Long and interesting.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmamm.2023.1281030/full
Front. Mamm. Sci., 09 October 2023
Tool use, or not tool use, that is the question: is
the necessity hypothesis really inconsequential for
the African great apes?


(abstract)
Investigating the drivers of tool use in animals
has recently received great attention because of
its implication in understanding animals’
cognition and the evolution of tool use in
hominins. The necessity hypothesis posits tool use
as a necessary response to food scarcity, but its
role is an ongoing debate. The largest body of
literature comparing animal tool use frequencies
is with regard to primates, particularly
comparisons between the Pan species. This supports
the hypothesis that tool use is rarer in wild
bonobos because of differential manipulation
abilities of chimpanzees rather than different
ecological needs. In this article, I aim to enrich
the discussion concerning the necessity hypothesis
and the ecological drivers of tool use in apes. The
higher feeding flexibility of bonobos may be a key
aspect to explaining the lower use of feeding tools
than that observed in chimpanzees. The diet
flexibility of bonobos is similar to that of the
lowest level of tool users among the wild great
apes: the gorilla. Gorillas can thus help to shed
further light on this debate. When fruit is scarce,
Western gorillas and bonobos rely more on widely
available proteinaceous herbs than chimpanzees,
who remain highly frugivorous. Chimpanzees may
thus face a greater necessity to search for an
alternative to obtain high-quality food:
tool-assisted feeding. An indirect piece of
evidence for this higher level of herbivory is that
the prevalence of gut ciliates in bonobos is double
that of chimpanzees. In each animal species, a
different combination of necessity, opportunities,
predisposition, and learning processes are likely
to be at play in the emergence of flexible tool
use in animals.

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

Primum Sapienti wrote:

Investigating the drivers of tool use in animals
has recently received great attention because of
its implication in understanding animals’
cognition and the evolution of tool use in
hominins.

This is idiocy. When this jackwads can't differentiate hominins
from birds or even invertebrates, as their misuse of "tools"
would apply to all, what is even the point?

The way they define "Tool use," it's unknown and unknowable.

MONKEYS USE TOOLS, going by the idiotic way this jackwads
define it. NEW WORLD MONKEYS!

So we're talking, what? Only 35,000,000 years of New World
Monkeys and... oops! They were already diversifying by then!

They'd been around longer, for sure...

So their "tool use" probably goes back at least that far, if the
way they misuse "tools" is applied consistently and..

Oops. Invertebrate, at least some of them, qualify as "tool
users" under their idiocy. So why not the Cambrian Explosion?

The point here, because idiots need it spelled out for them, the
stupid way they misuse "Tools" guarantees we can only "study"
the merest fraction of even the recent history of these so called
"Tools." We have a mega fragmentary sampling from less than
1% of the history of probable tool use, a lot less, and you want to
pretend we can work out it's evolution?

Can any of these morons even breath through their noses without
tripping?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/173008160138

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

Op woensdag 18 oktober 2023 om 09:53:53 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

Investigating the drivers of tool use in animals
has recently received great attention because of
its implication in understanding animals’
cognition and the evolution of tool use in
hominins.

Only prejudiced savanna believers still use "hominin": in PA literature, this word presupposes that australopiths were closer relatives of us than of Pan or Gorilla - which is obviously wrong. When I read an article that uses the word "hominin", I know:
it's written by some fool who believes we became "bipedal" when we left the African forest (Miocene Hominoidea were already bipedal, of course, google "aquarboreal").

This is idiocy. When this jackwads can't differentiate hominins
from birds or even invertebrates, as their misuse of "tools"
would apply to all, what is even the point?

Yes, sea-otters are *the* stone tool users.

The way they define "Tool use," it's unknown and unknowable.
MONKEYS USE TOOLS, going by the idiotic way this jackwads
define it. NEW WORLD MONKEYS!
So we're talking, what? Only 35,000,000 years of New World
Monkeys and... oops! They were already diversifying by then!
They'd been around longer, for sure...
So their "tool use" probably goes back at least that far, if the
way they misuse "tools" is applied consistently and..
Oops. Invertebrate, at least some of them, qualify as "tool
users" under their idiocy. So why not the Cambrian Explosion?
The point here, because idiots need it spelled out for them, the
stupid way they misuse "Tools" guarantees we can only "study"
the merest fraction of even the recent history of these so called
"Tools." We have a mega fragmentary sampling from less than
1% of the history of probable tool use, a lot less, and you want to
pretend we can work out it's evolution?
Can any of these morons even breath through their noses without
tripping?

They are & some will remain morons.
Let these morons run after their antelopes, JTEM... :-D

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

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmamm.2023.1281030/full Front.Mamm.Sci. 9.10.23 Tool use, or not tool use, that is the question:
is the necessity hypothesis really inconsequential for the African great apes? Investigating the drivers of tool-use in animals has recently received great attention, because of its implication in understanding animals’ cognition & the evolution of tool use in hominins.
The necessity hypothesis posits tool-use as a necessary response to food scarcity, but its role is an ongoing debate.
The largest body of literature comparing animal tool-use frequencies is with regard to primates, particularly comparisons between the Pan spp.
This supports the hypothesis: tool-use is rarer in wild bonobos, because of differential manipulation abilities of chimps, rather than different ecological needs.
This article aims to enrich the discussion concerning the necessity hypothesis & the ecological drivers of tool-use in apes.
The higher feeding flexibility of bonobos may be a key aspect to explaining the lower use of feeding tools than that observed in chimps.
The diet flexibility of bonobos is similar to that of the lowest level of tool-users among the wild great apes: the gorilla.
Gorillas can thus help to shed further light on this debate.
When fruit is scarce, Western gorillas & bonobos rely more on widely available proteinaceous herbs than chimps, who remain highly frugivorous.
Chimps may thus face a greater necessity to search for an alternative to obtain high-quality food: tool-assisted feeding.
An indirect piece of evidence for this higher level of herbivory is: the prevalence of gut ciliates in bonobos is double that of chimps.
In each animal species, a different combination of necessity, opportunities, predisposition & learning processes are likely to be at play in the emergence of flexible tool-use in animals.
_____

IOW, empty blabla...

Stone tools = sea-otter = opening shellfish:

H.erectus = molluscivore:
• tooth-wear was caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks", Towle cs 2022 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24500
• fossilized in coastal sediments, e.g. Mojokerto: barnacles + corals, Trinil: Pseudodon + Elongaria (edible shellfish), Sangiran-17: "brackish marsh near the coast".
• made sea-shell engravings, google "Munro Joordens" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470048/
• ear exostoses (H.erectus & H.neand.) = years of cold(er) water irrigation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/
• pachy-osteo-sclerosis = slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus’ parietal bone is 2x as thick as in gorillas.
• brain size (2x apes/australopiths) = aquatic foods, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish… cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia.
• island colonizations: Flores, Luzon... https://www.academia.edu/36193382/Coastal_Dispersal_of_Pleistocene_Homo_2018
• stone tool use & dexterity = molluscivory, e.g. sea-otters.

Only *incredible* imbeciles still believe they descend from antelope hunters... :-DDD

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

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

Investigating the drivers of tool use in animals
has recently received great attention because of
its implication in understanding animals’
cognition and the evolution of tool use in
hominins.

This is idiocy. When this jackwads can't differentiate hominins
from birds or even invertebrates, as their misuse of "tools"
would apply to all, what is even the point?

The way they define "Tool use," it's unknown and unknowable.

MONKEYS USE TOOLS, going by the idiotic way this jackwads
define it. NEW WORLD MONKEYS!

So we're talking, what? Only 35,000,000 years of New World
Monkeys and... oops! They were already diversifying by then!

They'd been around longer, for sure...

So their "tool use" probably goes back at least that far, if the
way they misuse "tools" is applied consistently and..

Oops. Invertebrate, at least some of them, qualify as "tool
users" under their idiocy. So why not the Cambrian Explosion?

The point here, because idiots need it spelled out for them, the
stupid way they misuse "Tools" guarantees we can only "study"
the merest fraction of even the recent history of these so called
"Tools." We have a mega fragmentary sampling from less than
1% of the history of probable tool use, a lot less, and you want to
pretend we can work out it's evolution?

Can any of these morons even breath through their noses without
tripping?

Do dolphins use tools?

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

Primum Sapienti wrote:

Do dolphins use tools?

If you had reading comprehension you would know that you
already received an answer.

This is not primary school and I am not your teacher. And
neither am I your therapist.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/732734215444201472

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

Op woensdag 1 november 2023 om 12:23:07 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

kudu runner wrote:

Do dolphins use tools?

If you had reading comprehension you would know that you
already received an answer.
This is not primary school and I am not your teacher. And
neither am I your therapist.

:-)

Yes, these idiots think dolphins are sea-otters... :-D

Nobody doubts early-Pleist.H.erectus in SE.Asia were predom. molluscivores:
• tooth-wear was caused by "sand & oral processing of marine mollusks", Towle cs 2022 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24500
• fossilized in coastal sediments, e.g. Mojokerto: barnacles + corals, Trinil: Pseudodon + Elongaria edible shellfish, Sangiran-17: "brackish marsh near the coast".
• sea-shell engravings, google "Munro Joordens" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25470048/
• ear exostoses (H.erectus & H.neand.) = years of cold(er) water irrigation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5696936/
• pachy-osteo-sclerosis = slow+shallow-diving tetrapods (de Buffrénil cs 2010 J.Mamm.Evol.17:101-120), e.g. erectus’ parietal bone is 2x as thick as in gorillas.
• brain size (2x apes/australopiths) = aquatic foods, e.g. DHA docosahexaenoic acid in shellfish… cf. Odontocetes, Pinnipedia.
• island colonizations: Flores, Luzon... https://www.academia.edu/36193382/Coastal_Dispersal_of_Pleistocene_Homo_2018
• stone tool use & dexterity = molluscivory, e.g. sea-otters.

Only *incredible* imbeciles still believe they descend from antelope hunters... :-DDD

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

Primum Sapienti wrote:

[---OCPD---]

Nothing has changed. This still isn't primary school, I'm still
not your teacher. And, neither am I your therapist.

You're applying the word "Tools" to behaviors, not object, and
you're such a basket case that you are emotionally incapable
of dealing with this fact.

And that's funny.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/733754887680196608

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