I love how a statement like this is just gratuitously thrown in, from out of the blue:
The technique, described in the latest issue of the journal Royal Society Open Science, could have originated with the common ancestor of humans and chimps, suggesting that the earliest humans hunted in a similar manner.
How is that relevant to anything in the story?
What it is even saying? "could have," therefore "suggesting?" Talk about circular "reasoning," eh?
Is modifying a stick a behavior that is somehow "in the genes." How do "genes" come to "force" a creature to adopt this useful behavior? Isn't it more likely that the critter merely inheirited some ability to "reason," and applied that ability to assess the circumstances it found itself in and modify them to help achieve it's goals?
This comment is really more relevant it the "evolution" thread, but, since it was encountered here....
These "just so" tales are indeed quite entertaining, eh?