Hi everyone! I understand this is for sciences that we talk about in the classroom because I have a main account (that forgot the password to so this is my backup. The name is the same as my main, but without the 2), but I was hoping this counts as a science like humanities or something. So, straight to the point, humans didn't just spawn and start making stone tools. So, how did we get to that point? There's a part in the middle of God making us and us and stuff like that to the paleolithic era that I'm not educated about and would like either your own knowledge/research because I've already tried to research, but I got nowhere. Please send help. Also, I'm in desperate need of channel recommendations on YouTube that are factual, mostly unbiased, and in-depth because I'm 15, not 5. Thank you.

15 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

So, straight to the point, humans didn't just spawn and start making stone tools. So, how did we get to that point?

We have evidence of stone tools from over 3M years ago, but it's assumed that bone and wood were also used but left no evidence over so much time. In a nutshell, tools start out simple, like sticks for digging and rocks for breaking things open, vines for fastening things together. Dig enough holes and your stick becomes frayed at the end, making it a good tool for other things. Break enough bones for the marrow with rocks and you get slivers of the rock that are quite sharp, so now you have cutting tools. Even as hunter/gatherers, we were able to use tools to make our lives better. When we discovered agriculture and had even more time to innovate, our tool use became one of our defining traits. The combination of big brains, opposable thumbs, walking upright to free the hands, and a cooperative and communicative nature combined with an insatiable curiosity gives us the ability to make tools that help us overcome most of our weaknesses.

15 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

There's a part in the middle of God making us and us and stuff like that to the paleolithic era that I'm not educated about and would like either your own knowledge/research because I've already tried to research, but I got nowhere.

I would drop the mention of gods when you're looking for information about the Paleolithic. Any scientific treatment will not be concerned with individual religions.

It's high time to stop thinking of humans as something special. Animals make and use tools. Animals build houses. Birds create quite complex structures. Even insects.

16 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

because I have a main account (that forgot the password to so this is my backup. The name is the same as my main, but without the 2),

Try "Forgot your password?"

https://scienceforums.net/lostpassword/

Maybe you just logged in through Google/Facebook/X?

14 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

Hi everyone! I understand this is for sciences that we talk about in the classroom because I have a main account (that forgot the password to so this is my backup. The name is the same as my main, but without the 2), but I was hoping this counts as a science like humanities or something. So, straight to the point, humans didn't just spawn and start making stone tools. So, how did we get to that point? There's a part in the middle of God making us and us and stuff like that to the paleolithic era that I'm not educated about and would like either your own knowledge/research because I've already tried to research, but I got nowhere. Please send help. Also, I'm in desperate need of channel recommendations on YouTube that are factual, mostly unbiased, and in-depth because I'm 15, not 5. Thank you.

Wikipedia has decent info on this subject. Have you checked it out?

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

It's high time to stop thinking of humans as something special. Animals make and use tools. Animals build houses. Birds create quite complex structures. Even insects.

So, we should probably also stop thinking of sharks as something special, because humans can swim too? It's not a good argument.

In a world of tool users, we ARE something special when it comes to using tools. We're the reigning champions by an enormous margin.

It's high time we stopped ignoring other species, and started using our intellectual/engineering prowess to maintain the biodiversity that seems to be the key to life's abundance here. We are special in our way just like every other critter is special in theirs. Instead of focusing on making a few of us fabulously wealthy, we should spend our resources figuring out how not to squander our resources.

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

In a world of tool users, we ARE something special when it comes to using tools. We're the reigning champions by an enormous margin

This is an example of an apomorphy, a derived trait. The OP can hopefully follow this up.

The different types of "morphy."

There is also a good general reader that has some detail on this.

"The Origin of our species." Chris Stringer.

Some good information on tools w.r.t. Homo sp

On 6/5/2025 at 12:32 AM, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

...So, straight to the point, humans didn't just spawn and start making stone tools. So, how did we get to that point? There's a part in the middle of God making us and us and stuff like that to the paleolithic era that I'm not educated about...

There is no 'before' the palaeolithic. It is an archaeological term for a stage in human development characterised by the occurrence of the earliest recognised human artefacts - stone tools.

It occurs at different times in different places, first appearing in Africa about 3.3 million years ago and later elsewhere as our ancestors migrated.

In Australia, the palaeolithic began perhaps 60 thousand years ago and is generally not regarded as ending before the late eighteenth century.

There is no particular tie-in with the geological timeline other than on a very local basis. It's a measure of cultural development, not absolute time.

Just now, sethoflagos said:

There is no 'before' the palaeolithic. It is an archaeological term for a stage in human development characterised by the occurrence of the earliest recognised human artefacts - stone tools.

It occurs at different times in different places, first appearing in Africa about 3.3 million years ago and later elsewhere as our ancestors migrated.

In Australia, the palaeolithic began perhaps 60 thousand years ago and is generally not regarded as ending before the late eighteenth century.

There is no particular tie-in with the geological timeline other than on a very local basis. It's a measure of cultural development, not absolute time.

Pretty good explanation, +1

On 6/5/2025 at 5:51 PM, pinball1970 said:

Wikipedia has decent info on this subject. Have you checked it out?

Agreed, perhaps you might have said more since Wiki takes us into what actually preceeded the historic term paleolithic - that is into geological time periods up to 10 million years ago.

Sarae hope this helps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

On 6/5/2025 at 4:58 PM, Sensei said:

It's high time to stop thinking of humans as something special. Animals make and use tools. Animals build houses. Birds create quite complex structures. Even insects.

Try "Forgot your password?"

https://scienceforums.net/lostpassword/

Maybe you just logged in through Google/Facebook/X?

+1

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Pretty good explanation, +1

Agreed, perhaps you might have said more since Wiki takes us into what actually preceeded the historic term paleolithic - that is into geological time periods up to 10 million years ago.

Sarae hope this helps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

+1

The OP is 15 so I wanted him to search on the net for himself.

+1 on the overall post though for info. The timeline is particularly good.

Austro to homo sp

Apologies @Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist I did not even notice your name!

I am assuming you're a young lady? My bad. The majority of posters on science platforms I have been on are male.

Anyway, the enquiring mind is the important part. Hopefully you will find the replies helpful.

PB1970

I appreciate all the help I've received over the past 2-3 days. It means a lot. I will diligently research each reply's answers carefully because this is very important to me. Thanks, and I don't mind being misgendered @pinball1970 ; I understand how that happened, seeing as you come across males 9/10.

Edited June 8Jun 8 by Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2
Typo

@sethoflagos I just had this thought-a question, actually: should I study the paleolithic era by continent starting with Africa? You said that this era began at different times due to geographic differences, right? If that's true, wouldn't it make sense for me to study this topic from the first to last continent to experience this?

7 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@sethoflagos I just had this thought-a question, actually: should I study the paleolithic era by continent starting with Africa? You said that this era began at different times due to geographic differences, right? If that's true, wouldn't it make sense for me to study this topic from the first to last continent to experience this?

That makes a lot of sense. If you start with the Olduwan, Acheulean, and Mousterian for Africa it will give you a good early foundation for understanding the progression in other regions.

You might consider taking a craft course in flint knapping, if there is one sufficiently close to you.

@sethoflagos Thanks, things are finally starting to make sense. One thing that keeps tripping me up though is the use of the words genus, hominid, and evolve. It's not like I don't know what these words mean, it's just that they seem inappropriate when discussing literal HUMANS. I personally don't believe in evolution because 1. DNA can't just change out of nowhere in any circumstances and 2. Evolution's theory doesn't work because if humans were to have been evolved from apes, how come they're still here? And how do you classify humans by taxonomic standards? We're the same, just different colors.

6 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

I personally don't believe in evolution

Evolution is a fact, we observe it in nature. You don't believe in the theory that has amassed mountains of evidence to support itself as an explanation.

9 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

because 1. DNA can't just change out of nowhere in any circumstances

What about mutation?

11 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

and 2. Evolution's theory doesn't work because if humans were to have been evolved from apes, how come they're still here?

We didn't evolve from today's apes. Humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.

This is very basic evolution theory, so I think you don't trust the theory because you don't understand it. We know evolution occurs. Our current theory is the best explanation we have, using centuries of observation and experimentation. I encourage you to give the theory another try.

45 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

1. DNA can't just change out of nowhere in any circumstances

Already wrong. As any biological they are not inert, as you suggest. They mutate all the time due to chemical, biological and physical influence (e.g., UV radiation). It requires a complex repair apparatus (also biomolecules) to ensure that they don't mutate too much all the time.

Considering that the understanding of even basic biology is missing, I would suggest not to try to overturn knowledge that has been established over many, many years.

@Phi for All nice points. Couldn't hurt to try it again, but it's just so many confusing things. Like how are there so many missing pieces to evolution? It's like there are more questions than answers.

27 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@Phi for All nice points. Couldn't hurt to try it again, but it's just so many confusing things. Like how are there so many missing pieces to evolution? It's like there are more questions than answers.

While there are open questions, it also hold a lot of answers. However, many questions posed by folks, including those in this thread are not due to a failure of the evolutionary theories to address them, but by a lack of knowledge about biology in general and evolution in specific.

Obviously one cannot expect everyone to know these things, but a good first step is to try to inform oneself a bit better rather than assuming that there are issues with it. It is a bit like declaring planes cannot possibly fly, as they are too heavy.

Looks like Charon and Phi stepped up to resolve some of the evolution confusions. I just want to note that some species can originate from a split off and isolated population of another species. This is a kind of genetic drift called a founder effect.

The founder effect can lead to the origin of new species when a small group of individuals colonizes a new habitat, leading to reduced genetic diversity and rapid evolutionary divergence. This divergence can lead to speciation - the new population becomes reproductively isolated from the original population.

So in this way, @Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist you could have a new species in that geographically isolated area while the original species remained in its usual habitat.

In fact, our knowledge of this goes back to Darwin, who discovered such a founder effect on the Galapagos Islands, where new species of finches arose from a mainland species.

1 hour ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@Phi for All nice points. Couldn't hurt to try it again, but it's just so many confusing things. Like how are there so many missing pieces to evolution? It's like there are more questions than answers.

I wonder what sort of things you have in mind when you write of missing pieces. I’d have thought the basic principle was well established long ago. Are you perhaps thinking of gaps in the fossil record for particular species, or something like that, rather than gaps in the theory?

@exchemist Hi! I remember you! But I was thinking of the first one- the gaps in fossil records. And how does everyone have completely different time frames for life? Like, MAJORLY different. For example, Christians (myself included) believe the earth is anywhere from 6-10 thousand years old because of the combined life spans of every human ever from Genesis, while seculars say millions or-ridiculously- billions of years old because they think the universe just magically appeared. This is rather confusing because I can't measure things or put them in chronological order properly. Like how do I line up the the beginning of the Lower Paleolithic age with Genesis with the drastic time differences?

4 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@exchemist Hi! I remember you! But I was thinking of the first one- the gaps in fossil records. And how does everyone have completely different time frames for life? Like, MAJORLY different. For example, Christians (myself included) believe the earth is anywhere from 6-10 thousand years old because of the combined life spans of every human ever from Genesis, while seculars say millions or-ridiculously- billions of years old because they think the universe just magically appeared. This is rather confusing because I can't measure things or put them in chronological order properly. Like how do I line up the the beginning of the Lower Paleolithic age with Genesis with the drastic time differences?

Oh dear. So this is all about biblical literalism then. Have we gone over this before?

@exchemist 😅 Yes but I tried to tone it down a bit this time. it was soooo difficult because it's my first time actually doing my own research and teaching myself history because that's just one of a million other things the American school system fails at (but that's another topic). I'm so sorry I'm actually not trying to be difficult I'm just sincerely trying to understand. That's my favorite thing in the world to do: understand EVERYTHING. It's how my brain works. Please help. I'm actually crying out for help it's frustrating to be confused.

3 minutes ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@exchemist 😅 Yes but I tried to tone it down a bit this time. it was soooo difficult because it's my first time actually doing my own research and teaching myself history because that's just one of a million other things the American school system fails at (but that's another topic). I'm so sorry I'm actually not trying to be difficult I'm just sincerely trying to understand. That's my favorite thing in the world to do: understand EVERYTHING. It's how my brain works. Please help. I'm actually crying out for help it's frustrating to be confused.

Why not start by re-reading the discussion you and I had before, which I have now found under your old identity. If you want to study science you need to move on from biblical literalism and join the majority of Christians. No need to abandon your faith but you do need a more sophisticated, less childlike, interpretation of scripture, just as most Christians have.

But this is really now a different topic and requires a different thread. The mods here do not welcome discussions about creationism, as they have so often been fruitless in the past.

What we can perhaps do here is get you past the false idea that gaps in the fossil record cast doubt on the theory of evolution. What you have with fossils is a series of data points, which you can join up by interpolation, just as you do with a series of measurements in physics or chemistry. When you consider how rare it is for a dead creature to become fossilised, then how rare it is for rocks containing the fossils to become exposed at the surface once more, and then how rare it is for a re-exposed fossil to be found and identified, it is amazing we have as many data points as we do.

Edited June 10Jun 10 by exchemist

@exchemist I think I'm starting to understand now just a little, but what exactly do the "other " Christians do to understand these things? Is there a process? I like the point you made about the other sciences and how we connect dots there. Also, I don't think every creationist conversation should be taken down. Some would argue that religion and science don't need to be at odds, we just make it that way. Though I could be a little biased...