something.

>There is obviously a genetic component that favour men inventing over women
There is? Citation needed.

>>8022275
>We aren't unusually dependant
You clearly know nothing about babies or the human developmental process.

>>8022305
The speculation isn't all in my head it's in millions of books that you deem software, it's in the tissue and muscle on my body you claim means nothing and it is on the way humans interact you claim its a construction.
If this is modern philosophy then I'm terrified to know what goes on in colleges right now

>>8022305
If what you claim is truth then you should know better than to push your anecdotal evidence on mh face as standard you know very well it isn't evil men stealing all women patents, you know very well most inventions didn't happen in this decade.
You lost but there is no shame in loosing to the best, I can easily claim most inventions are by men because well it's fucking common sense just look at the people with the most inventions but you just claim shit without no possible evidence beyond I say so

File: Josh-Moyer-Blog-Figure-2.png (579KB, 800x945px)

579KB, 800x945px

>>8022310
>1) Youve clearly nver tried to create a sharp cutting rock. Rocks split, are of varying consistency.

Sure. So just split a few until you get one. I used to do this often as a kid. I wasn't old enough to have a pocketknife like my friends did, but of course I wanted to pay "Indian" or whatever just like they did. I literally just thew rocks against each other on the ground. Sometimes you get a nice edge, sometimes you don't. But it's not hard to get something that's sharp and could cut something. I'm just talking about making a sharp edge, not knapping an elaborate flint knife.

>2) Ask yourself how far off dogs or cats are from developing and making a knife, then return to me about cognitive difficulty.

I literally have no idea why you're talking about dogs and cats. We're talking about human beings here.

>3) Sharks have sharp, saw edged cutting teeth.
Some do, some don't. Any many fish other than sharks have sharp edged teeth. See pic related. The teeth on the upper jaw could easily cut you if you handled it carelessly.

>>I cant think of even one mammal that has cutting edges on its teeth
Ever seen a boar's tusks? They are literally knife-sharp from rubbing against each other.

>4) Bone knives are very dulll and soft, and you require a very large bone to make one.
Sure. But they're still a cutting tool.

>5) A rock or a stick needs no modification. Cutting edges need attention and deliberate purpose to create.
Agreed. But that "attention" and "purpose" isn't very significant.

>>8022319
men foraged/gathered before they hunted.

hunting was an evolutionary extension resulting from necessity/capacity, as supported by developing better tools for hunting, a social group in which to hunt together for greater reward, and of having an evolved and functional social unit that could sustain the females (or more importsntly, the young) while the majority of the adult males where out ventueing ever further from the homebase against ever larger targets inorder to sutain an ever growing social unit.

Women have a womb, and the capacity to carry and feed a young child. Men have testosterone, and the capacity to sustain the female (and child) while she propagates the species (as is her unique capacity).

This was an equitable arrangement in our pri ordial past.

>>8022298
>The first crafted tool was a hammer
The earliest crafted tools are spears.

Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Bernard Wood 2011.

>Hammers are tools designed to be used by men
>So that's one proof.
Not even wrong.

>Human society is mostly organized in such way as the men hunt and women gather fruit and give birth
Hunting and gathering tasks were highly flexible in paleolithic times and continue to be highly flexible among uncontacted peoples today.

Sexual division of labor: Energetic and evolutionary scenarios. C. Panter-Brick, 2002
Anthropology. Andrew Palansky, Bernard Wood, Barbra Miller, Julio Mercader, Melissa Panger, 2006.

>there is no need for hammers in women.
>Second proof
Not even wrong.

>There is obviously a genetic component that favour men inventing over women
>That means that inventing is something men has been doing since there was a thing as men
Not even wrong.

>>8022308

>No I offered to look it up myself and asked you what should I be looking for

which, when you're trying to prove a point yourself, is absolutely retarded.

'give me a fact that will persuade me of your point'
'sure!!! what fact might that be?'

>>8022319
How is big rock on a stick an invention more suitable for food preparation than a replacement for killing a very dangerous animal with your bare hands?
And how solid you manage to work on a lab with such a lacking education and grasp on reality I can't phantom you making 50 inventions maybe you have severe autism
You are taking this personal, you shouldn't. Its obvious men invent most shit, if you as a woman are able to invent lots of stuff you should feel very proud because it means you are an exceptional creature with s capacity for self improvement that few can rivsl

>>8022321
We aren't unusually dependant for humans, show me anything close to humans that take less time to become independent

>>8022337
We therefore a world before recorded history? We don't think so more news at the Bible

>>8022336
>men foraged/gathered before they hunted.

We're just arguing semantics here. I could reword the previous point as "Women used hammers to prepare food while the men were out gathering". Point still stands. Don't get caught up on the semantics of the word "hunting".

Point is that the idea of the hammer being somehow "male" is silly. Women have just as much use for such a tool as men do.

>>8022337
Hopper body strength favours the fuck out of men while using hammers

>>8022339
>How is big rock on a stick an invention more suitable for food preparation than a replacement for killing a very dangerous animal with your bare hands?

It's not. I didn't say anything about the relative importance of the two uses of the hammer. I simply said that women have a use for them too.

>And how solid you manage to work on a lab with such a lacking education and grasp on reality I can't phantom you making 50 inventions maybe you have severe autism

You need to work on your reading comprehension. None of the inventions are mine.

>I it means you are an exceptional creature with s capacity for self improvement that few can rivsl

Ah, I get it now. You're trolling.

>>8022333
1) You are comparing your experience as a western, evolved human to that of our primordial ancestors. Im sure you where very proud of your stone "knife", but you are besides the point when we talk about cognitively even understanding what a knife is. Younknew what a knife is, they didnt.

2) Yes, im talking about humans long ago. You seem to not be.

3) Sharks exist only in some areas, and bringing one to shore as bounty was WAAY later in human development and evolution. Your attempt to claim cutting edge teeth are prevalent, is a failure.

4) Boars tusks are not knife sharp, except at the point. You seem incapable of understanding the difference between a cutting edge, and a sharp point. Its almost like you are retarded.

4) Bone knives existed, but after stone cutting edges (except in inuit populations). Nonetheless, they came long after bashing and stabbing implements.

5) The attention and purpose is everytning. A cutting edge doesnt just magically appear as a tool. If you want one, you have to make it. That takes attention and purpose.

Are you female, or young?

>>8022337
People who live in tribes today aren't the same as people who lived in tribes hundreds of thousands kf years ago if you claim they are you should have a fucking reason. My motive? Time they clearly adapted beyond, we did too. We also have women I'm education now, we have women in the army. There weren't women in the army before. They have women hunters, there weren't women hunters before
Not even wrong means right? Are you mentally retarded?
And you can't fucking provide the name of s book, give me a chapter st least

>>8022338
No I already proved a point beyond questioning and you claimed that women invented half of everything beyond claiming history is wrong
You pulled a we wuz basically

>>8022338
My fucking point was history is real and most inventions are made by men
Can you even proove women exist? I have never seen a vagina irl

>>8022342
show me any animal that is more dependent than humans

>>8021628
cooking food (meat) both kills bacteria as well as straightens out proteins, making them more digestible so we don't have to eat tons of meat

>>8022354
That's great I'm going to put my hat in my feet and brush my teeth with a razor blade because inventions are subjective and they aren't invented with a purpose.
Didnshdjd look out I just invented speech, I wonder what I will invent next. Maybe something with mud d

>>8022356
1) Sure, I know what a knife is. But primitive man did too, the first time that someone cut themselves on a sharp rock or plant.

2)Are you trying to assert that primitive man had the same intelligence as a dog or cat?

3) Sure, sharks only exist in some areas. But it was one of many examples of naturally-occurring cutting edges, not the only one. Not sure why you are hung up on this.

4)You're either a troll, or you're ignorant. They are LITERALLY knife-sharp. Ever seen someone's hog hunting trophy? Go touch it.

5)I'm glad we agree.

6)>>If you want one, you have to make it. That takes attention and purpose.
Of course. I agree with that 100%, as I've said for every post in this exchange. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT HAMMERS CAME FIRST.

My point is simply that making a cutting edge is a lot easier than you seem to think it is.

>>Are you female, or young?
I'm 36, male, and I go hunting, camping, and fishing often. I know boars have sharp tusks because I shoot them. I know it's easy to make a knife from a rock because I did it countless times when I was a kid in boy scouts. It's nothing complicated or worthy of "Being proud of"--it's just smashing rocks together. That's the whole point. It's not special, it's easy. Basic.

>>8022363

you're mistaking me for someone else. someone asked you for a specific resource and you said 'you can find it on the internet' which, while true, is completely unhelpful to the point you're trying to make.

>>8022369
You
What does that even mean? Why is showing you a more dependant one necessary? What would it even prove?

>>8022378
No wonder I'm getting bombarded with 50 gigant posts full of questions and denying reality a second I can't fucking keep up with this shit I lost my train of thought when people started replying to points I made 50 posts ago discussion in this manner is absolutely impossible

>>8022347
Its not semantics.

You claimed that men stayed in the cave masturbating while the women went out gathering and/or hunting with their newborns, 3yr olds and 9yr olds.

And then when they returned to the cave, you claimed they developed tools as a means to ward off horney men apparently tired of masturbating allday in the caves.

I wanst the anon that made the claim a hammer is male. desu primordial male had little use for a hammer except as a construction tool. hammer is too technical a tool, they just used something hard to bash another object.

axes(ie:cutting edges) are an entirely different matter.

i see no evidence or reason why it should have been women rsther than men that created tools.

my example of men having gathered before they began hunting proper, is rational and supported. while women took care of children, the onus for providing naturally falls on males.

to that end, they foraged, scavenged at first, and then deveoped weapons to be more effective at taking down more elusive/larger prey for crucial protein.

its possible women, later, discovered how to grind seeds and grains, or needles and rudimentary threads for sewing, but i see no rationale for how women would have been the first to develop tools.

imagine trying to hunt an animal or defeat an attacking tribe with your bare hands. men would have been the ones that had to do this, and hence men would have been the first to develop tools to those ends.

>>8022378
Every time, every fucking time I argue with left leaning college graduate they told up on me and bombard me with so much shit I can't even breathe, I don't get the chance to answer one thing and I already have 7 more and I have seen it on video, I'm convinced it's a strategy to make me confused and get me to contradict myself and don't bother denying what you are you practically invented this dishonest shit

>>8022376
1) A primate xutting itself on a sharp rock does not make the association of cresting a cutting edge for itself.

2) Im asserting they had far less intelligence and benefit of societal transmission of knowledge than we do today.

3). You still failed to demonstrate that animals have cutting edges teeth they could have used. You still fail to understand the diference between a point and an edge.

4) Boars tusks are not knife sharp, except at the point. You really are a retard.

5) We do not agree. And ypu fked up the numbering.

6) Im not the hammer guy. Imo it was blunt object, spear, cutting edge, in that order. Hammer is too sophisticated a concept for what they used a blunt object for.

7) Making a cutting edge is not easy. Even realizing what a cutting edge is and can be used for, is the threshold i am talking about, and is far more involved and comp,icated.

8) Im 35, male, hetero, and I cant believe the crap you are spouting with the background you claim to have.

For primordial man, creating or even conceiving of a cutting edge, took tens of thousands of years. You are thinking of them as having the same benefit of evolution, both physiological and social, that you benefit from. They didnt.

It took them millenia to figure this basic stuff out, that you take for granted.

>>8022381
Read what the poster that is addressed to wrote.

Their argument was that humans are not the most dependent offspring, which was a false claim.

Human babies are remarkably dependent, their almost entire physiological and psycnological development is dependent on external stimulus, nurture.

Human babies are almost blank slates of flesh, that have a few instictual behaviors, which are designed to elicit stimulus from caregivers so that they can develop normally. Without that caregiver, not only will they starve, but they will not develop certain core capabilities which are intrinsic to the human condition as an adult.

I cannot overstate this enough.

>>8022399
>>8022384

left leaning college graduate or not, i think you are a moron.

Thread got hijacked by either a feminist or a troll.

The notion that women created tools cos men where too busy masturbating in the cave while women went out gathering/hunting while pregnant and with their infant children along with them in the wilderness, and then upon their return to fend off horny men tired of masturbating allday after being fed by the women, is fking insane.

Well played though. But fking ridiculous premise.

>>8022423
1)In my mind it does. Perhaps you're going much farther back in history than I am?

2)Agreed. Not sure how cats are relevant though.

3)Missing the point. Animals are one of many examples of sharp cutting edges people could find and use. Or be inspired by for their own invention. Rocks. Plants. Teeth. Bones. Even certain kinds of wood (when broken) can cut. There are countless sources of sharp edges that can be found in nature.

>>You still fail to understand the diference between a point and an edge.
No, I'm talking about edges.

4)You have that backwards. They are somewhat pointed but I wouldn't call the point sharp. It gets worn against the ground when the pigs root around for things. It's the sides--edges--of the tusks that are sharp because the upper and lower tusks rub against each other. Every time the boar chews the tusks are sharpened. They are literally knife-sharp. Go ask a buddy who hunts or look at a taxidermied head somewhere.

5)How so? We both agree that a cutting edge is more advanced than a hammer/club.

>>And ypu fked up the numbering.
You clearly had two "4" in >>8022356. I changed the 2nd 4 to a 5.

6)Semantics. Blunt object you hit something with = hammer.

7)Now we're getting somewhere. What do you consider the threshold of making a cutting edge? Because for me, breaking a rock to yield a sharp edge suffices.

>>8021840
>>8021991
>i completed a women's studies course!
I hope it serves you well in life. Be sure to include that fact on every job application you ever take!

>>8021628
>but every other species on the planet eats without cooking food and lives normally.
Yes, because they can´t cook food, so not cooking it is normal.
If they could they would live longer and more healthily.
Carefully fed animals can vastly outlive wild specimens, so practically no wild animal lives to their possibly life expectancy, unlike many humans.

>>8022474
1) Then why arent other primates creating cutting edges? And no, Im not going further back, Im going to the same singular period where human predecessors first started using/creating cutting tools.

2) Cats and dogs where just an arbitrary example of the fact no other lifeform on this planet creates cutting tools.

3) Again, you are the one missing the point, especially between cutting edge and a pointed tusk. Very few animals have teeth with cutting edges, sharks being the most significant. Furthermore, as in point 2, no other animal creates or uses cutting edges around it as a tool

4) Boar tusks are essentially pyramidal, in a curve. Only the point of the tusk is "knife" sharp. The tusks on most boars do not connect at all, except for occassional abrasion during chewing. None of the edges, aside from the point, are cutting edges except when applied in a scissor action against their opposing tusk.

5) This seems to be a redaction of your previous claim, but perhaps I mistook someone elses post for yours. Yes, a cutting edge is more advanced than a club or a point.

Ok, mea culpa, it was me that fked up the numbering. my bad.

6) Hammer involves leveraging force, a blunt object can be merely a stone held in the hand. This is not semantics, its physics and accurate definitions. I dont think primordial man had much use for a hammer, even as a weapon, when a spear will suffice better. I think the application of an edged stone to a haft came before the hammer, for purposes of for example cutting down trees, whereas a hammer is only useful for, well, hammering, such as driving fence posts into the earth, which can be done with a heavy stone as well.

7) As in point 1), i am talking about the early origins of such tools. My point being it took our ancestors millenia to make the connection between being cut by a sharp edge, and then creating one themself for use. The intellectual/cognitive leap there is comparable to the development of a bow/gun/nuclear weapon.

>>8022520
Same poster.

Just to elaborate further on point 3), any of these early humans would have killed to have sharks teeth at their disposal, especially after the invention of the bow and arrow.

Instead, they had to hone them themself out of stone or bone, whichever was available, but none of those arrowheads would have come even close to the perfection of a large sharks tooth with its serrated cutting edges.

If there had been intercontinental trading at the time, a single sharks tooth arrow would have been the absolute pride and treasure of any hunter anywhere in the world.

>>8022520
>1) Because we're talking about primitive humans, not primates in general. I assume by "primitive humans" we mean a state that has evolved beyond modern-day primates, but isn't yet at our current level.

>2) Arbitrary example
Well, thanks for wasting our time, I guess?

>3) Very few animals have teeth with cutting edges.
I agree with you. I didn't mean that every animal on the planet had this. I meant that given any location on earth one can find natural examples of cutting edges to either use as a tool directly, or to inspire invention. Shark is one of many examples.

>>no other animal creates or uses cutting
Not sure how this relevant because we're not discussing animals.

>4) Only the point of the tusk is "knife" sharp.
The point isn't what I would call knife-sharp. It's blunted from rooting in the dirt (abrasive). You'd have to use a lot of force to cut or puncture yourself with the point. The edges, however, are very sharp.

5) I've always maintained the cutting edge being more advanced than the others. I just don't think it's as special as you do. What I seem to gather is this:
You: Edge >>>club
Me: Edge>club

>6) Hammer involves leveraging force
Not in my opinion. Picking up a stone and smashing something with it qualifies as a hammer in this context. But I'll play along with your game. What, in your opinion, differentiates a hammer from "a stone". IMHO, there are plenty of uses for hammering: breaking the shells of nuts or shellfish to extract the meat inside. Breaking bones to access marrow. Grinding hard-textured foods into something that is more readily edible (mortar and pestle, basically)

>> The intellectual/cognitive leap there
I disagree. It's very easy to imagine a primitive human accidentally cutting themselves by stepping on a sharp rock (or whatever) and then realizing they could use said sharp rock to cut something. It's a single, simple, cognitive leap. OTOH developing a complicated weapon requires many steps.

>>8022553
>perfection of a large sharks tooth with its serrated cutting edges.

Shark's tooth is actually not all that good for an arrow point. On nearly all shark's teeth the base of the tooth--where it fits into the shark's jaw--is wider than the sharp edges of the tooth, and is very blunt. Using a tooth like that for an arrow point is much less effective than something which is sharp its full length. Also, the serrations wouldn't be relevant at all. Serrations work in a sawing motion. A flying arrow moves in exactly one direction making the serrations irrelevant. (Though I suppose one could argue that a serrated point could cause additional damage once it was impaled into an animal, whereupon the motion from the animal running or struggling might cause some cutting?)

Notice that even modern hunting arrow tips--"broadheads"--lack serration on their edges. Even when we humans could make more advanced points we don't put serrations on them. Look at knapped flint arrowheads, forged metal ones from Europe or Japan, etc... they're never serrated except for the rare ceremonial piece.

>>8022585
1) This makes no sense. There are no primitive humans that have not evolved to our current state. Humans however are primates. You are confused.

2) Arbitrary in the sense that it woulsnt matter which examples I raised, since there are no other lifeforms anywhere in the world thatcreate cutting tools. The time wasting was on your part, for me having to explain the obvious to you against your original ridiculous premise that since its "so easy" any animal should be able to do it.

3) Now you agree, but only after I refuted your original point that such teeth would have been easy to access and implement in tools. "Inspire invention" is a contrivance you are now introducing, which again requires higher order thinking that only humans have demonstrated. As in my previous point, the heurestic jump from being cut by a sharp edge, to actually creating a sharp edge yourself, is a huge leap.

4) Boar tusks are not sharp, except at the point (as points are, in terms of applying pounds of pressure per square millimete for purposes of pu cturing, not cuttingr).

5) Producing a cutting edge is a phenomenal step forward and evidence of evolutionary intellect. Other animals have used blunt objects and sharp objects, but never created a cutting edge.

6) A hammer is a force multiplier, by leverage. A hammer comprises a bkunt object attached to a haft. The haft means the force exterted by the blunt object is greater than if you merely hit the target holding the blunt object in your hand. The act of "hammering" is distinct and unrelated to the concept of a hammer. The verb "hammering" means repeated hits with a blunt object.

7) "its very easy to imagine"

its also very easy to imagine unicorns and flying pigs.

the cognitive leap you refer to, that I brought up, is huge. i can cut a million chimpanzees a million times with a scalpel, and I can almost certai ly guarantee you none of them will suddenly one day show up with a cutting edge.

>>8021812
>You dont cook a salad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDjBEY_3qCI
Checkmate, philistines

>>8022624
Your point on broadheads, is valis, but a large sharks tooth is very broad.

What you want, as a primorial hunter with a bow and arrow, is that the arrow sticks in. Two functions of the arrowhead perform this, shape and serration.

Serrated edges on modern arrowheads are frowned upon, because they are perceived as barbaric. Nonetheless, many arrowheads, especially on larger projectiles such as for whale hunting, almost always carry atleast one significant barb to ensure the projectile remains lodged.

You want the arrow to remain in the animal you show, serration aids to that end as it runs through the undergrowth, bleeding, and driving the arrow deeper.

The reason primitive arrows do t have serratiin, is that creating a saw edge like on a shark tooth, out of stone or bone, is impossible without weakening the arrowhead. A sharkstooth, however, is already covered in hard enamel, and each serration is almost razor sharp.

A straight pointed stick, as an arrow, may penetrate deeper, but a shakstooth arrow fired from the same bow is wide, has sufficient point to penetrate, and the serration will keep it in place as the animal runs and you track it down..

>>8022654
im sure its a vegan favorite

>>8021887
I'm afraid of getting parasites in food desu.

But if you were to say, clone some beef, wouldn't it be sterile? So you could eat it as raw as a lion would without worrying?

When meat cloning becomes less expensive, do you think high end steakhouses will buy cloned beef for worry-free tartare?

>>8021927
>captainamericaunderstoodthatreference.gif

>>8022648
>1) There are no primitive humans that have not evolved to our current state.
Clearly. Aren't we discussing the past, not present day? We're talking about humans in a state of evolution that exists between "apes" and modern man.

>>original ridiculous premise...any animal should be able to do it.
Then you misunderstood my premise. I never said that an animal could do it. I said that primitive man could do it.

>3) point that such teeth would have been easy to access and implement in tools.
That was never my original point. As I have said repeatedly, teeth are an EXAMPLE of one of the many things that could have been used.

>> "Inspire invention"
No, it was my point the whole time. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in explaining it?

>>...higher order thinking that only humans have demonstrated.
And that's what we're discussing, right? Humans.

>>creating a sharp edge yourself, is a huge leap.
I said it was a leap. Not a huge leap. My whole point here is that it's not "huge".

I'm just going to drop talking about tusks because it's painfully apparent you've never actually seen one in real life and are continuing onward with willful ignorance.

>5)...evidence of evolutionary intellect.
Like humans have.
>>other animals
They're not relevant.

>>The act of "hammering" is distinct and unrelated to the concept of a hammer.
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. You can "hammer" something with a dedicated specially built hammer, or you can do it with a rock or stick you picked up. IMHO, anything that can be used for that act could be a "hammer".

>the cognitive leap you refer to, that I brought up, is huge. i can cut a million chimpanzees
I agree, but so what? We're talking about humans. Not chimps. the leap is not huge for a human.

>>8022673
>Your point on broadheads, is valis, but a large sharks tooth is very broad.

You seem to be getting caught up on the word "broad" here. Don't do that. The key difference is that a modern hunting arrow is sharp across its width, whereas a sharks tooth has a big fat dull part right behind the sharp part. That's counterproductive. An arrow point which lacks this big fat blunt part would be far more effective than one which has it. (Though, one could probably work a sharks tooth via abrasion to remove this)

>What you want, as a primorial hunter with a bow and arrow, is that the arrow sticks in.
Well, I'll take that if I can get it. But what I really want is that the animal bleeds out as quickly as possible so I have a better chance of finding it before it runs off and dies beyond my reach.

>Serrated edges...because they are perceived as barbaric.
They were never used, anytime in history, because they don't do anything. Serrations only benefit a sawing motion, which arrows don't have. Even when metal arrowheads which could be serrated without weakening them we still didn't do it.

>>...carry atleast one significant barb to ensure the projectile remains lodged.

Sure. But what do barbs on a harpoon have to do with an arrowhead? They have totally separate functions. A harpoon is supposed to stay stuck in place. It's a BAD thing if the serrations were to cut because it would mean the harpoon would fall out. A harpoon is designed to cause minimal tissue damage because damaged tissue won't hold the harpoon in place and then the prey escapes. It is a tool for restraint, not killing. An arrow is meant to kill by striking vital organs and releasing blood, which is a totally different objective.

>You want the arrow to remain in the animal you show

No, I want the animal to bleed out as much as possible. Bleeding = faster kill, better trail for tracking.

Have you ever been bowhunting? I hate to assume, but methinks the answer is no.

>>8022787
>afriad of parasites in food

How does that even happen? Do you avoid electronic devices because they might shock you? Do you avoid motor vehicles because of crashes? Those things are far more likely to be a concern than parasites but I bet you do those things every day.

>But if you were to say, clone some beef, wouldn't it be sterile?

No, why would it be? Cloning invovles biological growth. The meat grows just like it does inside an animal, and is equally hospitiable to contamination. In fact, in some ways cloning might be even worse because in a large "factory", a single bit of contamination could affect a massive amount of food, whereas a single infected animal is easily separate from others.

>>8022175
>The invention gene
>gene

He thinks there's a single gene on a single chromosome that determines whether they'll invent something or not

File: ca-la-another-british-pepe-2988441.png (130KB, 500x545px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 500x545px

>>8022036
>pensioners making sharp toothbrushes

>>8021763
That smartest primates are omnivores, which i'm surprised people weren't baited by.

>>8021628
Cooked food takes less calories to eat and digest, and cooking food kills any parasites or bacteria in it.

Cooking is technology. It was invented. You may as well ask how the car evolved out of the horse.

>>8021628
we have never eaten things raw unless they weren't smart enough to know to cook and they get sick and die. Carnivores can eat meat fine without problems but humans are not the same. Our intestines are designed like plant eaters -very long digestive intestines to absorb all nutrients from plants. By contrast Carnivores have very short intestines and large claws and large teeth as well. The human body prefers a plant based diet. Dietary cholesterol and saturated fats are only found in animal products (saturated fats are in concentrated oils though, this being the only exception) Both of these do no harm to carnivores but when fed to humans it is toxic and is the leading cause of death in the human species.