Pharyngula

Posted by: SEF | November 3, 2009 6:55 PM

Becoming Human ... It's a promising new documentary on human evolution

And there I was thinking it was going to be a self-help advice programme for Americans on how to do it. ;-)

Posted by: Rohit Narayan | November 3, 2009 7:06 PM

Glasses broken?? It must be sign from GOD! God does not want you to watch this program on TV. C'mon PZ - see the writing on the wall. Oooops sorry! Forgot 'bout them broken glasses) *sigh*

On a slightly more serious note, I'd like to invite you (and your readers) to read/review a recent blog post titled Almost nobody truly believes in God.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 3, 2009 7:08 PM

Sounds like PBS will let you stream it from their site later. Might be the best way for you to see it PZ.

They've done that in the past. I'll definitely make sure to catch this one online. It sounds like a promissing problem.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 3, 2009 7:11 PM

Why do they have to dilate your pupils(and presumably do a fundoscopy) for a simple test of visual acuity?

Posted by: eddie | November 3, 2009 7:18 PM

Sorry for the thread-jack, but this is right up pharynguloids' street.
I heard on the news about a guy who was fired from his job, claims it was because of his belief in AGW which his bosses deny and is suing on the grounds of religious discrimination.
There's an interesting discussion on this over at metafilter in which we learn that the anti-discrimnation law doesn't hold established religion as separate from philosophical or (maybe) poltical stances.
Sorry no link but bolt browser allowed me to copy the url, but has no facility to paste it (wtf?).

Posted by: murgadroid | November 3, 2009 7:27 PM

Hey Rorschach:
It's considered standard of care to do an eye health exam as part of the process. At least according to the boss lady optometrist that I'm married to. :-)

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 3, 2009 7:31 PM

Like Ptolemy or Newton

Posted by: littlejohn | November 3, 2009 7:33 PM

There's actually an easy and entertaining way to get your pupils to shrink. Take a modest dose of LSD (I understand amphetamine will also work, but as an aging hippie, I only have experience with...Hey, what happened to that unicorn?). Hey, it worked for me in the 70s. Huh? The bats! The damned bats!

Posted by: momentofsciencetx | November 3, 2009 7:41 PM

You can't see without glasses, the designer must hate you.

Posted by: nigelTheBold | November 3, 2009 7:54 PM

Mr Hitchens says that one of The Ten Commandments about "not coveting your neighbors’ goods" stifles the drive for innovation/science/technology.

That's not quite what he said. He said that the 10th commandment made a thoughtcrime -- that of coveting your neighbor's goods. It's not that a person steals the goods (that is already a commandment). It's outlawing the desire to own things your neighbor owns.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with Hitchens. The desire of ownership is not the only thing that drives us to try to accomplish things in life. But you seem to misunderstand what he's saying.

One of the things you would not be allowed to do under the 8th and 10th Commandments is steal another scientist’s intellectual property.

Uhm... how can an idea be property? I realize the US and other countries have strange laws that allow people (and corporations, which are considered people in some regards) to apply for legal protection of the application of ideas, in the form of patents; but how can you steal an idea? And how do the 8th and 10th commandments stop you from using ideas generated by someone else?

The term "intellectual property" is a very poor misnomer, and generally indicates a poor grasp of the distinction between physical property and ideas.

Posted by: foxfire | November 3, 2009 8:07 PM

I already pre-ordered the DVD with all 3 segments! Not out until January :-(

Posted by: Ewan R | November 3, 2009 8:21 PM

"Becoming "a human" is partly about our desire to continuously improve."

No, becoming "a human" is as simple as being born human (with 2 human parents - or if you're destined for great things to one human parent and one fictional character) - at least on an individual basis. At least until you utterly redefine what being human is. Becoming human over geological time however sounds like it is worth a look.... now if only I can persuade my wife that obsessing over evolutionary biology is not a bad thing.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | November 3, 2009 8:27 PM

Clearly what is needed is a temporary iris substitute. I've never thought about it before, but that is more or less what Inuit snow goggles are.

For the ultimate in nerd fashion, try taping a couple of pieces of paper onto your glasses so they form a horizontal gap about 1 mm high. No guarantees that it will work, just that there will be comments from observers.

Pin holes might be better optically but keeping two of them aligned comfortably seems impractical.

Posted by: eddie | November 3, 2009 8:44 PM

Remakes are for n00bs.

Posted by: foxfire | November 3, 2009 8:58 PM

@ Nerd of Redhead #26:

What about YouTube (although I think you are correct in not mentioning this as a source for the NOVA program PZ discusses)?

This comment is simply a thin effort to not hijack the thread and notify people about a You Tube video of a Dan Dennett lecture he gave in Oslo Oct 30, 2009. Found thanks to RDnet news. Go here

Sorry NoR. And hey (going back to thread topic) - what about TIVO?

Me - I gots the antiquated VCR locked and loaded, so to speak.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 9:08 PM

what about TIVO?

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 3, 2009 9:13 PM

Hi Lion (IRC) again (you never did respond to me in the other thread. Thanks.),

I cannot reconcile your demand not to mention The 10 Commandments

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 9:18 PM

Lyin' Lion, your babble is nothing but fiction/myth until you provide the physical evidence otherwise. Welcome to science, where nothing is given presupposition status, and must be confirmed with hard evidence. For the Bible, written after the fact in almost all cases, that hard evidence doesn't seem to be there. Ergo, parsimony says it's fiction/myth.

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 3, 2009 9:34 PM

Lion wrote:
"I cannot reconcile your demand not to mention The 10 Commandments..."

Ohh, and don't forget to mention burning in hell for all eternity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYW6cTWng-o

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 3, 2009 9:50 PM

Becoming human?
Simple. In roughly chronological order. Individual histories will vary:

Trust your mother.
Learn to cuddle.
Pay attention.
Don't poke your fingers into small holes.
Look both ways first.
Read widely.
Listen to others.
Pay strict attention to how the actions or words of others affect you with particular weight given to looking back after some period of time. Compare to initial concerns.
Use that information to inform others.
Cherish your children and grandchildren. Teach them skills that don't involve shuffling pieces of paper about. Furniture making is a skill that will always be in demand.
Challenge everything.
Speak openly.
Love lots.
Get old with a sly grin.

Once you've got these simple steps down you can take it from there.

No magic. No spooks. All natural and home grown. There you go . . .

Posted by: bcoppola | November 3, 2009 9:54 PM

#36: Yeah, same occurred to me - hope they correct it in parts 2 & 3. (Just typing here during a "Dirty Jobs" commercial break)

As a layperson, looking forward to more informed critiques here.

Posted by: DonRocko | November 3, 2009 10:03 PM

The program had a really annoying narrator who sounded like he belonged on Sesame Street. It also repeated a lot of its points over and over. Kinda vexing.

But at least it's a decent attempt at bringing more public awareness of evolution.

Posted by: Blake | November 3, 2009 10:11 PM

UGhhhhh, is no one else annoied by the CONSTANT FUCKING DISTRACTING BACKGROUND MUSIC and incessant bleepity bloop sound effects? What the fuck. Does ALL TV have to be like this now?

Posted by: Kane148 | November 3, 2009 10:19 PM

Overall pretty good, though a bit too romanticized at parts in my opinion. I was really annoyed by their insistence on playing the same animation clips OVER AND OVER AND OVER again and frequently shots of people pointlessly rearranging bones. Do they think their audience has such a short attention span that they can't just show the person who is actually talking, or some sort of relevant data or image?

Posted by: foxfire | November 3, 2009 10:22 PM

@ Nerd of Redhead #31:

That's a DVR (digital video recorder).

True and the operation of TIVO is significantly different than operation of a personal DVR. So where does one draw the line? The underlying format (analog vs digital), the capability of the device (difference between TIVO and a personal DVR on recording) or the mechanism by which one accomplishes the objective (record or view the program)?

Not trying to give you a hard time - just interested because I considered a personal DVR and TIVO to be separate entities, because of how they operate. Yet I see your point about how they both have the capability to digitally record.

I hope you respond because I think this difference of perspective is interesting. So much more so than the apparently endless effort of Mr. Lion "IRC", to constantly interject his 10 "must-do's" into every thread.

Posted by: Peter McKellar | November 3, 2009 10:32 PM

This posting was most timely. I had just finished chatting over skype with my niece in Alabama (offering to help out with some biology and other subjects). I said I was following the teaching debate going on in the USA and asked if they taught evolution at her school.

I was shattered to find out that her coach thought evolution didnt make sense to him (and by definition, shouldn't to anyone else). She also said she believed god created heaven and earth in 6 days (I stifled a girlish scream at this point).

Rather than outright poison the well and send her offside I generously stated "He's probably a very good coach", but WTF, does the biology teacher get to train the sports teams?

I emailed the link to the PBS show, but doubt she will get to see it. Even if she wants to, her mother rules the airwaves and I can be pretty sure that there will be something far more exciting on (The view, Fox News, American Idol anyone?). I will also send her some links to a streaming version just in case.

Posted by: EJ | November 3, 2009 10:44 PM

At first I thought the documentary was associated with www.becominghuman.org which is a fantastic interactive site I use to teach biology. It doesn't appear that it is. The kids love it too, if any of you are high school teachers looking for activities (Am willing to trade btw)

Posted by: John Morales | November 3, 2009 10:47 PM

[OT]

Sorry, Nerd, I run a Windows box (and firefox, these days, which also has available an add-on to do just that).

BTW, I should've added that youtubekeep gives you multiple options for format, including HQ MP4 (if available).

Posted by: CAZ | November 3, 2009 11:00 PM

I saw Mike Rowe give a talk at my uni and he was surprisingly intelligent. He actually went to college for philosophy and then was an opera singer before his "Dirty Jobs" job, and he only did that because he wanted to do other narration work with Discovery. I wouldn't automatically write him off.

Posted by: truthspeaker | November 3, 2009 11:22 PM

Foxfire, Tivo is just a brand of DVR. It works much the same as other DVRs do - they're all digital (that's what the D stands for), they all record video to a hard drive and play it back later.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 3, 2009 11:56 PM

Hi Aratina Cage,
Sorry if you asked me a question in a thread that I haven’t been back to. Let me know the link and I will certainly answer if I can. (Even if I can't answer I will acknowledge as much in that thread) I don’t want to be thought of as unresponsive when atheists offer me an invitation.
I shall reply to people who call me a troll by saying... "but Aratina asked me a question".
As for The Ten Commandments, I really must object to the claim that I am "godbotting". I get that you and many others here don’t want bible verses offered as if they were "evidence" of something and you don’t want gratuitous preaching. But Mssrs Hitchens and Dawkins et al justifiably and necessarily use parts of the bible in an attempt to make THEIR case so how can one respond without mentioning the EXACT same parts of the bible they do? There was even a recent post on pharyngula by Britomart (Undernet #atheism) where she specifically claimed that I could learn about THE BIBLE by visiting here regularly. She DID say that. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/what_took_him_so_long.php#comment-2028155
So you may be well-intentioned in wanting to help me avoid a ban by PZ Myers but I am going to watch whether he gives the Caesarean thumbs up or down to my careful and selective mention of coveting ones neighbor’s property in the context of innovation/human development. I think/hope he sees the connection but I’m sorry if you don’t. Here’s the relevancy.
Becoming human → ongoing process→ human development → Hitchens’ “biblical coveting” remarks→ coveting stifles innovation? → morality in science → intellectual property theft→ Somewhere there LSD got a Guernsey too.
I would add one last point that “coveting” and “stealing” whether or not they are mentioned in the B………mentioned in a certain religious text of disputed origin, MAY well drive a person to think of innovative ways to compete or keep up with the Jones’s. That COULD assist “evolutionary” improvement/development of humans. But there is a counter argument that if the rewards of intellectual effort are not protected from being stolen or coveted by innovative people Mr Hitchens may well find fewer people willing to make that effort in the first place.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: paraedolia | November 4, 2009 12:13 AM

unfortunately, my glasses are broken, and I just got back from an eye exam, so my pupils are dilated and the world is a far too bright blur. I'll try to see the glowing blobs moving on my TV screen anyway.

Posted by: Shannon | November 4, 2009 12:49 AM

I enjoyed it, although it got rather repetitive and the references to the search for "humanity's earliest ancestor" made me think "single celled organisms" instead of "the most recent shared ancestor of humans and other apes" like they intended.

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 4, 2009 1:49 AM

Got home from little-sister's pre-school co-op board meeting just in time to watch the Nova episode with our boy Zack, 8, who, in less than a week, took his Spore creations from pond ephemera to galactic civilizations, while his mom and dad could only get to tribal stage...

The Nova episode (the first one we'd watched together) was dense, inter-disciplinary material, that held our attention as a family, a bonding moment. Zack was sad that we had to wait a week for the next installment, and looks forward to thrashing their website until then.

Posted by: 964pinocchio | November 4, 2009 4:05 AM

Wait, "From Ape to Human"??? Isn't that like saying "From Dog to Dalmation"? (to borrow from Dawkins)

Posted by: Jim Swetnam | November 4, 2009 4:17 AM

Many of the comments seem to be hung up on perceived flaws in Nova's presentation. They seem to have missed the most interesting finding (at least to me,) that we may have evolved to be so adaptable because of having evolved during a period and in a place that was undergoing wildly fluctuating environmental conditions. This led me to some of the original literature:

http://www.amacad.org/publications/monographs/biocomplexity.pdf

See Chapter 3, "Complexity and Adaptability in Human Evolution", by Rick Potts.

This is a big new idea for me, and I thank Nova for introducing it.

Posted by: SLC | November 4, 2009 6:36 AM

Re Nerd of Redhead and Juan Morales

1. Apples' Safari program can also be used to download from Youtube and other sites. The videos' source can be identified on the Activity window and double clicked to automatically download.

2. A better option for downloading videos from Youtube is the web site keepvid. The keepvid site can also identify an mp4 file of the video, if it exists, which is of higher quality then the flv file that Real Media, Firefox, or Safari will download.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 6:45 AM

-As for The Ten Commandments, I really must object to the claim that I am "godbotting".-

I don't think mentioning the 10 commandments in general counts on PZ's godbotting policy. That applies to people making a specific claim then using a reference in a supposed "holy book" to "prove" their point.

A link to what you are refering to however would be a good idea Lion. It also helps if said link is about the topic in question.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 7:14 AM

I get that you and many others here don’t want bible verses offered as if they were "evidence" of something and you don’t want gratuitous preaching.

So another wasted inane and pointless post by the Lyin' Lion.

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 4, 2009 7:18 AM

I know this is off topic, but i'm still sniggering. BBC .. Jesus Was A Transexual

Gotta love those Scots.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 7:24 AM

truthy,
do you ever sleep?
;)

Posted by: Hannah | November 4, 2009 7:40 AM

mmeeeehhhh I'm in the UK, so I can't watch that.. I'll have to find it on youtube later XD

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 7:52 AM

Dang, posting before coffee can be embarrassing. #77

Lyin' Lion, as soon as you prove that the bible is not a work of fiction/myth with hard evidence, you can quote it.

*sigh*

Posted by: bcoppola | November 4, 2009 8:54 AM

Jim #71: Good points and thanks for the link to the literature; will read later.

Note that the intro to the show did state prominently IIRC that "a radical new theory" (or similar words) of how we evolved would be the centerpiece of the series.

Assuming the idea is still controversial I hope NOVA will "teach the controversy" to show what a REAL scientific controversy is like.

Still, it didn't get into the distinctions TruthMachine #78 raised so it seemed to oversimplify & distort. But it's only Part 1. And hey, intro undergrad courses tend to oversimplify, too.

As for repetition: while it might be annoying, it is a good pedagogical strategy. Remember, NOVA is aimed at the masses which includes guys like me who have a broad but shallow and possibly garbled understanding of evolution. It can be hard to keep yer "'Pithecuses" straight without frequent reminders of who's who. :)

And yeah, glad they ignored the creotards.

Side note: Mrs. was half-watching the show while reading a mag but she was really impressed at the skull reconstruction using the scanning and 3D printer.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 8:55 AM

-Face it. The fit survive. The weak perish.-

Let's not forget that groups usually do much better working together than individuals. Red in tooth and claw...except when its not.

Posted by: bcoppola | November 4, 2009 9:07 AM

#89: Note the "fit survive" poster's handle. Chains are being yanked, methinks.

Now y'all quit bothering me. I'm supposed to be updating my software skills or something. :)

Posted by: raven | November 4, 2009 10:05 AM

Face it. The fit survive. The weak perish.

This concept has many interesting uses.

J. Goebbels: Tell a Big Lie often enough and people will believe it. This has many evil uses and fundie xians use it constantly.

BTW, it probably isn't all that useful. Both Hitler (born Schicklegruber) and Goebbels were Catholics, not atheists or scientists. At the end, Goebbels killed his 6 kids, his wife, and then himself.

PS Yeah, it is fundie xian troll making the Argumentium ad Hitlerian fallacy/lie early in the morning. Lame.

Posted by: Raymond Freeman-Lynde | November 4, 2009 10:52 AM

I just watched the episode at the Nova site.

Posted by: Valerieinto | November 4, 2009 11:07 AM

Sorry, stray parenthesis. :-)
That link was: http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/pages/mag/services/description/ontv/pbs-schedule.html
Thanks again!

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 4, 2009 12:31 PM

I would add one last point that “coveting” and “stealing” whether or not they are mentioned in the B………mentioned in a certain religious text of disputed origin, MAY well drive a person to think of innovative ways to compete or keep up with the Jones’s. That COULD assist “evolutionary” improvement/development of humans.

Isn't this exactly Hitchens' idea?

You just stole it, in violation of the Ten Commandments.

Clearly, you are on your way to becoming an atheist.

But there is a counter argument that if the rewards of intellectual effort are not protected from being stolen or coveted by innovative people Mr Hitchens may well find fewer people willing to make that effort in the first place.

Patents and copyrights have existed for a long time, but do have expiry periods.

Posted by: Traveler | November 4, 2009 2:06 PM

I was also a bit annoyed by the constant implication that humans aren't apes. But the real surprise was when they were talking about scientists' initial theories about Lucy. Did I misunderstand, or did they really say that scientists once thought that Lucy was a common ancestor of humans and chimps? And if they really did say that, is it true? That's not my recollection of how Lucy was first presented.

Posted by: Jim Swetnam | November 4, 2009 3:46 PM

@67,71,102: I have been searching for additional references to this theory, and had encountered Calvin, though these are better papers than those I found, thanks thwaite.

It's interesting that Calvin appears to nowhere reference Potts, nor does Potts cite Calvin. Is there animosity here?

Also, most of the references that I've found are more than 10 years old. That does not exactly make this a new theory. I have not located any references that criticize the theory either, though they must exist if it is controversial.

All of this illustrates a big beef I have with Nova and the Discovery channel, and their websites: The never cite literature.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 4, 2009 6:05 PM

Lyin' IRC - try reading for comprehension. The dungeon rule is as follows:

Godbotting - Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.

Citing the numerous parts of the bible which Christians have acted as per the bible's instructions to be unjust, genocidal, homocidal, bigoted, sexist, racist, slave-owning, polygamous, anti-family, dishonest and so forth is hardly the same thing.

And if it's an atheist doing the arguing, it can hardly be described as 'their holy book', can it?

Posted by: Jim Swetnam | November 4, 2009 8:27 PM

I have been lurking on this blog for a couple of years now, but have seldom posted because of what is happening now: Sooner or later every topic turns into a troll feeding contest.

The long time rule has always been: Don't feed trolls!

Now, back on topic, does anyone out there have any actual links or references to Rick Potts' research that was the central theme of this Nova episode? In particular, is anyone aware of any papers that dispute his thesis?

Posted by: llewelly | November 4, 2009 8:55 PM

Jim Swetnam | November 4, 2009 8:27 PM:

... does anyone out there have any actual links or references to Rick Potts' research that was the central theme of this Nova episode?

Posted by: chuckgoecke | November 4, 2009 10:06 PM

Reprost from my RD.net post: I found the show somewhat interesting and I'm encouraged that human or any kind of evolution based shows make it to TV. I'm not sure if our local PBS affiliate here in Texas actually aired the show; I missed it's airing and had to watch it on line. I wouldn't be surprised if the local station censored it. On the other hand, in light of the info that was contained in the recent Ardi articles, I found it lacking a bit. The show kind of glossed over that they didn't have very good info on the transition to bipedalism. Obviously the huge avalanche of information from the Ardi articles wasn't available when this show was put together, and they didn't try to incorporate it at the last minute. Ardi showed that bipedalism went through an awkward toe-thumb stage, with the foot pushing off the second toe. This occurred in a completely forested situation. The two things that kicked up the need for bipedalism are the male-female cooperation hinted at by the reduced male canines, which implied less male fighting for females for sex, probably due to (number two)the females being receptive for sex at nearly all times, or what is called cryptic ovulation. The way this stimulated bipedalism is that the males needed an efficient way to carry food to the females, to gain their favor for sex. Its been the same ever since. The later parts of the show present an interesting hypothesis about rapid climate fluctuations causing the rapid increase of brain size that marked the change from Australopithecus to the genus Homo. At the end, I was wondering if Fox news got involved in the last editorializing about Man's ability to adapt to rapid climate change.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 4, 2009 11:10 PM

Jim Swetnam @107:

That may be the longtime rule on most of the internet. Here, though, I think an addition is in order:

"Don't feed the trolls. Feed ON them."

Posted by: AmyD | November 4, 2009 11:20 PM

WTF? Our station (Sacramento KVIE) has their currently running program labeled as "NOVA Becoming Human", but they are really showing a Frontline about "overmedicated" children. And I was already mad that they had shifted this off to their less available, cable only, second channel. Now we don't get to see it at all. Grrr.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 11:47 PM

But they taste so bad!

And there's no nutrition there.

Posted by: Britomart | November 5, 2009 7:33 PM

Yes Lion, I did say you can learn a lot here. However, you need to examine the process that is necessary to learn:

1) Listen
2) Ask questions about what you don't understand
3) Listen some more
4) Repeat until you understand what the person you are talking to is trying to tell you.

I don't see you doing that here.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 10:22 PM

I will let you know when someone here teaches me something about the bible.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 11:17 PM

I see a lot of folk here saying dont mention that book - ever - under any circumstances - on pain of ex communication - none of it is true. Yet, in contrast, it is the very contents OF the bible which are used as an anti-theist launching pad by you-know-who. -Lion (IRC)

Lion, so far you have demonstrated that you possess an unfounded belief that the Bible is authoritative and applies to the present, as you did in comment #12:

One of the things you would not be allowed to do under the 8th and 10th Commandments is steal another scientist’s intellectual property.

How do you know that? Well, you don't. There was no such thing as intellectual property or science beyond a rudimentary form when the story of the Ten Commandments originated. It' ludicrous to apply the Ten Commandments to legal entities of the present (which is what Hitchens was showing).

Hitchens is arguing against Christianity by assuming the Bible's text should be taken as a compilation of truth claims and then showing how those claims don't match the evidence, are redundant, don't make sense (as was the case that you mentioned in #12), or aren't noteworthy.

The problem is that you want to be able to argue for Christianity using the Bible without reconciling the contents of the Bible with reality. If you were to try and reconcile the Bible with reality, you would be quite screwed, as would be any Christian doing the same. Such an effort would be futile, but since that has not stopped other Christians, it is now labeled god-botting and frowned on here.

That and your anti-gay remarks and your Nazi quip are not really helping you win us over.

Posted by: Jim Swetnam | November 6, 2009 3:16 AM

Thank you Owlmirror. You know, the more I ponder the adaptability of our species, and how it arose, the more I appreciate what for me is one of the most powerful artifacts and symbols of humanity: the Acheulean hand axe. I happen to own a very fine specimen myself, and every time I hold it I almost instinctively know how to use it: as a hammer, a knife, a scraper, a pick, and yes even an axe. It fits my hand, my HUMAN hand like it was made for it. Which, of course, it was.

All of those small brained primates persisted for so many millions of years, doing perfectly well with their crude stone chips, then just as Homo starts appearing in the fossil record, so do these fine tools. Versatile tools, for a versatile animal.