Equivocation in the Origins debate

Much of the confusion in the 'Origins' debate is based on equivocation of language.
- As an example, we're told that the claim animals don't use tools has been disproved; but this depends on a confusion in language. eg. is a rock or a twig really the same as a diesel engine or a microscope? :=)

- The sentence/claim Is true if it's written; 'animals and human beings don't use the same tools, or use tools in the same way.' (They don't think about tools in the same way; envision tools in the same way.) Animals just use objects they find (even if they modify them in slight ways, they don't create objects that don't exist independently). eg. an ape might peel a bit of bark from a twig, but you could find similar twigs that have been 'peeled' by the forces of nature. An animal doesn't envision an object that has never existed. An animal doesn't invent tools for objects that lie outside its ordinary needs. (As far as I know, animals only use 'tools' for the purpose of acquiring food.)

- I know of no animal that makes tools for making tools. (Or tools for making tools for making tools.)

- if we want to correct (clarify) the statement 'only human beings make tools' we can rewrite it to say 'only human beings make machines'. [i.e. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.]

- if anyone wants we could count up the tools invented by human beings, and the number 'invented' by animals. (Only the willfully blind would think these totals belong in the same category.)

- What's called in evolutionary literature the use of tools by animals, or the making of tools, seems to me to be merely instinctual behavior. I don't see this as evidence of conscious foresight and imagination.

- the same holds true for the statement; 'only man uses language' - stated this way it can be claimed this is false; but if written 'no animal uses language in the way man does' it's correct. Human language is more than communication; and to conflate the two (communication and language) is an error. What animals have are communication techniques; they do not have language in the human (symbolic) sense. No animal thinks about language; no animal has a philosophy of language. No animal has written language. (One could go on, but I think this suffices.)

- most of these mistakes (of equivocation) stem from a failure to define terms. In my opinion it's utterly mistaken to use terms like language for both human beings and animals. This is a failure of analysis; a failure of definition; a failure of distinction.

Notes;
1. the example of apes making spears (if true) is certainly interesting. I wonder however (and this is pure speculation) if this isn't a case of apes imitating human behavior. (Apes are great mimics; I remember seeing a photo of an ape pretending (on its own, not as a trained act) to smoke a cigarette butt. To what extent animals mimic human behaviors I don't know; and I can't recall reading anything on the subject. Apparently some parrots, on their own, have been known to mimic human speech.)
- there's an amazing bit of animal imitation you can find on YouTube; a Lyre bird (if one can believe one's eyes, and the assurances of David Attenborough) imitates the sound of a camera, a car alarm, and other human artifacts it has heard.
2. The 'spears' made (supposedly) by apes aren't really spears at all of course. i.e. do they have metal or stone tips? do they have poisoned tips?