Early Humans & my 1994 Theories

I'm off to research a bit & see what kind of consensus there is these days as to which came first : The Big Brain---or The Tools

 

http://www.evoanth.net/2014/10/07/our-big-brains-evolved-to-make-tools/

 

Okay....the article (link above ^^^) appears to be a tad contradictory.  Its title insinuates Big Brains preceded the creation of tools, saying "Our big brains evolved TO make tools". (emphasis mine)  

 

Then within the article, it seems to agree with my 1994 theory that tools preceded our bigger brain size.  It says, "Even when our ancestors began developing better technology than chimps, they still had chimp-sized brains."  And guess what ?  Just a couple hundred thousand years before the earliest tools discovered, our Australopithecine brains were the size of chimpanzees !  That's a PRE-tool chimp-sized brain... (See diagram I found of their comparative skull AND brain sizes here :  https://proudlyoutspoken.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/skulls.jpg )     

 

So besides the article's title, it agrees with my 1994 theories that tools occurred first (by whatever method or cause)---& our big brains happened afterward (by whatever method or cause).  ..Remember, the 1994 scientific consensus was the other way around : That our bigger brains happened first, and only through the use of our newly bigger brains....did we then invent stone tools.

 

Back to the article linked above : Other than a comparatively over-accelerated cerebellum growth, it doesn't imply any other causes (directly relating to the invention of tools---or anything else for that matter) that also contributed to our bigger brain size...  Although the title alone seems to imply that the "purpose" our brains grew bigger....was to invent tools sometime way in the future.  ?? ..(Did our brains really somehow "plan & decide" to grow bigger, just to invent something it didn't even know about yet---because it hadn't even invented it yet ??  Hmmmm... The contradictory title seems to propose exactly this.  (I'm tending to think now that the article's body is intended only as "a response" to the article's nonsensical title ?)          

 

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, my 1994 theories stated that I believe tools came first, then the larger brains came later.  But I don't think we invented tools through any evolutionary, environmental, or behavioral causes.  I think it "just happened"....and almost certainly when, around 3.3 million years ago (the oldest known tools in 2016), an Australopithecine was trying to crush a seed or root between 2 rocks---that just "happened" to be the 2 right kinds of rocks !  One of them breaks at an angle---& he / she notices the sharp edge !  Maybe even cutting a fingertip on it ?  So it starts trying to see what else it might cut.  Like, you know....how about that seed or root it was just trying to crush ?? (!!!)       

 

In my imagined scenario (a new idea for me, not 1994), our very FIRST tool, was created not by design, idea or intent---but purely by accidental happenstance.  And in discovering the broken stone's cutting ability on the nut or root, eventually took one of the sharp broken stones to see what ELSE it might cut.  At some point thereafter....trying it out on the carcass of a scavenged dead animal.  I.E. : More, as well as faster-&-more-easily-obtained animal protein---that would have provided the additional protein necessary for bigger brains to grow !  And the rest is literally, as they say, "history"...    

 

The article further suggests (I think rightly), that our cerebellum grew much faster than our bodies, in response to the mental stimulation & thought processes of tool use---as well as the increasingly more complex ways we found to use them---& to create & design them also.  From the article : "the cerebellum is linked with many of the cognitive processes needed for complex tool use. In particular, it’s involved with fine motor control and planning out sequences of moves. Thus, the researchers hypothesise, tool use and fine motor skills became important. Evolution selected for the abilities that allowed this; in turn increasing the size of our cerebellum."         

 

However, I gave other reasons or causes in 1994 for what I believe contributed even more significantly to our development of bigger brains.  And tools in my opinion (but in a totally different way), played THE most crucial part ! : I proposed that it was our invention of tools (either by accident, or by conscious intent), that provided us an new ability TO gather all the EXTRA meat necessary to both grow & maintain a larger brain size... Everything requires both materials & fuel... You simply can't get something from nothing.

 

From my notarized 1994 paleo-anthropologic theories (Again, please remember that scientific consensus in 1994 was that our Big Brains came first---& later begat tools.)  : 

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Afarensis (a late Australopithecine) did not suddenly grow a bigger brain---changing him into "Homo Habilis", for no reason. --There was a cause ! ...... There were no major ecological changes in his (Afarensis') environment at that time, or even a million years forward or backward from this time-period.  Without ecological changes to cause their evolvement (of bigger brains),--there had to be another cause !  This burst in brain size did not "just happen". ....... The oldest stone tools ever found were dated at 2.5 million years, and are the main reason for the date estimated for Homo Habilis' appearance.  ((Note : as of 2016, the oldest tools found are now 3.3 million years old.  Also as of today, the appearance of Homo Habilis has been pushed back to 2.8 million years ago.)) 

 

Page 231 of "Lucy", says of the tools found at Hadar, that they were 'of basalt, deliberately & consistently made, actually of somewhat better workmanship than those found at Olduvai'.  Despite their age, their workmanship shows that they were not likely the very first.  The very first were apt to be cruder, and of course, would also have to date a little earlier.

 

This is what leads me to conclude that Afarensis .... was the inventor of the first stone tools ever made. --And it was actually the (invention) of these tools that catapulted Afarensis out of his million-year-plus unchanged existence,--and into becoming "Homo Habilis" ! ..... enabling him (Afarensis) to remove more meat & marrow from the carcasses he scavenged,--and remove it much quicker than before as well.  It was this new scavenging innovation of the first butchery tool, that provided the extra meat protein and fats needed to boost Afarensis' brain size & bump his evolution into the first fully "Homo" species in existence.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Anyway, that's just the part of my 1994 ideas, as well as some newer ones I have, not only regarding the "which came first---the big brains or the tools ?" question....but also some of my ideas as to how each occurred...

 

SOOO..... What do some of you think ?  Do my ideas make sense to you ?  Please feel free to ask me any questions about them.  And if you don't agree with them, what are some of your thoughts & ideas on our development of bigger brains and our invention of tools so long ago ?  

This is the article that I found that references the oldest stone tools found to date, at 3.3 million years old... This also fits perfectly with my 1994 contention that it was Australopithicus Afarensis (3.5 million years back) who invented the first stone tools.   

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/which-came-first-humans-or-tools

I've been finding articles that ask "Did our ancestors become bipedal to 'free up their hands' to make stone tools ?" ..Which is totally silly, because tool making would not be done while walking !  Even all the monkeys & apes today---which are almost ALL quadrapeds---can use their hands (for whatever) when they aren't moving from place to place. And whether on the ground or in trees.   

 

And for the record, in 1994 scientific consensus was that our ancestors became bipedal to see over the tall grasses of the African savannah. My 1994 theory on that differs.  I say we became bipedal so we could CARRY food of any kind BACK to the safety of the few trees we had at that time.  To sit & eat out in the grasslands just to consume foods (be it plant or carrion) was to prolong the risk for becoming victim of predatory animals that were MUCH faster than we were then. Also, we began carrying food back to the few trees we used for safety, to be able to share them with the rest of our family and / or community members.  I think it began with our ancestors carrying food back to the safety of the few trees, with one hand at first---travelling back to the trees on one hand & 2 feet on the ground.  Much the way chimps & other primates do today when they carry things.  Eventually, we began using / needing BOTH hands to carry food back to the few trees & our family members.  Which is when we became bipedal, being a much more efficient means of locomotion over distance, as well as freeing BOTH hands to carry twice the amount of food back to the trees & family as well.

 

I saw an article a few days ago that suggested we "chose" to switch to meat primarily instead of fruits & vegetables. This is also nonsensical, because we, at that time, HAD no such "choice", because almost all the trees were gone by that time, making way to vast grasslands. We "switched" primarily to meat....because that's almost all there was TO eat at that time & place in our history !             

On the Wiki page for "bipedalism", I see that carrying things (including food) is now proposed as a possibly notable reason for why we became bipedal. I didn't believe anyone else besides myself suggested that in 1994.  HOWEVER, there is a notation regarding someone named "Napier" who said in 1964 : ""It seems unlikely that any single factor was responsible for such a dramatic change in behaviour. In addition to the advantages of accruing from ability to carry objects - food or otherwise - the improvement of the visual range and the freeing of the hands for purposes of defence and offence must equally have played their part as catalysts.” ...Also, "Day (1986) emphasized three major pressures that drove evolution of bipedalism 1.food acquisition 2. predator avoidance 3. Reproductive success."  There are others who suggested such much earlier than I, also noted on the Wiki page...  Apparently, I wasn't the first to propose we became bipedal primarily to carry food back to safety & family.  However, I was unaware anyone else had until today, reading the following Wiki page. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism   

You know what ?  There are a lot of good & interesting ideas on the Wiki page as to why we became bipedal... I've come to believe that the general answer is pretty much : "All of the above"  (Except, not so much on the "Wading model".)

 

--But I just had another idea as I was reading how our ancestors, having hands that developed previously living in trees.....would have had to walk on their knuckles on the ground.  THIS may have been yet another factor in our becoming bipedal once our trees began to disappear & were less able to support our need for food... As the trees grew in smaller & smaller clusters, with larger spaces of open grasslands in between, we would have had to venture way out into the grasslands more & more to look for other food sources---or travel to distant clusters of other trees for food...    

 

Now : Think about how finger knuckles would have fared frequently having to walk long distances on them. (!!!)  Hands, which developed for use living in trees---just aren't made for walking long distances on !  I'd bet....as we had to travel greater & greater distances, & more frequently, away from trees or to other, distant, clusters of trees in search for food....the knuckles would have become very worn, tender---& hurt !  Maybe even becoming injured !  Not to mention if danger approached & they had to run long distances back to the protection of the trees, & to their communities within or near them.  That could really do some damage to knuckles !  This wouldn't apply to other Hominidae such as chimpanzees, apes & orangutans, who don't have any need to travel long distances.  On their knuckles, or otherwise.  Other than humans, today's hominoids don't need to travel long distances, as they all live in woodlands, jungles, rain forests & swamps, within which all their needs are met. ( http://www.liveanimalslist.com/mammals/habitats-of-apes.php )  So....maybe the fact that at the time our ancestors became bipedal, our having knuckles somewhat forced us to become bipedal as we travelled longer & longer distances in search of food, especially to scavenge meat.  Because it was painful or even damaging to travel---and sometimes even forced to run---long distances on our knuckles ??    
 

That's a new idea, isn't it ?  That having to travel long ways on knuckles could have been a major factor in our becoming bipedal ?  

 

What do you think about it ? (Is there anyone else out there ??)  

       

Ahhhhh-HA !!! ..I see someone else has proposed that walking on the knuckles was too painful.  Although he had water in the mix as to how / why we became bipedal....to which I strongly disagree.  The reason being that during the timeframe that our ancestors were developing bipedalism, their environment became much drier & much less forested !  Not the other way around, as in Daniel Laberge's "inundated forest theory", which has both an inordinate amount of water and lots of trees.

 

Besides....his "inundated forest theory" would have to apply to hundreds or thousands of years of our ancestors living basically "at all times" in "inundated (WITH WATER---& enough of it that our ancestors would have had to stand up on their back feet every time they descended from the trees---just to breathe) forests".......rather than our ancestors simply travelling out of those areas to dryer forests.  Surely they would not have just stayed & lived exclusively in such an environment, with the ground of the entire forest covered in feet of water at all times !   They would have travelled out of it---and quickly (!!!)

 

Anyway, as to Daniel Laberge coming up with the same "tender knuckles" idea I just had, he wrote :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"They stood on two feet!
Our ancestors, now experts at wading on two feet, found it easier to walk erect on dry land.
Abandoning knuckle-walking also freed their hands for other uses.
When the water receded, our ancestors wouldn't return to walking on their knuckles again.
Putting their weight on them had become much too painful.

The skin on your knuckles is delicate
and not conceived to support your weight

Young apes learn how to knuckle-walk when they are young and light.
Returning to it as an adult would be very painful and hard on the skin.
One can wonder how and why knuckle-walking could have evolved in the first place.
The skin is much thicker and harder on the palm side.

http://daniellaberge.com/grooming/primatesbipedalism1.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------