How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spearthrower · **#3341** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 04, 2019 2:12 pm

A practically important fact about our primate cousins is that they are extremely dangerous biters; the famous cases involving chimps being these:
St. James Davis' 2005: nose and severely mauled his genitals and limbs
Charla Nash 2009: blinded while severing her nose, ears, and both hands, and severely lacerating her face.
Andrew Oberle 2012: lost an ear, nose, most of fingers and feet

And JJ's old babushka is back again.

This is the one where JJ interprets the word 'maul' to mean 'bite' in the lunging forward with gaping maw fancy he'd constructed regardless of the facts.

Spearthrower · **#3342** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 04, 2019 2:16 pm

Fenrir wrote:You'd think JJ would have learnt that posting random images from the internet without checking what they are first is likely to turn around and bite you by now.

It's clear he hasn't got the faintest idea what fossils it's based on - he just found something that looked good to him from a model shop and posted it.

It's also rather fun watching him tie himself in knots seeking to get me to explain why the replica/composite skull he posted was female without either a) admitting he knows fuck all relevant and b) having to carry the burden of proof himself that it's a male.

Spearthrower · **#3343** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 04, 2019 2:19 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
This is how we conclude that JJ not only doesn't understand how science works, he actually despises how science works.

Spot on.

Despises how it works, and despises that it works.

Spearthrower · **#3344** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 04, 2019 2:22 pm

Your posts on this issue are consistent with your having assumed that skull was female...

Whereas, the reality actually is:

You assumed the replica composite skull was male - and by assumed, I mean you didn't know your arse from your elbow.

I didn't 'assume' anything. I know what fossils were used in its compositing.

Your assumption is based on wanting something to be true to win an argument with people you detest on the internet.

My reply is simply an accurate description of the facts, and while they may be inconvenient for you, that's really only your problem.

Spearthrower · **#3345** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 04, 2019 2:27 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
More egregiously, you've gone from 'small canine teeth like other early humans' to 'lack of dental sexual dimorphism' - clearly the 2 aren't synonymous. They could have small canine teeth and yet still present dimorphism. That is actually the case, and it is more or less pronounced depending on the species of australopithecine. Even the species with the least pronounced dental dimorphism, A. boisei (i.e. best case scenario for you), still has some sexual dimorphism present, so your usage of the word 'lack' needs to be clarified because, as I am well aware, you are trying to hang far too much on it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2X05000478

Analyses show that A. afarensis is similar in size sexual dimorphism to gorillas in femoral variables, to humans in humeral variables, and to chimpanzees in canine variables. The results of this study are compatible with the hypothesis that the pattern of sexual dimorphism in A. afarensis is different from any that are observed in living humans or apes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8400904019

These results show that significant directional changes do occur in the A. afarensis mandibles and teeth, and in these elements, at least, the species is not static. Temporal variation is clearly an important component of overall variation in the A. afarensis lineage, even though other factors, such as sexual dimorphism, may also play a part.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8487900662

Based on this relationship and coefficients of variation of four species of the genus Australopithecus, we predict degrees of canine dimorphism for these extinct hominids. The estimates show that A. afarensis is as dimorphic as the pygmy chimpanzee, A. boisei slightly less dimorphic than the pygmy chimpanzee, A. robustus slightly more dimorphic than the lar gibbon, while A. africanus overiaps with the lar gibbon as well as a modern human sample.

Again, you are not respecting the data and drawing conclusions from it. You are making up the data to concur with your preconceived conclusion. But the evidence does not support your case, so quite how you're supposed to have alighted on 'what kind of animal' it was is perplexing when you're simply manufacturing details in the absence of evidence.

Your extracts from that article by Lockwood, Kimbel and Johanson seem to contradict the Smithsonian information that all later humans had small canines. That is, until one gets to the conclusion in their summary, which you didn’t give:

The JJ Playbook.

Yes, all that information you just provided which contradicts all the claims I've made...

POOF

It's gone.

Now I'll find a sentence which is sufficiently ambiguous that I can protect myself from cognitive dissonance and pretend I was right all along.

Spearthrower · **#3346** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 04, 2019 2:41 pm

Another fun and games aspect of this...

JJ cites the Smithsonian webpage.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... -afarensis

It's a super brief synopsis comprised of just a couple of hundred words.

From that, JJ latches onto a sentence fragment:

Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics: members of this species had apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase (with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees. They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright. Their adaptations for living both in the trees and on the ground helped them survive for almost a million years as climate and environments changed.

Which only offers a single adjective: small

Then, when confronted with actual physical evidence in the shape of fossils, and lengthy scientific papers explaining the degree of dimorphism and that australopithecines did in fact have sharp canines, he pretends that the one word in the article for dummies supersedes everything because it doesn't patently debunk his claims.

Long time readers here will note that this is exactly what JJ has always done. The resurrected babushka of the chimpanzees leaping gaping maws first to inflict grievous wounds on predators was challenged at the time by reference to videos of chimpanzees actually engaging in aggressive behavior, and at no point did they lunge forward to bite each other, other animals, or humans. Yet in one extended attack by chimpanzees on a human, fully recorded on camera, lasting at least a minute... the chimpanzee never once bites the human, instead leaping, pounding, tugging, yanking and generally using its strength to bully the human. Of course, never one to be deterred by a little evidence that completely contradicts his confident authoritarian assertions, JJ locates a single frame of the video where the chimp's back is to the camera, and even though nothing can be seen, and even though the frame lasts less than half a second, JJ simply asserts that this is where the chimpanzee bit the human, therefore JJ was right.

There is, of course, no way to have a reasoned discussion with someone so far up their own rectum that they can literally ignore all the evidence right in their face and still assert that they are flying as they plummet to the Earth.

Thus we have a 5 year long thread comprised of hundreds of posts by JJ confidently flapping his arms and declaring he's flying.

Cito di Pense · **#3347** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 04, 2019 2:52 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Thus we have a 5 year long thread comprised of hundreds of posts by JJ confidently flapping his arms and declaring he's flying.

Like a fair number of folks, I have had the experience of deceiving myself about something I very much wanted to be true. However, I did not engage in a five-year-long public campaign to make it clear to the world I'd deluded myself.

Spearthrower · **#3348** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 04, 2019 2:55 pm

This thread title should be: How Creationists Contrive Fantasy Scenarios to Deal with their Cognitive Dissonance

Cito di Pense · **#3349** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 04, 2019 2:58 pm

Spearthrower wrote:This thread title should be: How Creationists Contrive Fantasy Scenarios to Deal with their Cognitive Dissonance

Atheist Ideology!

Jayjay4547 · **#3350** by **Jayjay4547** » Jun 05, 2019 9:21 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Fenrir wrote:You'd think JJ would have learnt that posting random images from the internet without checking what they are first is likely to turn around and bite you by now.

It's clear he hasn't got the faintest idea what fossils it's based on - he just found something that looked good to him from a model shop and posted it.

It's also rather fun watching him tie himself in knots seeking to get me to explain why the replica/composite skull he posted was female without either a) admitting he knows fuck all relevant and b) having to carry the burden of proof himself that it's a male.

You did carry the burden of proof that the Australopithecus skull I posted, was a female. Because you said it was. I just asked you, on a surmise, why you came to that conclusion. I didn’t ask that as a trivial issue, but because it’s quite central to my understanding of our origins that the male australopithecus skull was relatively similar to the female, compared with that relationship in the apes.

The back-and-forth went like this:

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then please explain the striking differences between these skulls of a male (plant eating) gorilla and Australopithecus.

gorilla_australopithecus.jpg (8.73 KiB) Viewed 239 times

Spearthrower wrote:Easy/The gorilla skull is from a male, the australopithecus is a female

Jayjay4547 wrote: wrote:On what grounds did you claim that this skull was of a female?

Spearthrower wrote:On the grounds that it is the skull (composite) of a female. Are you trying to say that you weren't aware of that? If so, perhaps try actually saying that rather than running through this song and dance?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Because you say so, then.

Spearthrower wrote:No... because it IS so./ Its amazing how your hubris wont even let you ask the natural question here./The simple fact is that you know fuck all as usual. You weren't even aware that the composite replica you were waving around was a female./I suppose that ignorance in this case is superior to mendacity.

That sequence was all the more remarkable for your having earlier said:

“But please feel free to question me more about this - comparative primate morphology is my specific area of expertise - so I will be happy to share my knowledge with you... who knows? You might even learn something!”

Anyway I see you have finally in a recent post come up with a skull that I am happy to take as proxy for a male australopithecus skull, and I will take the one I posted as female. ...I will get onto that.

Jayjay4547 · **#3351** by **Jayjay4547** » Jun 05, 2019 10:25 am

Spearthrower wrote:
JJ wrote:Your posts on this issue are consistent with your having assumed that skull was female because it lacked sharp canines but now it turns out that both male and female australopithecus lacked sharp canines, so you throw insults around.

DING DING DING

Reality calling: come in JJ, come in!

Spearthrower wrote:

Goodness, something new here. This last image is new; at last you have come up with what you seem to be implying is a male australopithecus skull, which can be compared with the one I posted earlier, not caring whether it was male or female. I say “seem to be implying” because your images were all untitled and undiscussed.

I would like to add that if all your sneering and that by Cito and Fenrir, were about my ignorance of the difference between male and female australopithecus skulls, and if these lower skulls are indeed of male and females of that genus, then your sneering was misplaced.

Also, I think it might well be true that as you say, you have spent most of your adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates and that comparative primate morphology is your specific area of expertise. Also, that you are generally a sensible and intelligent person. But I also think that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin narrative you tell. It has stopped you from seeing what KIND of animal our deep ancestors were; in this instance by focussing attention onto intraspecific explanations amounting to a narrative of self-creation.

To rewind, we can now consider four skulls; gorilla and Australopithecus, male and female, supposing we are on the same page about that.

: Gorilla_Australopith_M-F.jpg (24.39 KiB) Viewed 230 times

This is what I said earlier, and still think is true:
Seems to me that the striking differences between male and female gorilla skulls are due to the males being front-of-house for their family by offering protection against predators, whom they are prepared to fight to the death. The threat male gorillas present to predators is that of maiming by biting using their sharp canines and their powerful arms to tear our gouges and lumps of flesh. To get so close and effectively personal with predators who are themselves expert biters, requires a robust skull and sharp canines. By contrast, the females being protected from predation by the males, have less robust skulls. Their skulls look much more like Australopithecus (males and females) because Australopithecus also didn’t avoid predation by biting; they were fully adapted into using hand weapons for that purpose.

Spearthrower · **#3352** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 05, 2019 10:50 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:You did carry the burden of proof that the Australopithecus skull I posted, was a female.

Errr? JJ. Who are you trying to convince of this? Me? Yourself? Other people?

Why would you post the skull of a heavily dimorphic male and a female as a comparative? Why did you write a male of <species> and <species> unless you meant to indicate that both were male? Had you considered the other to be female, you would surely have specified, no?

Go on, explain yourself chap - stop playing these ridiculous games. Why not just freely admit you thought they were both male skulls? Being in error in comparative primate morphology when you lack the expertise is surely better than the alternative explanation?

Jayjay4547 wrote: Because you said it was. I just asked you, on a surmise, why you came to that conclusion.

I told you right away: because I know what fossils the replica was composited from.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I didn’t ask that as a trivial issue, but because it’s quite central to my understanding of our origins that the male australopithecus skull was relatively similar to the female, compared with that relationship in the apes.

What understanding is that, JJ? What does your understanding actually entail? You've looked at some replica skulls on the internet and read 2 dozen words on wikipedia?

Of course, a male australopithecus (which species?) skull is *relatively similar* to that of a female of its own species compared to that of a gorilla. But it was you who wanted to compare a male gorilla skull - a species exhibiting high levels of sexual cranial dimorphism, with the female skull of an entirely different species. The post is still right there:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699010

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then please explain the striking differences between these skulls of a male (plant eating) gorilla and Australopithecus.

There are only 2 things that can be drawn from that. Either you did it naively, or you did it in full knowledge that you were pulling a bait and switch. You're free to explain which it is. I've opted for ignorance, which is actually a lot fairer than you probably deserve given track records here.

And how did you actually reply? The reality is quite different from your supposed academic interest:

Jayjay4547 wrote:WHAT? Where do you find that Australopithecus males differed from females in having fangs like a male gorilla? I have read a lot of crap on this forum but seldom something as rubbish as that.

So it's not like you bothered to ask me how I know, because of course that would require you to acknowledge that you don't know, which is not something you seem capable of doing. As usual, you want to assert your way through a specialist topic.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The back-and-forth went like this:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Then please explain the striking differences between these skulls of a male (plant eating) gorilla and Australopithecus.
gorilla_australopithecus.jpg

Spearthrower wrote:Easy/The gorilla skull is from a male, the australopithecus is a female

Jayjay4547 wrote: wrote:On what grounds did you claim that this skull was of a female?

Spearthrower wrote:On the grounds that it is the skull (composite) of a female. Are you trying to say that you weren't aware of that? If so, perhaps try actually saying that rather than running through this song and dance?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Because you say so, then.

Spearthrower wrote:No... because it IS so./ Its amazing how your hubris wont even let you ask the natural question here./The simple fact is that you know fuck all as usual. You weren't even aware that the composite replica you were waving around was a female./I suppose that ignorance in this case is superior to mendacity.

What's remarkable is how your endless inclination to revise history. Of course, you edited out your little outburst to make yourself seem so much more reasonably than you actually communicated. Given how you cut out the bit where you called my reply the worst crap you've ever seen on the forum, one might well charge you with being manipulative, especially as your freshly edited version makes your response seem so much more reasonable.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That sequence was all the more remarkable for your having earlier said:

“But please feel free to question me more about this - comparative primate morphology is my specific area of expertise - so I will be happy to share my knowledge with you... who knows? You might even learn something!”

That sequence is missing the bit where you went into a meltdown though, isn't it?

The bit where you actually responded: 'I have read a lot of crap on this forum but seldom something as rubbish as that."

Forget that bit, did you? Expect me to ignore that bit, do you? You blurt out whatever you like - for example, when you liken everyone to a pack of wild dogs - then when people think that's shitty and consequently treat you as being a tool, you then suddenly play the victim card.

You might think yourself all sweetness and light, JJ... but from where I'm sitting, you are one of the most odiously conceited, arrogant and ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway I see you have finally in a recent post...

In reality, I posted a set of canines from afarensis within hours of your little outburst.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... come up with a skull that I am happy to take as proxy

And I should care that reality meets your standards for what reason?

Jayjay4547 wrote:for a male australopithecus skull,... and I will take the one I posted as female. ...I will get onto that.

Well, probably best start by pointing out where I supposedly did such a thing. A male australopithecus skull, you say? Well, fancy that! Best get right on that JJ, because more fun will inevitably ensue.

Spearthrower · **#3353** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 05, 2019 10:52 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:

I fear you've overlooked something rather critical here JJ.

Spearthrower · **#3354** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 05, 2019 11:14 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Goodness, something new here. This last image is new;

Discovered in 1975; that's 44 years ago.

Jayjay4547 wrote: at last you have come up with what you seem to be implying is a male australopithecus skull,...

Where do i imply that, JJ?

Jayjay4547 wrote:.. which can be compared with the one I posted earlier, not caring whether it was male or female.

Not caring, or not knowing? You seemed to care when you wrote the sentence specifying 'male'.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I say “seem to be implying” because your images were all untitled and undiscussed.

Aye, they were weren't they. That's because it's now funny to watch you spin around chasing your tail when you can't lower yourself to asking for information from someone better informed than you.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I would like to add that if all your sneering and that by Cito and Fenrir, were about my ignorance of the difference between male and female australopithecus skulls, and if these lower skulls are indeed of male and females of that genus, then your sneering was misplaced.

Ahh the good old declarations of having been right all along.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Also, I think it might well be true that as you say, you have spent most of your adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates and that comparative primate morphology is your specific area of expertise.

Whether you think so or not is, of course, completely irrelevant.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Also, that you are generally a sensible and intelligent person.

I genuinely don't believe that you think that of anyone here. If you really did, you've had a very funny way of going about exhibiting it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But I also think that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin narrative you tell.

There is no atheist ideology, JJ - it's a figment of your imagination you use to avoid addressing your cognitive dissonance.

Jayjay4547 wrote: It has stopped you from seeing what KIND of animal our deep ancestors were; in this instance by focussing attention onto intraspecific explanations amounting to a narrative of self-creation.

Hubris stacked atop hubris.

And nonsensical hubris at that. As if intraspecific competition equates to a 'narrative of self-creation' - it's quite the contrary given other individuals are necessarily involved. On the other hand, you want to expound on humans having evolved to be perfect hand weapon users, which seems to me to be much closer to the garbled notion of a narrative of self-creation.

I'm really not sure you've given this much thought at all, despite having spent years expounding it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:This is what I said earlier, and still think is true:

Of course you do JJ - you never revise what you think is true regardless of whatever evidence contradicts those thoughts. Your thoughts you basically hold as dogma.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Seems to me that the striking differences between male and female gorilla skulls are due to the males being front-of-house for their family by offering protection against predators, whom they are prepared to fight to the death. The threat male gorillas present to predators is that of maiming by biting using their sharp canines and their powerful arms to tear our gouges and lumps of flesh. To get so close and effectively personal with predators who are themselves expert biters, requires a robust skull and sharp canines. By contrast, the females being protected from predation by the males, have less robust skulls. Their skulls look much more like Australopithecus (males and females) because Australopithecus also didn’t avoid predation by biting; they were fully adapted into using hand weapons for that purpose.

Yes, it's frankly rubbish. It makes no sense even in and of itself, let alone in comparison to the fossil record of comparative anatomy, and the behavioral ecology we can draw from the sites. All the errors have already been highlighted, dissected, and shown untenable, but you won't change your mind for any reason whatsoever and never will.

Spearthrower · **#3355** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 05, 2019 11:58 am

Oh go on then, I will put and end to one of the games so you can pretend it never happened as I'll be away from the forum for a couple of days, so I won't be able to squeeze much more amusement out of this anyway.

On what grounds did you claim that this skull was of a female?

Well, for clarity, I never said it was the skull of a female.

It's not actually a skull, JJ.

This is one of the deliciously funny things you state in full confidence while being abjectly, awfully, and wholly ignorant of the subject matter, yet somehow we're supposed to buy into the assertion that you know what kind of animal it was better than people who actually know what it really looked like, not just a poor replica composite.

It's not actually the skull of anything, JJ. The picture you posted is a composite with around 50-60% additions made, largely from the looks of it, by employing artistic license, and ALL of the dentition is just made up - not actually based on ANY finds at all. It's really not a very good replica at all. Funny eh? Funny for me, anyway!

Even with only an elementary level of knowledge, you should have questioned the accuracy of that replica given the ridiculous degree of maxilliary prognathism, and ironically, the particularly janky dentition.

Rather as I told you right away, I knew it was meant to be a female skull because I know what fossils it's based on, and I know the morphological characteristics of those fossils (from many individuals, I might add) which went into the composite.

So a serious discussion, with someone equipped to engage in this topic would involve discussions about dimensions of various morphological features of those fossils. No one serious would be offering up a poorly wrought composite replica, though.

So given how little you know, and given that you've shown how little you know, am I supposed to have a discussion with you about those features? You apparently haven't even seen the fossils in question, and apparently wouldn't even know what you're looking at if I served them up to you on a platter.

But go on then, tell me why I would be wrong (actually, it's not me, but the original publishing scientists) in describing it as a female given the small mastoid process, the biconvex prognathism of the maxilliary subnasal surface, the small mediolateral diameter of the manidbular condyle, the occipital condyle's articular surface, the narrow interorbital block, the very narrow canine breadth, the narrow extramolar sulcus, the steep inclination of posteroinferior facing nuchal plane, the proximity of the temporal lines to the superior nuchal lines, the low frontal squama saggital convexity, and the apparent scaling of occipital squama. I am sure someone who specializes in afarensis would be able to list a dozen more characteristics they could use to sex (and identify the species of, and the temporal distribution of) those fossils, and they'd almost certainly be able to point out examples of other afarensis fossils which still clearly fall within the type that don't exhibit some of those characteristics, which I am very nearly as ignorant of as you.

But anyway, you're still right because you say so, even when you don't know your arse from your elbow. You've taken Creationism to a narcissistic level of self-dogma, and you have the utterly nonsensical delusion that it's everyone else operating from within a blinkering ideology. :nono:

Cito di Pense · **#3356** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 05, 2019 1:12 pm

Spearthrower wrote:it's not me, but the original publishing scientists) in describing it as a female given the small mastoid process, the biconvex prognathism of the maxilliary subnasal surface, the small mediolateral diameter of the manidbular condyle, the occipital condyle's articular surface, the narrow interorbital block, the very narrow canine breadth, the narrow extramolar sulcus, the steep inclination of posteroinferior facing nuchal plane, the proximity of the temporal lines to the superior nuchal lines, the low frontal squama saggital convexity, and the apparent scaling of occipital squama. I am sure someone who specializes in afarensis would be able to list a dozen more characteristics they could use to sex (and identify the species of, and the temporal distribution of) those fossils, and they'd almost certainly be able to point out examples of other afarensis fossils which still clearly fall within the type that don't exhibit some of those characteristics, which I am very nearly as ignorant of as you.

Well, there's the money shot, even if JJ can't process it in real time.

If JJ has the nerve to come back on this, another point I will remember is:

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: I say “seem to be implying” because your images were all untitled and undiscussed.

Aye, they were weren't they. That's because it's now funny to watch you spin around chasing your tail when you can't lower yourself to asking for information from someone better informed than you.

Jayjay4547 · **#3357** by **Jayjay4547** » Jun 07, 2019 6:33 am

Spearthrower wrote:
But go on then, tell me why I would be wrong (actually, it's not me, but the original publishing scientists) in describing it [the Australopithecus composite pictured on the right below] as a female given the small mastoid process, the biconvex prognathism of the maxilliary subnasal surface, the small mediolateral diameter of the manidbular condyle, the occipital condyle's articular surface, the narrow interorbital block, the very narrow canine breadth, the narrow extramolar sulcus, the steep inclination of posteroinferior facing nuchal plane, the proximity of the temporal lines to the superior nuchal lines, the low frontal squama saggital convexity, and the apparent scaling of occipital squama. I am sure someone who specializes in afarensis would be able to list a dozen more characteristics they could use to sex (and identify the species of, and the temporal distribution of) those fossils, and they'd almost certainly be able to point out examples of other afarensis fossils which still clearly fall within the type that don't exhibit some of those characteristics, which I am very nearly as ignorant of as you.

But anyway, you're still right because you say so, even when you don't know your arse from your elbow. You've taken Creationism to a narcissistic level of self-dogma, and you have the utterly nonsensical delusion that it's everyone else operating from within a blinkering ideology.

There’s pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently, has skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection that is, away from explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, towards a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. That’s how Darwin distinguished them. Those “external conditions” form an open-ended system, arguably hierarchical, hugely creative and unpredictable by those within it; a creator.

Here’s some of that evidence. I have added more primate species to the earlier comparison of skulls. Males on the left, females on the right, the rows reflecting decreasing relatedness to human beings. I earlier typified the difference between male and female gorilla as that the male showed a greater capacity to take damage and dish it out whereas with Australopithecus that distinction was less. The added species of chimp and baboon support that difference.

: Primates_M-F.jpg (44.81 KiB) Viewed 150 times

I’m arguing that the males of our closest relatives are formidable biters. In so far as we are other organic beings, we had better (and do) take that as a significant feature in our relations with them. In the case of chimps, we have records of the kind of damage they inflict both on their own species and ours: they tend to aim to maim, rather than to kill (so as to eat). And to maim is the most economical form of defensive fighting.

Spearthrower · **#3358** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 07, 2019 7:05 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
But go on then, tell me why I would be wrong (actually, it's not me, but the original publishing scientists) in describing it [the Australopithecus composite pictured on the right below] as a female given the small mastoid process, the biconvex prognathism of the maxilliary subnasal surface, the small mediolateral diameter of the manidbular condyle, the occipital condyle's articular surface, the narrow interorbital block, the very narrow canine breadth, the narrow extramolar sulcus, the steep inclination of posteroinferior facing nuchal plane, the proximity of the temporal lines to the superior nuchal lines, the low frontal squama saggital convexity, and the apparent scaling of occipital squama. I am sure someone who specializes in afarensis would be able to list a dozen more characteristics they could use to sex (and identify the species of, and the temporal distribution of) those fossils, and they'd almost certainly be able to point out examples of other afarensis fossils which still clearly fall within the type that don't exhibit some of those characteristics, which I am very nearly as ignorant of as you.

But anyway, you're still right because you say so, even when you don't know your arse from your elbow. You've taken Creationism to a narcissistic level of self-dogma, and you have the utterly nonsensical delusion that it's everyone else operating from within a blinkering ideology.

There’s pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently, has skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection that is,...

Spearthrower · **#3359** by **Spearthrower** » Jun 07, 2019 7:11 am

away from explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings...

Other individuals of one's own species are 'other organic beings'.

or to external conditions,

Other individuals are 'external conditions'.

... towards a struggle between the individuals of one sex,

Other members of one's species are just as much 'environment' as individuals of other species. Reproduction is what all the other stuff's about.

... generally the males, for the possession of the other sex.

A very blinkered way of looking at it. Of course, one could easily say that the males are vying for female attention, ergo that it's the females who instigate the behavior in the males.

Either way, they're still external organic beings from you, unless you're completely ignorant, close-minded and solipsistic.

I already summarized all this JJ: You simply don't understand what evolution entails.

There's a reason for this: you're actually hostile to evolution, regardless of your convoluted pretense to the contrary. That's why you keep doing the equivalent of Ray Comfort and trying to get science to conform to your silly, poorly-conceived and under-evidenced notions because if it were to do so, then it would be far more manageable for you to undermine and discredit.

But your thoughts on the topic are not worth anything whatsoever because you lack even an elementary comprehension.

Cito di Pense · **#3360** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 07, 2019 7:15 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m arguing that the males of our closest relatives are formidable biters.

Yabut... would you want your sister to marry one? I mean, some of my relatives bite, but that's just an expression. They bite the big one.

How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Ads by Google

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Ads by Google

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Ads by Google

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Who is online