Surely we can get even you, Occamseraser, to admit that there's a creationist smell about the Aug 12 Nature cover. The "first cut"? In what possible sense could this be characterized that way? If the cover had said 'earliest-known' that could be responsible journalism. But since tool use must have evolved over millions of years, as its presence in chimpanzees shows, it absolutely verges on creationism to suggest that there was a 'first' tool, much less that it was in any way sophisticated or even recognizable archeologically. Did Adam use it to bring dinner home to Eve?
We think this is misleading melodrama. If it were the first instance, we wouldn't make so much of it, but they do it over and over again. It may not be seriously misleading, but point-cause thinking about evolution is all too prevalent these days, if implicit, even among scientists.
And here we are not considering the claimed possibility that the marks were made by a crocodile, not a hominin. If that turns out to be the case, will Nature call it "The First Bite"?