>a) The argument seems to have changed somewhat from that involved
>with tool making. Tool making would have to be considered an innovation,
>so to be consistent with the arguments in this post it seems to me that
>the key is not how long tool making was in a static condition but rather
>how rapidly tool making appeared. Anyone know what the time-frame was?
Tool making appears suddenly at 2.6 myr ago. It is very hard to have a half
formed tool. The stone was either fashioned or not and so it is a digital
situation. In actuality we don't know when tool making began because there
may have been bone and wooden tools prior to this time which didn't survive
to the present. We also almost assuredly do not have the very oldest tools.
it would be highly unlikely that we have found the exact site of the first
stone tool making.
In any event the advent of tool making does not coincide with the advent of
art or with the different advent of Jim's Shaman art.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm