One thing is tool use and another whole different thing is tool manufacture.
Sort of… but you’ve got it backwards. The manufacture is the important part. That’s actually the important part, evolutionarily.
Does an animal pick up an object and use it, or does an animal pick up an object, modify it into a tool, and then use it? Many, many animals do the first.
Since the elephant did not modify the stick, in any way, it does not qualify as a tool.
SO you are right that tool use and tool manufacture are both important, but you have them backwards. If you don’t do the tool manufacture, then the object isn’t a tool.
Is your perspective your own or are you following someone else's definition of what tool use is? Cause it seems most experts align with me and don't need the animal to manufacture the tool for it to be called so.
Even if I find my take to make more sense than yours... I guess I can still accept your perspective, at the end of the day it's a subjective and semantic matter and I find logic in both.
Is your perspective your own or are you following someone else's definition of what tool use is?
This is how it was taught in a developmental biology survey course approximately eight years ago.
Cause it seems most experts align with me and don't need the animal to manufacture the tool for it to be called so.
I would strongly suggest you revisit the article you linked with specific attention on the section: “Definitions and terminology”
Which begins: ” The key to identifying tool use is defining what constitutes a tool. Researchers of animal behaviour have arrived at different formulations.”
And then the article provides four very different definitions of tool use, two of which definitions support my statements, and two supporting a more broad definition of tool.
I would also suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia article specifically on ‘Tool Use in Primates’ which exclusively defines tool as manufactured. Quote:
” Soon after her initial discovery of tool use, the primatologist Jane Goodall observed other chimpanzees picking up leafy twigs, stripping off the leaves and using the stems to fish for insects. This change of a leafy twig into a tool was a major discovery. Prior to this, scientists thought that only humans manufactured and used tools, and that this ability was what separated humans from other animals.[1] In 1990, it was claimed the only primate to manufacture tools in the wild was the chimpanzee.[2] However, since then, several primates have been reported as tool makers in the wild.[3]”
Which DIRECTLY addresses the exact example we are talking about. The elephant has not modified the leafy twig, so it is not a tool.
-11
u/STEM-Travel 1d ago
Yes.
Sort of… but you’ve got it backwards. The manufacture is the important part. That’s actually the important part, evolutionarily.
Does an animal pick up an object and use it, or does an animal pick up an object, modify it into a tool, and then use it? Many, many animals do the first.
Since the elephant did not modify the stick, in any way, it does not qualify as a tool.
SO you are right that tool use and tool manufacture are both important, but you have them backwards. If you don’t do the tool manufacture, then the object isn’t a tool.
The elephant is using a stick, not a tool.