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

#3581  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 25, 2019 10:22 am

And in just how extreme self-identifying skeptics can get in denying it


Of course, it's not a delusional crank making up bullshit and engaging in wanton self-aggrandizing fictions while repeatedly expressing his vacuous bigotry of those he sees as his ideological enemies.

No, it's everyone else.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3582  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 25, 2019 10:25 am

I have no problem with the theory of natural selection except that it is no more interesting than that water flows downhill.


You've already established beyond doubt that you simply do not understand what evolution entails, JJ.

You don't even have an elementary grasp of it.

Thus it may all seem simple to you, but the simple thing is actually the version of it in your head, and that version can never be said to correspond to any quantity of reality.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3583  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 25, 2019 10:29 am

JJ wrote:I claimed that one of the distinctive features of the Australopithecus genus (and all later human ancestors) was that they lacked the long sharp canines typical of primates, that those teeth make primates dangerous to attack and this showed that these distant ancestors had abandoned defensive biting in favour of using kinetic hand weapons, which created a symbiotic coevolving relationship with objects.


Yes, you did claim all that, and it's all bollocks: every single word of it.

And it's still comprised of the most basic errors I've already explained to you in the past, but which you still don't get. For example, all australopithecines ARE primates JJ. For example, species cannot evolutionarily adapt to using kinetic weapons, JJ. For example, most australopithecines presented sexual dimorphism of the canines just as with other members of our family, JJ. For example, canine teeth in primates, no matter how long and sharp, don't make them dangerous for predators to attack, JJ. For example, symbiosis requires two living things, not objects JJ.

So all you're doing is repeating all your errors again. Yes, we know all the errors you've made and the conversations which occurred explaining to you why they are errors, but stacking so many of them together like that just emphasizes how confidently clueless you are.

You insist on repeating your errors and refuse ever to amend them, that's why your wibble is rejected, not because of spooky atheistic ideology - just because you're spluttering out of the wrong end of your digestive tract.


JJ wrote: Spearthrower, who says he has spent his whole adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates, claimed that he had posted several pics contradicting me but he declined to post them again, ostensibly because I had tried to bully him but actually because his pic (of a skull with fangs) that could have contradicted my position, wasn’t even of a fossil.


Back to lying again. Not just one lie either, but 3 in just one paragraph.

Did you think you were fooling someone with these misrepresentations JJ?

Did you think the page count has advanced far enough now that you're safe in revising history to suit your bullshit?

Did you think anyone reading this forgot what happened when I actually spelled out in technical terms details of A. afarensis cranial morphology how you flailed around moronically then abandoned the thread of conversation entirely only to wait a couple of pages before repeating the same errors all over again?

You're a joke JJ - you have zero credibility here.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3584  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 25, 2019 10:39 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Here you go JJ... it's a CHALLENGE (cos I know you like them)

Below is a picture of 2 plant pots both containing chilli plantlings.

The red pot on the left contains a dozen or so, while the pot on the right contains just one.

In which pot - red or black - would you say there is more selection pressure occurring?

Image




Of course, JJ doesn't answer which really nails the coffin on his drivel about what everyone else is allegedly doing.

Here's here to peddle his myth and has not even the slightest bit of interest in ever acknowledging his errors.

Self-creation, my arse.



Of course, JJ can't answer this. This is the actual truth about JJ's tenure here. Stonewalling, gaslighting, reality denial, with a healthy dollop of martyr narrative.

The fact is that this picture alone makes the whole 'self-creation' wibble untenable, so of course JJ won't touch it with a bargepole as he'd have to acknowledge his error, and we all know that's not going to happen.

So yeah, consider that debunked JJ. Sexual selection is no more 'self-creation' than the red plant pot is 'self-creation' because 'self-creation' is a poorly considered numptyism you vomited out at some point as a diversion away from some other bullshit you'd had smacked down.

Shame, I was waiting to introduce you to the entirely novel concept you'd clearly never alighted on of species which don't even have any natural predators. That was gonna fuck you right up, wasn't it?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3585  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 25, 2019 11:30 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:What is observable is the creation:


You apparently lack the foggiest clue as to what 'observable' entails. Tell me how to observe 'creation' without intent. Creativity is my opinion of what I observe, and is not what I observe. Learn what an opinion consists of, JJ.

Jayjay4547 wrote: the observed current functionality of life forms, compared with observed lack of those functionalities 3 billion years ago.


Who even defines functionality? We do! The biosphere started with zero functionality, so even asexual reproduction computes to an infinite amount more functionality than zero. But be careful, JJ. Functionality is defined in terms of intent or purpose. As in, "functions to the intended purpose", an engineering metaphor you may actually understand. That means you're just packing in some more creationism. That's not science or engineering, of course, but just more religous nuttery.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Like, bones and brains. “Intent” is a conjecture about something behind the observable.


No, JJ. It's something observable in the work of human designers, artists, engineers and chefs. Your conjecture about the intent is precisely what is not observable in the 'biosphere". You're conjecturing a divine intelligence, which is bog-standard religious nuttery.
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: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28747
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3586  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 25, 2019 11:32 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:You can’t deny the observable by denying a conjecture about what is associated with it. Let’s stick with what we can agree about, based on what can be observed.


What did I just finish telling you about what I am quite capable of denying. You have an idiosyncratic definition of creativity and of intent, and you can't sell it. So, you make up excuses about "atheist ideology". You can fuck right off with that, because it's only about the hundredth time you've repeated a bunch of religious nuttery that we call 'creationism'.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Of course, I do act on the basis that there is intent in the universe; there is a God but that is based on my intuition.


Well, JJ, fuck your intuition. Sideways, with a geological hammer that your interlocutors have offered you to stop the flow of mental sewage you are dumping, here.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Is creativity a force? Creativity can be observed, by comparing the world today with the world 3 billion years ago. It has been a property in the first place, of large biomes.


You're not saying jack shit any more about whether creativity is a force, JJ. Now it's just your fucking moronic intuition.
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: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28747
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3587  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 25, 2019 11:32 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:What I want to get over is that the ideology built up to support the opposite conjecture has messed up the human origin narrative in the name of evolution.


Something's messed it up for you, JJ. You have my condolences, but please fuck off with all the whining.

What's "creativity" without intent, JJ? Without intent, it's just a movie you're playing in reverse for yourself, looking through the wrong end of the telescope to see something planned when nothing was planned. So fine, JJ, let's let you call it creativity. What would you have anyone else do with your little just-so story?.....


I wrote that, JJ, and you have answered with more of your lame, prejudiced, bigoted lying intuition.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway you make a good point that squeezing (my term) is a force. On the other hand magma can be squeezed out of a magma chamber without intent.


Do you feel squeezed by the fact that you're not being allowed to re-define concepts like 'squeezing', 'intent', 'creativity', and 'observable'. Do you feel squeezed by the fact that you may as well fuck off where you came from for all the functionality you're trying to introduce? You're proselytizing, JJ. Creationist, religiously-based bollocks.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I suppose you intended an underline there, not a strikethough.:)


Such a sudden attention to detail. If only your feeble efforts at paleontology were capable of noticing your own errors as eagerly as you lap up typos in other people's work.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 25, 2019 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28747
Age: 23
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3588  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 25, 2019 11:32 am

Cito di Pense wrote:JJ could ask himself how it is that water (unlike most substances, and the one essential for life) expands to a solid of lower density rather than higher density. This is important, because the earth's climate system has produced epochs in which ice covered nearly the total surface of the oceans (along with much of the land above sea level), called colloquially, "Snowball Earth". The last one of these episodes occurred during the latest pre-Cambrian.


Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s an argument usually made by creationists; that the laws of physics are tailor made for life and “therefore” humanity, to have evolved. I’m interested and I believe there is Godly intent behind the creation, but I park conjecture about physical laws as way beyond the veil. In theory we can agree about what is observable, such as the influence of atheist ideology on the human origin story.


Well, JJ, it's mainly idiot creationists who are at all eager to find intent in it. The laws of physics are not "tailor made'. There's no identifiable Maker unless you study the universe the way a fortune teller reads tea leaves.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t have a solution to the crisis that humanity is in, my point is that it is the system of actors involved in it is hierarchically greater than we are, contra Alan-B’s argument that the solution is obvious to the intellect (at least, to his intellect and those of other skeptics).


What fucking crisis, JJ? You've got this notion that creativity set us going, but now you seem to be treating the crisis as exogenous to the system that you insist created humans, for which you proffer your reverence. How do you relieve your so-called creative system of the responsibility for creating the crisis? We're in the system, JJ, not outside it; we are part of the 'greatness', which just isn't looking so fucking great. You're trying to pack in a matter of conscience in your latest babushka. Tell your latest babushka to fuck itself off to where it came from, which is up your arse.

You haven't established creativity. You're just looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and what you see looks wacky to anyone not eager to lap up your self-reverential drivel, namely religious nuts. Your reverence is all for yourself and this vision you got by looking through the wrong end of the telescope.


Gosh that’s really abusive.


Sorry, JJ. Did somebody rain on your bollox parade?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Your concept of natural selection is totally botched, because you cherry-pick what the agents are. The rest of your effort you spend on looking through the wrong end of the telescope and fabricating 'creativity'. Fuck that noise.


Fuck this and fuck that hey. What I am alleging is that when it came to HUMAN origins, Darwin, then Dart and then everyone who followed, cherry picked the actors to be members of the same population. Darwin, by devoting 2/3 of Descent to sexual selection, Dart by focusing on his hunting hypothesis where the hunter is the quintessential actor, impressing his will on the hunted.


Well, fuck your obsession with how the story of human origins is being told. From your end, it's being told idiotically. You should be marketing it to idiots.

You ignore pretty much all the rest of the history of life on earth because of your obsession with human origins. Why won't you look farther? Are you really saying the emergence of human beings is some kind of miracle in the biosphere. Why not start with the origins of the mammals. Humans are mammals, too. The dinosaurs left the stage and the mammals took over. Your version of it would be the Gary Larson cartoon. "The situation looks bleak, gentlemen...". There's another Gary Larson cartoon, "The real reason the dinosaurs died out", which shows them out behind the shed, smoking cigarettes.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I have no problem with the theory of natural selection except that it is no more interesting than that water flows downhill. What is intrinsically interesting is the concrete history of life past i.e. palaeontology; for instance, recent genetic findings about the treks made by human ancestors.


Well, JJ, we're truly sorry that the scientific analysis of human origins doesn't flatter your vanity. See "the puddle analogy".

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s not me who has demonstrated incompetence on the facts of human evolution. I claimed that one of the distinctive features of the Australopithecus genus (and all later human ancestors) was that they lacked the long sharp canines typical of primates, that those teeth make primates dangerous to attack and this showed that these distant ancestors had abandoned defensive biting in favour of using kinetic hand weapons, which created a symbiotic coevolving relationship with objects. Spearthrower, who says he has spent his whole adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates, claimed that he had posted several pics contradicting me but he declined to post them again, ostensibly because I had tried to bully him but actually because his pic (of a skull with fangs) that could have contradicted my position, wasn’t even of a fossil.


You're lying again, JJ. Lying and denying and defying. Brave, brave JJ!

Jayjay4547 wrote:What is really at issue is whether those who tell the story of human origins in term of evolution have been biased by their ideological beliefs. That is, whether those who invoke “Science” in their narrative, speak with God like authority. And I’m arguing that youse all put your trousers on one leg at a time.


You're lying again and again, JJ. Lying for Jebus!

Jayjay4547 wrote:I stay here because I’m interested in how atheist ideology has messed up the story of human evolution. And in just how extreme self-identifying skeptics can get in denying it, as shown partly by my colouring your text above.


You stay here because you get some kind of sick thrill out of hanging around chatting with people whose ideas you despise.
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: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28747
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3589  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 25, 2019 12:31 pm

the observed current functionality of life forms, compared with observed lack of those functionalities 3 billion years ago.


If only we had a scientific theory detailing how this occurred.

Oh well, guess it was Vishnu.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3590  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 26, 2019 2:49 am

Spearthrower wrote:

JJ wrote: Spearthrower, who says he has spent his whole adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates, claimed that he had posted several pics contradicting me but he declined to post them again, ostensibly because I had tried to bully him but actually because his pic (of a skull with fangs) that could have contradicted my position, wasn’t even of a fossil.


Back to lying again. Not just one lie either, but 3 in just one paragraph.

Did you think you were fooling someone with these misrepresentations JJ?

Did you think the page count has advanced far enough now that you're safe in revising history to suit your bullshit?

Did you think anyone reading this forgot what happened when I actually spelled out in technical terms details of A. afarensis cranial morphology how you flailed around moronically then abandoned the thread of conversation entirely only to wait a couple of pages before repeating the same errors all over again?

You're a joke JJ - you have zero credibility here.


Here is your what you said about A. afarensis cranial morphology in technical terms details:

Spearthrower wrote:

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.


In the pic below, the label “Australopithecus Female (?) is of the image you were insisting (maybe rightly) was a composite made from female skulls. The skull on the left of it is one you posted without saying a word about it, but from the context I suppose you intended to demonstrate a male. Your technical description above sounds impressively expert but it establishes nothing about the relative canine lengths of male and female hominins. It wasn't even clear whether your description was to distinguish male from female, or afarensis from other Australopithecus species as you imply in your post now. .And what those pics show is how closely the male hominin skulls resembled the female. A pictures is worth a thousand words, at least when the words are meant to put up a smokescreen.

Gorilla_Australopith_M-F.jpg
Gorilla_Australopith_M-F.jpg (24.39 KiB) Viewed 195 times


So basically you were abusing your access to specialist terminology, to throw up a smokescreen.
Your rebuttal wasn't even about the point I had raised, I need to get onto that in a separate post
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1168
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3591  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 26, 2019 3:02 am

Soearthrower's supposed rebuttal isn’t even on the issue I raised, where he declined to post proof of what he claimed here:

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:Contrary evidence? All Spearthrower (or any other poster) needed to present was a pic of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines. He didn’t present that. Instead he actually agreed that a Smithsonian note that Australopithecus like all later humans, had small canines.


And another lie! Fantastic!

As anyone can see, I haven't just posted a single picture of an australopithecine with sharp, pointy canines, I have posted several, and I did so within hours of JJ's initial claims that they did not possess them.

Spearthrower never did post the images to prove his allegaiton, but I put together images he had posted, here they are:
Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png
Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png (795.84 KiB) Viewed 194 times


As you can see, the only pic of a skull with long sharp canine (c), isn’t even a fossil, let alone a hominin.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1168
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3592  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 26, 2019 3:20 am

Spearthrower wrote:
JJ wrote:I claimed that one of the distinctive features of the Australopithecus genus (and all later human ancestors) was that they lacked the long sharp canines typical of primates, that those teeth make primates dangerous to attack and this showed that these distant ancestors had abandoned defensive biting in favour of using kinetic hand weapons, which created a symbiotic coevolving relationship with objects.


Yes, you did claim all that, and it's all bollocks: every single word of it.

And it's still comprised of the most basic errors I've already explained to you in the past, but which you still don't get. For example, all australopithecines ARE primates JJ.


Yes indeed all australopithecines ARE primates, Spearthrower.

Spearthrower wrote: For example, species cannot evolutionarily adapt to using kinetic weapons,


Why not? Birds can adapt to building nests.

Spearthrower wrote: JJ. For example, most australopithecines presented sexual dimorphism of the canines just as with other members of our family


But australopithecine males don’t have long sharp canines, nor do any of their descendants, just like the Smithsonian says,

Spearthrower wrote: JJ. For example, canine teeth in primates, no matter how long and sharp, don't make them dangerous for predators to attack.


Just try grabbing any non-human primate with your bare hands.

Spearthrower wrote: JJ. For example, symbiosis requires two living things, not objects JJ.


Well Hokay Spearthrower, but the relationship between humans and objects can’t be distinguished from symbiosis.

Spearthrower wrote: So all you're doing is repeating all your errors again. Yes, we know all the errors you've made and the conversations which occurred explaining to you why they are errors, but stacking so many of them together like that just emphasizes how confidently clueless you are.

You insist on repeating your errors and refuse ever to amend them, that's why your wibble is rejected, not because of spooky atheistic ideology - just because you're spluttering out of the wrong end of your digestive tract.


Nah, what is actually happening is that in your keenness to disagree with everything a creationist says, you have taken up the extreme position of seeing only noise in human origins, not the clear signals to be read from the Australopithecus genus. That shows just how malleable the human origin story told in the name of evolution is.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1168
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3593  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 26, 2019 6:20 am

JJ reminds me of Gary Milne, aka Darth Dawkins.
"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: 30219
Age: 30
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3594  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 26, 2019 6:24 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Here is your what you said about A. afarensis cranial morphology in technical terms details:

Spearthrower wrote:

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.


In the pic below, the label “Australopithecus Female (?) is of the image you were insisting (maybe rightly) was a composite made from female skulls.


Your very first sentence and you're already mischaracterizing what I wrote! :lol:

At least in this case, I don't claim it's intentional, it's just ineptitude.

Read the first sentence of the text I wrote and which you quoted:

It's not actually the skull of anything, JJ.

See?

So I write 'it's not actually the skull of anything, JJ' and you render that as being my position that it's a composite of female skulls.

Just wrong, and you're wrong because you simply do not know enough about this topic.

It's not a composite of female skulls, JJ. It's a composite of various cranial fossils, none of them constituting a 'skull'. A skull is the complete structure, comprising both the cranium and the mandible. It can't be a composite of skulls JJ because we don't have any skulls from which to composite. We have fragments of crania, fragments of mandibles, and various dentition.

I've already made this point to you... perhaps 7 or 8 times in the last few pages, but you never amend your errors, but again, at least in this case it's because of ignorance rather than mendacity.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The skull on the left of it is one you posted without saying a word about it,...


Wrong, I said many words about it, just not in the post where I put the picture.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... but from the context I suppose you intended to demonstrate a male.


I know you supposed that: I spent some time pointing out that you'd supposed that without actually bothering to find out what it was, asking any questions, or basically doing anything resembling discussion given that you'd just been shown to be absolutely out of your depth.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Your technical description above sounds impressively expert but it establishes nothing about the relative canine lengths of male and female hominins.


Ooh impressively expert, but then it doesn't establish anything relevant. How impressively technical and expert of you to make that declaration! :)

Is that your expert analysis JJ?

Incidentally, why are we suddenly talking about hominins? Usually you just use the word 'primate' whenever you're not employing your bizarre usage of 'australopithecine'.


Jayjay4547 wrote: It wasn't even clear whether your description was to distinguish male from female, or afarensis from other Australopithecus species as you imply in your post now.


Yes, it wasn't clear to you at all, was it JJ? And what's the reason why it's not clear to you?

As for the second part of your sentence, as usual, that's factually not what I said or implied.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And what those pics show is how closely the male hominin skulls resembled the female.


What male hominin skulls, JJ?

Are you talking about A. afarensis?

Regardless, as I've pointed out to you several times before: of course they resemble each other, JJ - they're the same bloody species! :lol:

But the fact they resemble each other doesn't mean we can't tell them apart on the many key differences.


Jayjay4547 wrote: A pictures is worth a thousand words,...


To you perhaps, but that's because a) you don't have a thousand words worth writing on the topic and b) your eye is naive and sees whatever you want it to see.

Obviously, in the real world (and once again, as I've pointed out to you before) actual credible people don't make assessments based on single pictures. The reason you do is because you don't really care about facts or truth, only what nonsense you can spin.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... at least when the words are meant to put up a smokescreen.


Still better than the smokescreen you're trying for with your 'I put up a picture' routine, even when that picture turns out to be a) a composite of many fossils plus a huge quantity of artistic license b) the other sex to what you'd claimed c) an entirely different species than you'd claimed or d) a juvenile rather than an adult.

So while you might want to argue for the primacy of pictorial evidence, you're still left in the problematic position of having shown yourself unable to identify what it is you're seeing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So basically you were abusing your access to specialist terminology, to throw up a smokescreen.


Ahhh I see... this is the rhetorical strategy you've finally decided to try for, is it?

That the specialist terminology was a ruse to conceal my true intentions! :lol:

It's not that you don't understand that specialist terminology, or that the specialist terminology you're ignorant of actually spells out why you were wrong even though you can't parse it... no, it's all part of that scary atheist agenda only you can see! :naughty2:


Jayjay4547 wrote:Your rebuttal wasn't even about the point I had raised,...


The point you raised was shown to be laughably inept given that you were posting pictures of things you didn't even understand. It shows why you'd made so many silly mistakes: because you don't have a fucking clue what you're yammering about.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I need to get onto that in a separate post


This post, another post, whatever's fun for you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3595  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 26, 2019 6:47 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Yes indeed all australopithecines ARE primates, Spearthrower.


Yes indeed, that's what I just told you after you'd bizarrely contrasted them as you've done before.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Why not? Birds can adapt to building nests.


Because evolution doesn't work like Pokemon, JJ. Natural selection is a gradual process that favours slight improvements in reproductive success, in contrast to the sudden appearance of extremely complex hopeful monster behavior.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
But australopithecine males don’t have long sharp canines, nor do any of their descendants, just like the Smithsonian says,


The Smithsonian does not say that, JJ - that's your wilful spin talking. Again, (sigh as I've pointed out half a dozen times already) you've lifted one single adjective out of one single sentence, out of one single paragraph in what is essentially a dummy's guide to A. afarensis, and you're trying to build a credible case around it. Of course, it looks really fucking silly, but the fact you appear to find it persuasive enough to keep repeating it really does go a long way in explaining quite why you're so arrogantly insisting you're a great swimmer even while you're so obviously drowning.

Most australopithecine (you've gone back to the numpty word again) species exhibit dental sexual dimorphism JJ - I've already shown you wrong on this at least a dozen times, including references to peer-reviewed papers that you've replied to and therefore you've implicitly acknowledged that the facts are contrary to your claims.

Male afarensis do have longer, sharper canines than females. That's a relative comparison between males and females. You're trying to wing an absolute value without ever discussing the values such as what constitutes 'long' or what constitutes 'sharp'. As such, and because you're trying to pull a fast one, there's no need for me to go any further than simply say 'nope, you're wrong'.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: JJ. For example, canine teeth in primates, no matter how long and sharp, don't make them dangerous for predators to attack.


Just try grabbing any non-human primate with your bare hands.


Is that the best argument you can muster after hundreds of pages of trying to contend this argument?

Well, it's funny because - unsurprisingly, I've grabbed many a non-human primate with my bare hands, and never was I in danger from them.

And I'm not even a leopard or a tiger with a thick coat of fur, running at them at breakneck speed with a maw full of sharp teeth to eat them.

So as usual, even when you've got the best opportunity in the world to provide a coherent argument to support your case, the best you can come up with is just nonsense.

Primates' canines do not pose a danger - in the slightest - to the predators which prey on them. Unless you want to try and argue that the predator might get a bit of a scratch, and goodness knows, scratches can turn septic so easily without medical treatment, and thus they're a danger? Is that an interesting argument for you, JJ?

Of course, you're still failing to address - because of your terminal absence of comprehension - how selection works. For a trait to be positively selected by evolution JJ, it has to confer a reproductive benefit over and above individuals without that trait. So a monkey with even the most impressively sharp, long canines imaginable that gets attacked and killed by a tiger doesn't pass those traits on preferentially on account of it being dead. It's rather hard to reproduce when you're dead, JJ.

However, those same impressively long and sharp canines may just have helped that monkey scare off a male competing for mates, resulting in unfettered access to the pool of female monkeys, and therefore that trait being preferentially selected for into the next generation of widdle monkeys.

See the comparison JJ?

Yeah, of course you don't because you're not interested in reality, truth, evidence, facts, logic or any of that jazz... it's babushkas all the way down for you, and you know that the biggest babushka is one you would never let yourself forgo, but you've made the mistake that all hubristic Creationists find themselves in: having absolute faith in every statement they make, considering their own word gospel, and that whatever they believe supersedes reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: JJ. For example, symbiosis requires two living things, not objects JJ.


Well Hokay Spearthrower, but the relationship between humans and objects can’t be distinguished from symbiosis.


Umm, it can. It's quite easy actually. Is it alive? No. Then it's not symbiosis.

Feel free to use another word that perhaps means what you want it to mean, but leave this word alone eh? You make up enough words as it is to flail around and evade honest discourse without needing to pervert already established words to your cause.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: So all you're doing is repeating all your errors again. Yes, we know all the errors you've made and the conversations which occurred explaining to you why they are errors, but stacking so many of them together like that just emphasizes how confidently clueless you are.

You insist on repeating your errors and refuse ever to amend them, that's why your wibble is rejected, not because of spooky atheistic ideology - just because you're spluttering out of the wrong end of your digestive tract.


Nah, what is actually happening is that in your keenness to disagree with everything a creationist says,...


It's not my fault you're acting like all the ignorant, arrogant Creationists who demand that they fucking stupid ideas be taken as valid even when manifestly wrong according to evidence and observation.

Once again, the simple fact is that if you said something agreeable, I'd agree with it... but while you're talking shit, I will consider it shit.

Onus, chap, is on you.


Jayjay4547 wrote: you have taken up the extreme position of seeing only noise in human origins,...


We should put these lyrics to music:

Self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.


Jayjay4547 wrote: not the clear signals to be read from the Australopithecus genus.


The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell a male from a female, JJ?

The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell an actual fossil from a make-believe model, JJ?

The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell one species from another, JJ?

The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell a juvenile from an adult, JJ?

Yeah, I think I'll pass on the 'clear signals' and just do the hard work of learning about them from direct observation and peer-reviewed literature, thanks all the same.


Jayjay4547 wrote:That shows just how malleable the human origin story told in the name of evolution is.


What it really shows it that you're still terminally incapable of establishing the validity of your thesis statement so you simply latch onto every non-sequitur and scrap of nonsense you can to pretend to yourself that you're doing well.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3596  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 26, 2019 7:00 am

Quick aside to put another one of JJ's little lines of attack back in the Silly Box he took it out of...

See how he *finally* quoted the text of me explaining the morphological characteristics of afarensis?

See how I started that paragraph?


But go on then, tell me why I would be wrong (actually, it's not me, but the original publishing scientists)


See how I immediately and entirely voluntarily acknowledge that it's other people who have done all the hard work here, it's other people who are the legitimate authorities here, and consequently that I am acknowledging it's their work not mine?

Yeah, so much for JJ's attempt to mischaracterize me as pretending to be authoritative.

Really, I knew that line was there all along the entire time JJ was trying out that little rhetorical dead-end.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3597  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 26, 2019 7:15 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Soearthrower's supposed rebuttal isn’t even on the issue I raised,..


Don't lie JJ, the written record is still there.


Jayjay4547 wrote: where he declined to post proof of what he claimed here
Spearthrower wrote:

As anyone can see, I haven't just posted a single picture of an australopithecine with sharp, pointy canines, I have posted several, and I did so within hours of JJ's initial claims that they did not possess them.


Spearthrower never did post the images to prove his allegaiton, but I put together images he had posted, here they are:
Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png


Yet those pics are still there, and I'm still not obliged to go round jumping hoops for you unless - at this point - you ask me very sweetly indeed.


Jayjay4547 wrote:As you can see, the only pic of a skull with long sharp canine (c), isn’t even a fossil, let alone a hominin.


What are you even yammering about? You keep digging your own grave deeper and deeper, don't you?

They're ALL hominins JJ. :doh: :lol:

Mann, Alan; Mark Weiss (1996). "Hominoid Phylogeny and Taxonomy". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Secondly, you keep asking for something that doesn't exist even after I've explained to you several times that it doesn't exist, which not only reiterates the fact you don't have an inkling of the topic matter, but also underscores how you simply refuse ever to acknowledge your errors.

Further, the only 2 specimens shown there which aren't fossils or representing fossils are the left and right side of the first picture (which you've labeled as 3 separate pictures for some reason) - they're not meant to be fossils, I never said they were fossils, rather they were included to show a comparison between those 3 species which directly contradicted and disproved one of your many failed confident assertions.

So actually, the fact - as you can see - is that of the 6 pictures, 5 of them have long, sharp canines. Only one doesn't. 4 of those pictures are basically your worst nightmare, because not only do they contradict your endless assertions but they're also in pictorial form which you've declared is the only form of discourse I'm allowed to engage in that can't be seen as a smokescreen! :lol:

Oh JJ - you do it to yourself me old fruitcake.

And just for fun: see how I managed to answer all of that still without giving you the information you're obviously fishing for while still not demeaning yourself by actually asking for the information you clearly don't possess? :lol:

We can play this game as long as you like, JJ. It's fucking hilarious.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3598  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 26, 2019 7:22 am

For fun other people reading this thread - take a look at JJ's comparison picture

Image

Without needing to know anything at all about what species they are, or even anything about dentition... which pictures (by letter) would you say included examples of long, sharp canine teeth?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3599  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 26, 2019 8:44 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I know plenty of atheists who are neither bad nor mean.


Put me in touch with one of them, or spare me the anecdotes. Nothing you write indicates you really know anybody, anyhow. I don't really want to know what other people think of you, because that is neither here nor there with respect to the facts of evolution.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not crying, Cito. And there would be little point in presenting my argument on a fundy forum, where the responses probably wouldn’t help the exploration. However Young Earth creationists might come by here from time to time and notice that atheists are only able to keep their end up here by misrepresentations and slurs.


You are crying, JJ. Manifestly. But since you think there's no point to presenting your argument elsewhere, that leaves what you imply your point is, here, which is all about atheist ideology, according to you. According to me, it's all about your ignorance of the principles for analyzing scientific data.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Of course, I do act on the basis that there is intent in the universe; there is a God but that is based on my intuition.


Have you shown competence in any scientific topic you've discussed here? Evidence is to the contrary, because it is there for us to read. Of course you act as if there is intent in the universe. Bend a spoon with it, instead of whacking your knob at the bad, mean atheists. Whatever happened to your grand pronouncements about the laws of physics? How did the laws of physics eliminate the long pointy canines which you cannot demonstrate were eliminated? Can you give more details about the symbiotic relation between organisms and objects, given the way normal people (that is, people not demanding genuflection to creationist ideology) define 'symbiosis'?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Fuck this and fuck that hey. What I am alleging is that when it came to HUMAN origins, Darwin, then Dart and then everyone who followed, cherry picked the actors to be members of the same population.


Well, you know, JJ? Fuck your allegations. They're not data, they're the effluent of a fevered creationist imagination.
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: Lou Kleener
Posts: 28747
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3600  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 26, 2019 9:37 am

I tend to miss these little droolings amidst the oceans of dribble.

Darwin, then Dart and then everyone who followed, cherry picked the actors to be members of the same population.


It's JJ revising history... yet again! It's like he's never satisfied to shit on just one field of human knowledge, he has to diversify his portfolio of reality-denial.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests