Final answer:
Arguments against the Osteodontokeratic culture include a lack of empirical evidence and more plausible explanations for early tool use and societal development from cultural anthropological studies, contrasting with the theory of a bone, tooth, and horn toolkit.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Osteodontokeratic culture theory suggests that early hominids used a 'toolkit' composed of bones, teeth, and horns. However, this is a controversial philosophical theory with arguments against its credibility. First, cultural anthropologists have gathered evidence that refutes the existence of such specific usage of organic materials in a toolkit manner. In addition, science faces limitations in substantiating theories about past behaviors and cultures, particularly with the lack of concrete archaeological evidence supporting such a culture.
Furthermore, studies like those by Ebeling and Rowan on the use of grinding tools during the Neolithic Period provide more concrete evidence of tool evolution. For instance, findings of decorated stone tools with geometric patterns and signs of skeletal wear patterns in female remains suggest a gradual advancement of tools and hint at the differing roles of individuals within a society - developments that contrast with the rudimentary nature of an assumed Osteodontokeratic toolkit.
Thus, the argument against the Osteodontokeratic culture is two-fold: lack of empirical evidence from the anthropological record and the presence of more plausible explanations for early tool use and societal development.