How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2601  Postby Fenrir » Jan 04, 2019 8:37 am

Oh look, more bullshit.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3380
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2602  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jan 04, 2019 11:31 am

tl;ls
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43014
Age: 70
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2603  Postby Sendraks » Jan 04, 2019 11:44 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
That level of abuse can’t be reconciled with your denial that atheist ideology exists.

Unsupported assertion.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The drift of self-identified rationalists away from rational discussion

Sayeth the one who has thus far repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in rational or honest discussion.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15140
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2604  Postby zoon » Jan 04, 2019 3:44 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The significance of your ((Calilasseia’s)) explanation of A-B and C-D mating pairs seems to be to assert that sexual selection has a genetic effect. Maybe it will help if I revise my point (c) to clarify that this effect of atheist ideology bears on the choice of an explanation, where several alternatives (between species and within-species) are possible.

(c) Narrating human evolution as self-creation by choosing within-species relations like sexual selection and social interactions in preference to explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions.

(the double brackets are my addition.)

Both of these types of explanation look equally atheist to me. Both are in terms of evolution by natural selection, where random mutations are more or less likely to survive, given the conditions inside and outside the social group. Neither type of explanation needs any supernatural intervention. Why is Jayjay claiming that one type is more characteristic of atheism than the other?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3139

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2605  Postby Alan B » Jan 04, 2019 4:57 pm

Zoon wrote: Why is Jayjay claiming that one type is more characteristic of atheism than the other?


'Cos he's on a roll and doesn't know when or even how to get off. If he even wants to, that is.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9615
Age: 83
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2606  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 04, 2019 10:09 pm

Right. Now that I've spent time debugging another two thousand lines of JavaScript code, it's time for me to turn my attention to this steaming pile ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: bullshit ..BULLSHIT. ..fucking lies….BULLSHIT.…fucking lies….made up shit ,,,FUCKING …mendacious …wank-fantasy …BULLSHIT….not fucking understand?.. wank-fantasy Fucking learn …BULLSHIT….What the fuck …made up shit …No fucking "ideology" …BULLSHIT. …BULLSHIT. …fucking lies, …BULLSHIT. …BULLSHIT, FUCKING DERANGED BULLSHIT. fucking understand?...FUCKING.


That level of abuse can’t be reconciled with your denial that atheist ideology exists.


Oh look, it's SYNTHETIC TONE POLICING TIME! That favourite pastime of every creationist who can't be bothered addressing the SUBSTANCE of a post, especially when that SUBSTANCE destroys the pretentions thereof.

You've been told time and again, JayJay, that NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact, is NOT a fucking "ideology". It's the exact antithesis thereof. Therefore, on the basis of this DEMONSTRABLE FACT, what I offer isn't "denial" of your fictitious "atheist ideology", but possibly the starkest exposition of just how fictitious it is, by recourse to that DEMONSTRABLE FACT.

Once again, what part of the word FACT do you not understand here?

Jayjay4547 wrote:And considering that your posts have been abusive from the start;


Guess what, JayJay? Not only do I honestly admit that I've been subjecting your output to withering invective, but I FUCKING REJOICE IN DOING SO. Because your output contains so much manifest mendacity and nonsense, that it DESERVES withering invective. Your whole "atheist ideology" bullshit is seen to be bullshit, by anyone who understands elementary discoursive concepts. Concepts such as assertions do not equal fact. It doesn't matter how often you peddle this feculent assertion of yours, JayJay, the FACTS available utterly destroy that assertion. Let's run through this step by step, shall we?

Step 1 : Ideologies are characterised by the presentation of assertions, as if those assertions constitute fact. Indeed, this process, of presenting assertions as if they constitute fact, is a defining feature of ideologies, and can therefore be used as the basis of the definition of the concept of 'ideology'.

Step 2 : Atheism does not involve presentation of assertions. It involves suspicion of assertions presented by others.

Step 3 : As a corollary, NOT presenting assertions as if they constitute fact, by definition means that atheism isn't an "ideology".

Indeed, those who actually think about atheism properly, are suspicious of the entire concept of treating any assertion, from whatever source, as purportedly constituting an "axiom" about the world. Those like myself, who learned about the operation of axioms in various academic settings, are not only aware of the fact that their usage is conditional even in the realm of pure mathematics, where their usage actually yields valuable results, but are also aware that their usage is intended, like every other properly constituted academic construct, to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, a distinction that is all too frequently lost upon supernaturalists, whose entire thinking is prescriptive.

Now, I look forward to seeing you completely ignore that above exposition, in favour of yet more synthetic tone policing with respect to my manifest disdain for nonsense. Let's see how long it takes that prediction to come true, shall we?

Moving on ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:you can’t blame the abuse on my persistence in presenting a mild criticism of how the human origin narrative has been messed up by atheist ideology.


Excuse me, but your continued peddling of this manifest lie for FOUR YEARS, despite this manifest lie having been demonstrated to be so time and time again, is more than sufficient justification for exasperation on the part of those of us who have endured this mendacious exercise of yours.

The narrative of human origins is the product of science, not atheism. That basic fact on its own renders your assertion a manifest lie. Scientists produced that narrative, on the basis of the REAL WORLD DATA that they expended effort gathering. Once again, what part of the words "OBSERVED FACT" do you not understand? That's all that the scientists in question have ever cared about - what the DATA is telling them, and your assertion that this is not the case, constitutes a defamatory slur upon their endeavours.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The drift of self-identified rationalists away from rational discussion can be illustrated by contrasting your behaviour with that of Darwin when he responded to St George Mivart in chapter 7 of The Origin of Species.


Oh, we're back to tone policing again! Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn.

Jayjay4547 wrote:After calling Mivart a “distinguished zoologist” and complimenting him on the “admirable art and force” of his arguments, Darwin wrote “as it forms no part of Mr Mivart’s plan to give the various facts and considerations opposed to his conclusions, no slight effort of reason and memory is left to the reader, who may wish to weigh the evidence on both sides”.


Oh wait, you do realise that the above effectively constitutes an accusation of cherry picking the data on Mivart's part?

I worked that out within three seconds of reading the above.

Oh, by the way, the passage in question does not appear in the original 1871 text, but is a part of the 1872 second edition, and the full text of the relevant passage is as follows:

A distinguished zoologist, Mr. St. George Mivart, has recently collected all the objections which have ever been advanced by myself and others against the theory of natural selection, as propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself, and has illustrated them with admirable art and force. When thus marshalled, they make a formidable array; and as it forms no part of Mr. Mivart's plan to give the various facts and considerations opposed to his conclusions, no slight effort of reason and memory is left to the reader, who may wish to weigh the evidence on both sides. When discussing special cases, Mr. Mivart passes over the effects of the increased use and disuse of parts, which I have always maintained to be highly important, and have treated in my 'Variation under Domestication' at greater length than, as I believe, any other writer. He likewise often assumes that I attribute nothing to variation, independently of natural selection, whereas in the work just referred to I have collected a greater number of well-established cases than can be found in any other work known to me. My judgment may not be trustworthy, but after reading with care Mr. Mivart's book, and comparing each section with what I have said on the same head, I never before felt so strongly convinced of the general truth of the conclusions here arrived at, subject, of course, in so intricate a subject, to much partial error.


I commend the value of precise citations in the light of the above.

Plus, other aspects of the above that are omitted from your presentation thereof, are:

[1] The requiste exchanges were published as part of academic discourse, which has always been subject to strict rules;

[2] Language use has changed over the past 150 years or so, even in the world of academic discourse;

[3] Informal arenas such as this forum, generally observe fewer restrictions upon output, in no small part as a means of accommodating those who have valuable contributions to make, but who would be intimidated by a much more formal setup.

But, even leaving those aspects aside, there is another little matter that you have omitted here, namely, that whilst Mivart was, in effect, castigated in the above passage for selectivity of material, along with less than proper levels of competence in addressing detailed arguments, there is no suggestion that Mivart was wilfully dishonest. Not least because discovery of wilful dishonesty in an academic environment leaves one's reputation and career in ruins. On the other hand, your output IS subject to such accusations, not least because substantive rebuttals of your assertions have been presented here time and again, and your approach has been to ignore them completely.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The effect of Darwin’s courtesy not just towards Mivart, but also towards the reader, is to leave the reader feeling good about himself as a reasonable considering and objective person.


Once again, we are dealing with professional academic discourse in this instance. Execpt that this has been offered to you frequently in the past, only to be rewarded with yet more readily identifiable mendacity in your responses.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: What part of the words "OBSERVED FACT" do you not understand?
what part of "OBSERVED FACT" do you not fucking understand?
AN OBSERVED FACT[/b].
OBSERVED FACT. OBSERVED FACT. Fucking learn this once and for all, will you? OBSERVED FACT, OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY TO BE IN OPERATION[/b]. OBSERVED,
OBSERVATIONAL DATA ,OBSERVATIONAL DATA SUPPORTING A HYPOTHESIS. Try because OBSERVATIONAL DATA SUPPORTS THE REQUISITE HYPOTHESES. what part of OBSERVED FACT do you not understand? FUCKING OBSERVED FACT.
start learning about OBSERVED FACTS.


OK, in that light, let’s lookat the actual role of “OBERVATIONAL DATA” in the Smithsonian Mag. article which I claimed as evidence of the atheist ideology on the human origin narrative.


Oh this is going to be good ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-did-humans-evolve-lose-fur-180970980/#vSGJ6POco1xo4mme.99

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Here, again, is my summary of the effects of atheist ideology:…(c) Describing the process as self-creation via intraspecific causes like sexual selection and social interactions whereas it has actually depended on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions…That science article ticks box (c).


No it doesn't. This is more made up shit on your part.

First of all, the first 585 words of that article, are devoted to the discovery of a particular gene that is implicated in differential hair loss, and which is known to exist in numerous mammal lineages.


Yes, and Sarah Millar, the co-senior author of that basic research, was quoted by the Smithsonian Mag writer Jason Daley, as saying
“No one understands really at all how these differences arise.”


Oh for fuck's sake ... :picard:

Quite simply, it is a part of the convention of scientific writing, to begin with an exposition of the prior state of the art, before advancing new ideas intended to remedy deficits therein. Every scientific paper abstract alone is constructed in this manner. The format being rendered succinctly as:

[1] Here's the state of knowledge before this latest research was submitted;

[2] Here's a question arising from that state of knowledge;

[3] Here's our proposed answer to that question.

Even people without a formal scientific education have been able to work this out, by reading a suitably large sample of abstracts.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So to clarify, we are discussing an article by a science writer, which reviews various speculative explanations hypotheses


Fixed it for you.

Jayjay4547 wrote:for the human kin, and which aren’t based on the outcomes of this basic research, but draw on earlier sources.


You do realise that this is what a review does, by definition? It's why it's called a review. It takes numerous pieces of prior art, and presents them alongside each other for informative comparison.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s an odd use of Sarah Millar’s research; it suggests that Daley was using observational data from basic research to give a gloss of scientific authority to a series of unrelated speculations collected by him.


Oh for fuck's sake. Do I have to spoon feed you with every fucking elementary concept at work here?

Millar's work contains a specific hypothesis. But, wait for it, hers is not the only hypothesis extant with respect to the matter. Other hypotheses have been advanced, and furthermore, the prior work on those hypotheses includes DATA presented within the requisite peer reviewed papers, supporting the hypotheses in question. Because, in case you haven't worked this out, scientists have expended much effort learning which data sets support which hypotheses, and which data sets don't. They've also expended effort working out how to frame hypotheses in such a manner as to make them predictive with respect to the data sets that will be observed, and the data sets that will not be observed. This places immediate constraints upon the hypotheses in question, and allows them to be tested. Which is what the hunt for those data sets is all about, in case you didn't receive the memo.

As a corollary of there being severa hypotheses extant with respect to the matter, each with supporting data sets, the review quite properly covers these. Not least because the existence of several hypotheses with supporting data sets for each, informs those of us who paid attention in class, that each of those hypotheses was a participating contributor, but not an exclusive cause.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So here the DATA, that you blat on and on about, is used stylistically.


No it isn't. Another lie you're peddling here. See above for the requisite exposition of what's actually going on.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Then, after covering other hypotheses, the article cites scientific literature containing evidence for the reqwuisite hypotheses. Or didn't you read the part where OBSERVATIONAL DATA was referenced in support thereof? Viz:

Changizi proposes that the third cone allows us to communicate nonverbally by observing color changes in the face. “Having those two cones detecting wavelengths side by side is what you want if you want to be sensitive to oxygenation of hemoglobin under the skin to understand health or emotional changes,” he says. For instance, a baby whose skin looks a little green or blue can indicate illness, a pink blush might indicate sexual attraction, and a face flushing with red could indicate anger, even in people with darker skin tones. But the only way to see all of these emotional states is if humans lose their fur, especially on their faces.

In a 2006 paper in Biology Letters, Changizi found that primates with bare faces and sometimes bare rumps also tended to have three cones like humans, while fuzzy-faced monkeys lived their lives with just two cones. According to the paper, hairless faces and color vision seem to run together.


Oh look, OBSERVATIONAL DATA SUPPORTING A HYPOTHESIS. No fucking "ideology" involved.


I did read that, and I responded to it by saying:

Jayjay4547 wrote:And its intraspecific explanation is conspicuously lazy; both the scientist and the science writer so little expected a critical inspection that they presented an argument that would only apply to a white (or “swarthy”) skin.


I need to backtrack: In fact Changizi et al did factor in different human populations and found that a characteristic “W” pattern in skin reflectance was similar for Caucasian and African American skin types though not for “East Indian (dark)” (see Fig. 1(a))

I admit that skin colour can send messages between people. The other day I met a friend in hospital, whose leg had been broken by a horse kick. And I was first struck by her ashen face. It makes sense that the bare skin in many primate faces helps in social messaging. But (a) Daley parlayed that within-species explanation into a possible explanation for the general human skin nakedness:

“Mark Changizi, an evolutionary neurobiologist and director of human cognition at the research company 2AI, studies vision and color theory, and he says the reason for our hairless bodies may be in our eyes”


Excuse me, but if you think that the behaviour of individuals in a population has NO effect upon the genetic destiny of that population, you need to re-take Basic Biology 101. Plus, once again, we're dealing with standard language used in the advancement of a hypothesis considered on its own merits, in isolation from other hypotheses. Because that's how science works, in case you didn't read the memo - finding out how small parts work, then moving on to how the small parts operate in tandem. The people working on the small parts are going to use language centred upon those small parts they've been working on by definition. Drop the fucking tinfoil hat conspiracy bullshit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:(b)Neither Changizi nor Daley couch this signalling in the broad context of general communication in nature. For example frugivorous primates receive colour signals from plants that are signalling across species or to the world, that their fruit is “ripe”.


Except of course, that fruit colour fails to be a discriminating factor in this regard, if you have fruit eating species, some of which only have two sets of colour cones, others having three. Even more so does it fail, if these species with different vision systems are living side by side, and helping themselves to the same fruits.

Meanwhile, it turns out the paper is available in full here ... ;let's take a look at it shall we?

Bare Skin, Blood And The Evolution Of Primate Colour Vision by Mark A Changizi , Qiong Zhang , and Shinsuke Shimojo, Biology Letters, DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0440

Changizi et al, 2006 wrote:Abstract

We investigate the hypothesis that colour vision in primates was selected for discriminating the spectral modulations on the skin of conspecifics, presumably for the purpose of discriminating emotional states, socio-sexual signals and threat displays. Here we show that, consistent with this hypothesis, there are two dimensions of skin spectral modulations, and trichromats but not dichromats are sensitive to each. Furthermore, the M and L cone maximum sensitivities for routine trichromats are optimized for discriminating variations in blood oxygen saturation, one of the two blood-related dimensions determining skin reflectance. We also show that, consistent with the hypothesis, trichromat primates tend to be bare faced.


In more detail, we have this:

Changizi et al, 2006 wrote:1. Introduction

The primate face and rump undergo colour modulations (such as blushing or blanching on the human face, or socio-sexual signalling on the chimpanzee rump), some which may be selected for signalling and some which may be an inevitable consequence of underlying physiological modulations. Because for highly social animals like most primates, one of the most important kinds of object to be competent at perceiving and discriminating is other members of one's own species, we investigated the hypothesis that primate colour vision has been selected for discriminating the spectral modulations on the skin of conspecifics, these modulations providing useful information about the current state or mood of another conspecific.

A first prediction of our hypothesis is that the space of skin colour modulations should be adequately spanned by the two chromatic mechanisms available to trichromats, but not to the single chromatic mechanism available to dichromats. This is indeed the case, as we now explain. The reflectance spectra for human skin possess a characteristic signature (figure 1a), including a ‘W’ feature near 550nm (see electronic supplementary material, figure 2). This feature is due to the absorption spectrum of oxygenated haemoglobin in the blood (figure 1b), and is found in spectra of primate skin as well (figure 1a). What is important for our hypothesis is not the baseline reflectance spectrum of skin, which will differ across human phenotypes (Jablonski & Chaplin 2000) and across primates (Sumner & Mollon 2003), but the manner in which the skin reflectance is modulated in the short term, something that is universal across primates. There are two dimensions of skin reflectance modulation, (i) haemoglobin oxygen saturation and (ii) haemoglobin skin concentration (Zonios et al. 2001). Changes in these two parameters lead to predictable changes in the reflectance of skin (figure 1c). Greater oxygen saturation leads to a more-defined ‘W’ feature with a larger difference between its troughs and centre peak, raising the L cone activation (which is at the peak of the ‘W’) relative to the M cone (which is near the first trough of the ‘W’), leading to redder; lower oxygen saturation does the opposite, leading to greener (figure 1d). For example, skin with veins underlying it, possesses a high concentration of deoxygenated blood and is greenish blue (Kienle et al. 1996), and skin with blood accumulation after administering a tourniquet possesses a high concentration of relatively oxygenated blood and is reddish-blue (i.e. purplish); these two skin conditions differ primarily in regards to oxygen saturation (because they both have high-haemoglobin concentration), and their colour difference is primarily a red–green one (figure 1e). Greater haemoglobin concentration in the skin, on the other hand, leads to an overall lowering of the entire ‘W’ feature in the filtered spectrum (but not much change in the difference between the troughs and the peak of the ‘W’), lowering the M/L activation relative to the S activation, which leads to bluer; lower haemoglobin concentration does the opposite, leading to yellower (figure 1d). For example, bloodless skin is relatively yellow, whereas skin with greater amounts of blood is bluer, e.g. green-blue for veins and reddish-blue after application of a tourniquet (figure 1e). Dichromat primates have only one chromatic dimension, not two, and will be able to capture only one of the two blood-related dimensions of skin colour variation, namely the haemoglobin concentration dimension.

If trichromacy was selected for discerning the colour modulations in skin, then trichromats should not merely be sensitive to the oxygen saturation dimension. Rather, the hypothesis predicts that the M and L maximum wavelength sensitivities should be near optimal for discriminating this dimension. To see that this is the case, note first that varying the oxygen saturation of haemoglobin in the skin modulates the ‘W’ feature, turning it from a ‘W’ when oxygen saturation is high to a ‘U’ when oxygen saturation is low (figure 1b and c). Supposing that the M and L sensitivities must jointly serve the ancestral role of the single M/L cone in dichromatic primates (which has maximal sensitivity at 543nm), it follows that the maximal sensitivities for M, L and their sum must be near 543nm. With this constraint, M and L wavelength sensitivities would be optimized for detecting oxygenation variation if they were at approximately 540 and 560nm, respectively (figure 2a). This prediction fairs well among the routine trichromats, who have M and L maximal sensitivities (Jacobs & Deegan 1999) of approximately 535 and 562nm, respectively (figure 2a), providing near-optimal sensitivity to oxygenation modulation (figure 2b). Among polymorphic trichromats, most of the Cebid (e.g. Callicebus, Ateles, Lagothrix, Cebus and Saimiri) trichromat phenotypes possess significant sensitivity to oxygen saturation, although not all phenotypes are near-optimal (figure 2b). Among the Callitrichidae (e.g. Saguinus, Leontopithecus, Callimico, Cebuella and Callithrix) trichromat phenotypes, two of the three possess near optimal sensitivity to oxygen saturation, and the third (approximately 556/562) possesses little or no sensitivity (figure 2b). It is interesting to note in this regard that the M/L cone with maximal sensitivity at 556nm occurs disproportionately rarely in the population (Rowe & Jacobs 2004), only 19.7%, perhaps because the 556/562 phenotype is insensitive to oxygen saturation variation. Our hypothesis predicts sensitivity to skin colour variation not just for the early visual mechanisms (i.e., cone sensitivities and opponency), but in perception as well, and evidence supports this (see electronic supplementary material, §2). And related to this, our hypothesis predicts that dichromats should be perceptually handicapped at discriminating skin colour modulations, and they are, as predicted, notoriously poor at such discriminations (see electronic supplementary material, table 1).

Because skin spectral variations cannot be perceived on a face without bare skin, the hypothesis predicts that trichromatic primates should have bare faces (or at least some other body region with bare skin, such as a bare rump, something widely known to be true among Old World Primates, Wickler (1967)). A cursory look at photographs of 97 species from 35 primate genera demonstrates that this is a strong regularity (see electronic supplementary material, figure 1). Estimates of the average bareness on the face are shown in electronic supplementary material, figure 1e, and one can see that monochromats and dichromats tend to have furry faces, whereas polymorphic and routine trichromats tend to have bare faces. Note that among the polymorphic trichromats are two prosimians (prosimians who in other known cases are monochromatic or dichromatic), Varecia and Propithecus (the top two photographs in electronic supplementary material, figure 1e for the polymorphic trichromats), and they each have substantial bare spots on their face. This connection between bare skin and colour vision may be important in understanding why humans are the ‘naked ape’: for primates with colour vision, skin modulations may serve as signalling on any body part that can be seen (e.g. a chimpanzee rump), and for apes that walk upright, more parts of the body are potentially visible and amenable to colour signalling. (See §3 of the electronic supplementary material for further discussion of face bareness and also see §4 and figures 2 and 3, for a discussion of evidence of the visibility of skin colour modulations.)


Ah, don't you just fucking love DATA?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Plus, the article explicitly states that a combination of reasons underpins human hair loss:

But these are not the only possibilities, and perhaps the loss of hair is due to a combination of factors.


did you miss?


“a combination of factors” can just be a way to avoid an unwanted argument between hypotheses.


Er, no. What part of "They may all be contributors to the phenomenon" do you not understand as being an honest statement here?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Daley used it as a stylistic device to introduce the body-lice explanation:


This wasn't a "stylistic device", JayJay, it was a legitimate means of introducing a new idea in the review. Once again, drop the fucking tinfoil hat conspiracy bullshit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
But these are not the only possibilities, and perhaps the loss of hair is due to a combination of factors. Evolutionary scientist Mark Pagel at the University of Reading has also proposed that going fur-less reduced the impact of lice and other parasites.


A striking feature of explanations offered for the human skin is the presentation of alternative. clever ideas – and proponents send to just ignore the alternatives.


Er, no they don't. What part of "those working on one part concentrate thereupon" do you not understand?

Jayjay4547 wrote:For example in this study of colour vision and fruit eating by primates:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5881122/


Er, did you notice something about that paper? The spectral values are the same as in the BiologyLetters paper!

Oh wait, so what we have here, is a vision phenomenon, based upon setting the sensitivity of cones, that facilitates two different but important tasks for the organisms in question. Do you really think that this is a problem for someone with a proper science education?

Jayjay4547 wrote:"This supports the theory that M and L cone spectral sensitivities are well-adapted for fruit foraging (Osorio and Vorobyev, 1996), but says nothing about how this task compares with other tasks implicated in the spectral tuning of primate M and L cones, such as young-leaf foraging (Sumner and Mollon, 2000a, 2003) or social signalling (Changizi et al. , 2006; Hiramatsu et al., 2017), or whether the facilitation of fruit foraging was the underlying cause of the evolution of primate trichromacy."


That's because, if you actually read the paper in detail, instead of trying to quote mine it, what the authors were saying, is that the presence of a luminance channel within the M-L part of the vision system lends support to fruit foraging being a contributory factor to M-L spectral sensitivity. In other words, as far as fruit foraging is concerned, this is facilitated by increased contrast between colours. In short, a different phenomenon to the one being analysed in the Biology Letters paper.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Amateur evolution enthusiasts do the same hypothesizing, for example in this comment on Daley’s article:


Yawn ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:
-Ben Hotchkiss :
One hypothesis people always overlook for hair loss in humans is because of early experimentation with fire. My friend mentioned the idea in an anthropology class and everyone just laughed but I think it is just as reasonable as all the other hypotheses. Controlling fire would have been a huge undertaking in its time. Even today, there are thousands of wildfires caused by human misuse. So, fire would have been a major selective force for our hairy knuckled ancestors


Oh, you do realise that recently, birds of prey were found to have been using fire as a tool?

Jayjay4547 wrote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987397/


You keep linking to articles you manifestly haven't read. That one points to the fact that in the case of New World Monkeys, there exist both dichromat and trichromat individuals, allowing these organisms to be used as test beds for a wide range of vision hypotheses.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Nor did they get push back from the public; see the 20-odd comments on the article. For why?


Try because OBSERVATIONAL DATA SUPPORTS THE REQUISITE HYPOTHESES.


Several of the 27 comments claimed that mankind has only been around 13000 years, others supported the aquatic ape or introduced a new one about fire burning a hairy skin. There was only one true push back, from Virginia Harlow who asked “Why are all prehominids portrayed as being Caucasian? This shows prejudice in evolutionary theory!” No-one argued that the intraspecific explanations seemed pretty weak.


Irrelevant.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Because intraspecific explanations are exactly what everyone has been trained to accept


BULLSHIT. Oh wait, what part of "intraspecific" applies to the hypothesis that hair loss was driven in part by the need to deal with parasites?

Stop posting fucking lies, JayJay.


Daley parlayed this between-species explanation into a within-species one, as follows: “the more hairless we got, Pagel says, the more attractive it became, and a stretch of hairless hide turned into a potent advertisement of a healthy, parasite-free mate.”

Speaking of the skin and inter-species relations, a more thorough analysis should include relations between hominins and their larger predators, e.g. large social felines.


We've done that to death here, and all your bullshit assertions were shown to be precisely that.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: right back to Darwin’s Descent of Man. And that’s because such explanations make it look as if Mankind created Himself (literally, egged on by Womankind)


This is not only BULLSHIT, but FUCKING DERANGED BULLSHIT. Once again, what part of "who we choose to shag with, affects the genetic trajectory of our population BY DEFINITION" do you not fucking understand?

Once again, the genetic outcome of a population is DIFFERENT, in the case of A:B and C:D mating pairs, from that of the case of A:C and B:D mating pairs. This is so BY DEFINITION, and APPLIES TO ALL SPECIES IN WHICH MATING INDIVIDUALS CAN CHOOSE THEIR MATES. It's nothing to do with your made up "self-creation" wank fantasy, and everything to do with FUCKING OBSERVED FACT.

Do us all a favour, JayJay, and start learning about OBSERVED FACTS.


Observed facts include that Darwin introduced sexual selection to explain human racial differences primarily skin colour


Actually, if you read his work properly, the hypothesis is advanced that sexual selection was responsible, in humans, for the emergence of traits that did not have obvious advantages arising from other selective processes, and that this was also true in other species. From the introductory remarks on the subject on page 249, vol 1 of the first edition, we have:

I do not intend to assert that sexual selection will account for all the differences between the races. An unexplained residuum is left, about which we can in our ignorance only say, that as individuals are continually born with, for instance, heads a little rounder or narrower, and with noses a little longer or shorter, such slight differences might become fixed and uniform, if the unknown agencies which induced them were to act in a more constant manner, aided by long-continued intercrossing. Such modifications come under the provisional class, alluded to in our fourth chapter, which for the want of a better term have been called spontaneous variations. Nor do I pretend that the effects of sexual selection can be indicated with scientific precision; but it can be shewn that it would be an inexplicable fact if man had not been modified by this agency, which has acted so powerfully on innumerable animals, both high and low in the scale. It can further be shewn that the differences between the races of man, as in colour, hairyness, form of features, &c., are of the nature which it might have been expected would have been acted on by sexual selection. But in order to treat this subject in a fitting manner, I have found it necessary to pass the whole animal kingdom in review; I have therefore devoted to it the Second Part of this work. At the close I shall return to man, and, after attempting to shew how far he has been modified through sexual selection, will give a brief summary of the chapters in this First Part.


Oh wait, the requisite following chapters cover the entire Animal Kingdom, which Darwin explicitly stated is affected in varying degrees by sexual selection.

Jayjay4547 wrote:that he devoted 2/3 of The Descent of Man to a review of it


See above. That review covered the entire Animal Kingdom.

Jayjay4547 wrote:although it is an uphill battle to invoke sexual selection to explain characteristics that are equally shared by men and women. It is also an observed fact that Darwin revised the distinction between natural and sexual selection, to emphasize that it did not relate to between-species relations.


And once again, if you think that the behaviour of individuals doesn't affect the genetic destiny of the population they belong to, you need to re-take Basic Biology 101.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The significance of your explanation of A-B and C-D mating pairs seems to be to assert that sexual selection has a genetic effect.


Of course it fucking does, by fucking definition. What part of "different matings produce different genetic outcomes in the next generation" do you not understand? This is so fucking obvious, there are five year olds here in the UK who understand this.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Maybe it will help if I revise my point (c) to clarify that this effect of atheist ideology bears on the choice of an explanation, where several alternatives (between species and within-species) are possible.


Excuse me, what part of "mate choices made by individual organisms are ANOTHER OBSERVED FACT" do you not fucking understand? The nightclubs of the developed world are full of horny males trying to get into women's knickers, and women flipping the bird to the ones they don't like. This isn't fucking "ideology", JayJay, it's OBSERVED FACT.

Jayjay4547 wrote:(c) Narrating human evolution as self-creation by choosing within-species relations like sexual selection and social interactions in preference to explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions.


Oh for fuck.s sake ... this is bollocks. Steaming, turd-stinking bollocks of the most gangrenous order.

Once again, what part of "who fucks with who, determines the genetic destiny of a population BY FUCKING DEFINITION" do you not understand? Your attempts to misrepresent this BASIC FUCKING FACT as "ideology" has long since transcended the merely dishonest, and has now entered the realm of the obsessively psychotic. Tell me something, JayJay, did you ever ONCE in your life, have sex with someone you didn't choose to? Because if you didn't, and you ONLY ever had sex with people YOU CHOSE TO, then YOUR OWN FUCKING LIFE renders the crap you're peddling here null and fucking void!

I've seen some diseased shit being posted here by creationists, but your brand of wibble takes the fucking cake.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2607  Postby Alan B » Jan 04, 2019 10:28 pm

I don't know why you bother, Cal. It will just go in one ear, not find a working brain cell, and then exit from the other ear.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9615
Age: 83
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2608  Postby laklak » Jan 05, 2019 2:27 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:... to emphasize that it did not relate to between-species relations...


He was probably trying to be nice to Australians and the Welsh.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19694
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2609  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jan 05, 2019 9:15 am

Alan B wrote:I don't know why you bother, Cal. It will just go in one ear, not find a working brain cell, and then exit from the other ear.


Yep. Cali does far too much. JJ is not worth it.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43014
Age: 70
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2610  Postby Alan B » Jan 05, 2019 4:59 pm

Still, Cal's expositions are quite absorbing...
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9615
Age: 83
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2611  Postby Calilasseia » Jan 06, 2019 1:01 am

I don't do this for his benefit, because he's repeatedly demonstrated it's wasted on him. I do this for the benefit of others, so that they can observe nonsense being dismantled. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2612  Postby theropod » Jan 06, 2019 3:03 am

:this:

...and is precisely why I spent over a year thinking, and researching, the gravity across deep time issue.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2613  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jan 06, 2019 1:04 pm

This last absurdly puffed-up and bloated post from Calli is just intolerable. I will try to respond to any post that makes a point without asserting that I have lied, and which does not use equivalents like mendacious, mendacity duplicitous or duplicity. It's an even playing field: I have never accused others in such terms. Call it "tone policing" if you like; I call it common decency.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1090
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2614  Postby Fenrir » Jan 06, 2019 1:25 pm

Easily fixed.

Don't lie.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3380
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2615  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 06, 2019 1:36 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:This last absurdly puffed-up and bloated post from Calli is just intolerable. I will try to respond to any post that makes a point without asserting that I have lied, and which does not use equivalents like mendacious, mendacity duplicitous or duplicity. It's an even playing field: I have never accused others in such terms. Call it "tone policing" if you like; I call it common decency.


Aww, you're not being treated with kid gloves. You've been broadcasting the same tired wibble for years, now, slathered in complaints about ideology and being treated rudely. Surely you understand that, if you had a point to make, you'd have made it already, including your contention that you're not being understood, or whatever it was, last time. Rebroadcasting doesn't in itself tell us more than that you really think you're right. Thanks for your opinion, but it's not an even playing field, and your situation is at the low-elevation end of the playing field. You don't make any distinction between facts and opinions, but be assured that this is long since evident.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2616  Postby aban57 » Jan 06, 2019 1:56 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:This last absurdly puffed-up and bloated post from Calli is just intolerable. I will try to respond to any post that makes a point without asserting that I have lied, and which does not use equivalents like mendacious, mendacity duplicitous or duplicity. It's an even playing field: I have never accused others in such terms. Call it "tone policing" if you like; I call it common decency.


It's funny how every time your repeated lies are exposed, instead of trying to prove you're right (which you can't, of course), you crawl away with this pathetic "I won't respond as long as you call me a liar" excuse.
User avatar
aban57
 
Posts: 6788
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2617  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 06, 2019 1:56 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:This last absurdly puffed-up and bloated post from Calli is just intolerable. I will try to respond to any post that makes a point without asserting that I have lied, and which does not use equivalents like mendacious, mendacity duplicitous or duplicity. It's an even playing field: I have never accused others in such terms. Call it "tone policing" if you like; I call it common decency.

This board is about rational skepticism Jayjay, not about blindly allowing people to spout obvious nonsense.
If you don't want people to point out that you're lying, the solution is simple: stop asserting nonsense and stop restating claims that have already been disproven.

You can ignore as many posters and posts as you want, all that will accomplish is demonstrate that you are not willing to have an honest, rational discussion.
You don't get to play the victim when you don't act in good faith yourself.:naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30125
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2618  Postby felltoearth » Jan 06, 2019 6:14 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:This last absurdly puffed-up and bloated post from Calli is just intolerable. I will try to respond to any post that makes a point without asserting that I have lied, and which does not use equivalents like mendacious, mendacity duplicitous or duplicity. It's an even playing field: I have never accused others in such terms. Call it "tone policing" if you like; I call it common decency.

Commin decency is not being dishonest or lying, even to yourself. If people are calling you out on this at length perhaps you should have a moment of reflection instead of your usual indignation.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11747
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2619  Postby sdelsolray » Jan 06, 2019 7:03 pm

Poster Jayjay4547 is quite easily ignored. Just sayin'.
sdelsolray
 
Posts: 66

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2620  Postby felltoearth » Jan 06, 2019 7:06 pm

sdelsolray wrote:Poster Jayjay4547 is quite easily ignored. Just sayin'.

Indeed. As easy to ignore as a steaming pile of shit in your living room.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11747
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest