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

#3621  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 29, 2019 1:06 am

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


What a smokescreen you put up there, to hide the central truth that, as the Smithsonian Institution put it succinctly, “They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans”. You tried to dismiss that as just a few words. When those few words are about facts and come from a source that isn’t deeply invested in a chatroom argument, then they should be taken seriously.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... -afarensis
A bit lower down in the same educational article, the Smithsonian expands on the canine facts:

“Au. afarensis shows strong sexual dimorphism in that the body sizes between males and females are quite different; however, sexual dimorphism in other primates is usually characterized by size differences in bodies and teeth. Fossil evidence shows that male Au. afarensis individuals had canine teeth comparable in size to those of females’.

To look a bit further into your highly technical-sounding explanation of why you had been able to state flatly that the sculptured model of Au. Afarensis was that of a female, I looked up the prominent Google references dealing with A.L.822-1 (Lucy), the famously well preserved fossil of a female.

Donald C. Johanson (2004) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3631138

William H. Kimbel and Yoel Rak (2010) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0070

It’s really clear from both of those articles that the diagnostic used to sex Lucy was was from size dimorphism just like the Smithsonian article said. In Lucy, they also had a large part of the rest of the skeleton to establish sex from size dimorphism. It also became clear to me that Lucy provides so far the most nearly complete female skull of that species. So your picture of the “many skulls” being used as a guide by the sculptor, sounds odd. It’s even odder that a sculptor should use only female models and then not label his product a female. It just doesn’t compute. In the three pics below, the two on the left are expert reconstructions of (a) Au.afarensis male and (b) female, for comparison with the sculpture (c) that you put such an effort into declaring was female, that it “just is” female, and then offering all that impressive sounding technical explanation. Followed by a stylistic flourish that I coloured blue, above.

afarensis_Male_Female_Modelled.jpg
afarensis_Male_Female_Modelled.jpg (18.2 KiB) Viewed 312 times

It looks to me that the sculptor could have used both those reconstructions in his modelling; the male for the brows, maybe the female for the prognathous jaw, that he didn’t set out to sculpture a female, that you had poor grounds for insisting it was female, that most of your technical explanations would only emerge from meticulous study of the originals, not from pics and that you were shooting from the hip while piling on the appeal to authority. One just can’t mix valid scientific authority with internet street fighting.

All that argument about the sex of a sculpture is a smokescreen to hide an essential message from our ape-brained Australopithecus ancestors: Their males didn’t have long sharp canines and in that they were similar to the females.

The impact of atheist ideology on the human origin story isn’t about subtle technical biases, it’s about gross alignments at 90 or 180 degrees to the truth. That’s how ideologies mess with our minds and the stories we tell. In this case it’s about a 100% buy in to sexual selection as opposed to natural selection.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1166
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3622  Postby Fenrir » Jun 29, 2019 1:32 am

Fenrir wrote:What's the difference between biome and environment here JJ?

Apart, that is, from the (vaguely undefined) CREATIVITYTM you seem so enamoured with.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3429
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

#3623  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 29, 2019 7:25 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote: 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.


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


Give!

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


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


Spearthrower wrote: 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.


I don’t know how Pokemon works. An algorithm? It did take a gradual process involving slight improvements, before the AK47 appeared. But an Oldowan hand axe would make an effective weapon. Last year a woman in my village was sitting on her bed with her cell phone when an intruder came in with a stone and hit her on the head, killing her instantly.

Your irreducible complexity argument doesn’t work here. There may be basically two types of defensive primitive kinetic weapons, (a) the stopper, whose function is to stop the onslaught of the attacker, take the initiative from it and make it vulnerable to (b); the striker weapon. The stopper also gives its user valuable window to choose when to strike. In boxing the left and right hands serve those respective purposes.

Spearthrower wrote:
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?


That isn’t my best argument, I was appealing to shared instinctive knowledge of how dangerous toothy primates are, which I think is a valuable resource for understanding inter-species relations involving us. When a cow flourishes her horns at a dog the cow knows what she is doing, so does the dog and so do I.

Anyway I have put up plenty of evidence about how dangerous toothy primate bites are; recently, pics of human victims of chimp attacks. Further back, I cited Watts et al (2006)
Lethal Intergroup Aggression by Chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda, that gives detail on injuries that chimps are capable of inflicting on each other.

Boesch (1991)leopard predation on chimps Tai forest https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/conten ... dation.pdf
This fascinating article details how a leopord ran from a group of male chimps, presumably because it needed to. And how another survived a night attack with deep scratch injuries, showing that the predator had been forced to break off an attack.


Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Wild monkeys or apes? And you just grabbed them with your bare hands? No problem? Goodness me.

Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Well you also aren’t an australopithecus, armed with a stopper and a striker, in a group of foraging australopithecines similarly armed, alert and expert at using kinetic hand weapons.

Spearthrower wrote: 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?


Here’s a youtube of a baboon chasing off a lion, until other members of the tribe turn up.
Evidently the lion did think the baboon posed a danger.

Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Here you are promoting sexual selection as the only possible driver for long sharp canines, as opposed to natural selection: exactly opposite to my argument. To take up your scenarios: a primate male whose long sharp canines enable it to dissuade predators from attacking and survives, or who is only is killed after impregnating a number of females because it is the alpha male, will pass on the genes favouring its defensive fighting genes. On the other hand, if a male fails in defence the effect on the whole troop may be catastrophic, maybe wiping out its entire gene pool and probably weakening the troop’s foraging ability.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1166
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3624  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 29, 2019 7:26 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:What a smokescreen you put up there, to hide the central truth that, as the Smithsonian Institution put it succinctly, “They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans”. You tried to dismiss that as just a few words. When those few words are about facts and come from a source that isn’t deeply invested in a chatroom argument, then they should be taken seriously.


And don't neglect to mention that symbiotic relationship with objects...

Jayjay4547 wrote:http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis
A bit lower down in the same educational article, the Smithsonian expands on the canine facts:

“Au. afarensis shows strong sexual dimorphism in that the body sizes between males and females are quite different; however, sexual dimorphism in other primates is usually characterized by size differences in bodies and teeth. Fossil evidence shows that male Au. afarensis individuals had canine teeth comparable in size to those of females’.


But don't neglect to mention that symbiotic relationship with objects.

Jayjay4547 wrote:To look a bit further into your highly technical-sounding explanation of why you had been able to state flatly that the sculptured model of Au. Afarensis was that of a female, I looked up the prominent Google references dealing with A.L.822-1 (Lucy), the famously well preserved fossil of a female.

Donald C. Johanson (2004) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3631138

William H. Kimbel and Yoel Rak (2010) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0070

It’s really clear from both of those articles that the diagnostic used to sex Lucy was was from size dimorphism just like the Smithsonian article said. In Lucy, they also had a large part of the rest of the skeleton to establish sex from size dimorphism. It also became clear to me that Lucy provides so far the most nearly complete female skull of that species. So your picture of the “many skulls” being used as a guide by the sculptor, sounds odd. It’s even odder that a sculptor should use only female models and then not label his product a female. It just doesn’t compute. In the three pics below, the two on the left are expert reconstructions of (a) Au.afarensis male and (b) female, for comparison with the sculpture (c) that you put such an effort into declaring was female, that it “just is” female, and then offering all that impressive sounding technical explanation. Followed by a stylistic flourish that I coloured blue, above.


You should also look a bit further into that symbiotic relationship with objects.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
afarensis_Male_Female_Modelled.jpg

It looks to me that the sculptor could have used both those reconstructions in his modelling; the male for the brows, maybe the female for the prognathous jaw, that he didn’t set out to sculpture a female, that you had poor grounds for insisting it was female, that most of your technical explanations would only emerge from meticulous study of the originals, not from pics and that you were shooting from the hip while piling on the appeal to authority. One just can’t mix valid scientific authority with internet street fighting.


Well, it also looks to you as if afarensis had a symbiotic relationship with objects. Find any fossils of relationships, yet, or are we going to go another couple of rounds on the way things look to you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:All that argument about the sex of a sculpture is a smokescreen to hide an essential message from our ape-brained Australopithecus ancestors: Their males didn’t have long sharp canines and in that they were similar to the females.


No, they had that symbiotic relationship to objects that only the very wise JJ can see, or say how things look to him.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The impact of atheist ideology on the human origin story isn’t about subtle technical biases, it’s about gross alignments at 90 or 180 degrees to the truth. That’s how ideologies mess with our minds and the stories we tell. In this case it’s about a 100% buy in to sexual selection as opposed to natural selection.


Somebody with a symbiotic relationship to tools could do better than you have.
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: 28745
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3625  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 29, 2019 7:43 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t know how Pokemon works.


You don't indicate that you know how anything works, JJ. But you're hell on wheels telling everyone the way things look to you.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But an Oldowan hand axe would make an effective weapon.


In close-quarters battle. With a scorpion. If he saw it in time. Same with large felids, if any were around, but perhaps less effective.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Last year a woman in my village was sitting on her bed with her cell phone when an intruder came in with a stone and hit her on the head, killing her instantly.


Was she an australopithecine, by any chance? And what about those large felids, and their cellphones. Oh, wait, that was back in the Miocene.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Your irreducible complexity argument doesn’t work here.


What, you mean, like, the irreducible complexity of the, um, biome?

Jayjay4547 wrote: There may be basically two types of defensive primitive kinetic weapons, (a) the stopper, whose function is to stop the onslaught of the attacker, take the initiative from it and make it vulnerable to (b); the striker weapon. The stopper also gives its user valuable window to choose when to strike. In boxing the left and right hands serve those respective purposes.


Are you fearful of being mugged, JJ? Even more relevantly, are you an australopithecine, with relevant experience in the use of primitive kinetic weapons against large felids, or maybe.... cave trolls?

Jayjay4547 wrote:That isn’t my best argument, I was appealing to shared instinctive knowledge of how dangerous toothy primates are, which I think is a valuable resource for understanding inter-species relations involving us. When a cow flourishes her horns at a dog the cow knows what she is doing, so does the dog and so do I.


Is that supposed to be your best argument? The dangers posed by toothy primates to large predatory felids, if any happen to be in the vicinity? What about back in the Miocene, or whenever the fuck you think you are?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway I have put up plenty of evidence about how dangerous toothy primate bites are; recently, pics of human victims of chimp attacks.


Well, we know how much humans unprepared for chimp attacks resemble large predatory felids, hunting by stealth.

Jayjay4547 wrote:This fascinating article details how a leopord ran from a group of male chimps, presumably because it needed to.


Presumably, JJ? Presumptions aren't data, but just more of your rectal effluent on primate sociobiology.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Wild monkeys or apes? And you just grabbed them with your bare hands? No problem? Goodness me.


Yes. Let your denial erupt in floods. It's your anecdotes against someone else's. How about some data, too. Without presumptions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Well you also aren’t an australopithecus, armed with a stopper and a striker, in a group of foraging australopithecines similarly armed, alert and expert at using kinetic hand weapons.


Ah, yes. That symbiotic relationship with objects. Right there in the fossil record.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Here you are promoting sexual selection as the only possible driver for long sharp canines, as opposed to natural selection: exactly opposite to my argument.


Yes, well, your 'argument' (I use the term loosely, here) is waving your hands at some mythical symbiotic relationship with objects. Don't forget, all your modern examples in videos and stills are not pictures of australopithecines in their habitat.

Jayjay4547 wrote:On the other hand, if a male fails in defence the effect on the whole troop may be catastrophic, maybe wiping out its entire gene pool and probably weakening the troop’s foraging ability.


That's one ravenous leopard, JJ, assuming one is in the vicinity.

Jayjay4547 wrote:may be catastrophic, maybe wiping out its entire gene pool and probably weakening the troop’s foraging ability.


Entire gene pool! I'm sure that, with a little mental illness and a seething resentment of atheism and atheists, I could come to the same conclusion. That does not need to be your problem, JJ, but if I was to spout the sort of garbage you are producing, I'd have to be delusional about my capacity to be rational and impartial. You just might be nothing more than terminally incompetent at scientific reasoning, or you could be under the influence of the religious claptrap that seems to be behind your years of writing hostile, disjointed, anti-scientific screeds into text boxes at rationalist forums.
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: 28745
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3626  Postby newolder » Jun 29, 2019 8:23 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:...
Here’s a youtube of a baboon chasing off a lion, until other members of the tribe turn up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebd36p4zkw Evidently the lion did think the baboon posed a danger. ...

Do you really refer to a group of lions as a tribe? Evidently, the single lioness toyed with the prey until others arrived to assist with the kill.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6618
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3627  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 29, 2019 9:34 am

Ill be back later to deal with the later offal dumped confidently onto the forum but I couldn't resist laughing at the ongoing foolishness of this:

I looked up the prominent Google references dealing with A.L.822-1 (Lucy), the famously well preserved fossil of a female.


That's not Lucy, JJ. Why do you keep pretending you know what you're talking about when you so obviously don't know what you're talking about?

Lucy is AL 288-1.

The fossil you're talking about was found 25 years later.

What does 'famously well preserved' mean with respect to a fossil? :)
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3628  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 29, 2019 9:37 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


Give!


Mango!


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: 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.


I don’t know how Pokemon works. An algorithm?


Magic JJ - much like your inferred Creator's method of tinkering with the cosmos.


Jayjay4547 wrote: It did take a gradual process involving slight improvements, before the AK47 appeared.


Bit of a leap there, JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote: But an Oldowan hand axe would make an effective weapon.


Sure, against other people similarly armed, or unarmed. Of course, the problem with a hand axe is that you need to be very close to employ it. That's the business area of a predator: up close. Go and test it JJ - you can even take a modern axe if you like... go and challenge a lion to a duel and report back about your success.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Last year a woman in my village was sitting on her bed with her cell phone when an intruder came in with a stone and hit her on the head, killing her instantly.


Heads are like that: they crack when hit with a heavy sharp thing. Bit easier to hit a woman sitting on a bed, though, than an adult lion charging at you.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Your irreducible complexity argument doesn’t work here.


Which 'irreducible complexity argument' is that then? The one you made up for me?


Jayjay4547 wrote: There may be basically two types of defensive primitive kinetic weapons, (a) the stopper, whose function is to stop the onslaught of the attacker, take the initiative from it and make it vulnerable to (b); the striker weapon. The stopper also gives its user valuable window to choose when to strike. In boxing the left and right hands serve those respective purposes.


Wonderful. Science is a great enterprise JJ - you want to make claims in it, you don't do it from your armchair. What you need to do to establish your fantastic scenario as being valid is to go and face off with a lion with just a stone bladed implement... screw it: take a steel axe, I'll give that a free pass. Also note that a single instance is insufficient for statistical data analysis; I would say 100 lions would be ample. Of course, you don't need to take them all on at once. Feel free to stretch this little experiment out as long as it takes.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
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?


That isn’t my best argument, I was appealing to shared instinctive knowledge of how dangerous toothy primates are, which I think is a valuable resource for understanding inter-species relations involving us. When a cow flourishes her horns at a dog the cow knows what she is doing, so does the dog and so do I.


Your 'shared instinctive knowledge' is wholly fallacious JJ. You are arguing that 'toothiness' in primates is sufficient to ward off predators. I actually already addressed this in detail just a few pages back, and of course you ignored it in entirety because you refuse to allow any reality to permeate your fantasy world.

I even gave you the very best scenario, because that's how you best show something terminally wrong. Grey langurs (Semnopithecus) have absolutely massive canine teeth - quite ridiculous in some species relative to their body size.

Image

Look again at that fearsome dentition. If anything about your argument is going to be observable, then these chaps are the fellas for you.

So how well do you think they work when a grey langur is hunted by a tiger, JJ?

As I already informed you in this very thread, and you wholly ignored to carry on asserting your fiction, a grey langur is - on average - about 20 inches long not including their tails, and their average weight is around 18 kg.

Tigers predate on grey langur. A male bengal tiger is around 120 inches long, and weighs approximately 325 kg. That makes the tiger 18 times heavier than its prey.

In your fictious notion, you actually believe that an inch long canine is going to give a bengal tiger reason for caution. Of course, in reality no such event is observed.

When a monkey, no matter how large and well endowed with canine teeth, sees a tiger... it does what any sensible monkey would do and fucking legs it as fast as it can towards the nearest tree. If it were to stop and bare its fangs, all that would happen is that it would completely nullify any chance it might have of surviving - this is not a survival trait, JJ... it is not a trait that confers a benefit to be preferentially selected for; it's pure fiction on your part as I've now explained to you dozens of times.

Your refusal to engage in reality does not mean you are making a strong case, JJ - it just means you are repeatedly exhibiting your blinkered belief in your own proclamations over and above real world observation and evidence.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Anyway I have put up plenty of evidence about how dangerous toothy primate bites are;...


No, no you have not.


Jayjay4547 wrote: recently, pics of human victims of chimp attacks.


Pics of chimp attacks against a tiger or other predator, JJ? :)

No, of course not. Against old, unarmed humans. And as we already addressed each and every time you've raised this specious nonsense, the chimpanzee didn't leap fangs bared towards these victims, but pummeled them senseless and then began using its teeth exactly what teeth are used for: to bite stuff.

So any which way you try to spin this, it's got nothing to do with your argument. No 'defensive biting' occurred. Ergo, no support whatsoever for your fantasy.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Further back, I cited Watts et al (2006)
Lethal Intergroup Aggression by Chimpanzees in Kibale National Park, Uganda, that gives detail on injuries that chimps are capable of inflicting on each other.


Inflicting on EACH OTHER! :lol:

That's exactly what you're supposedly arguing AGAINST!

Jesus, what a numpty.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Boesch (1991)leopard predation on chimps Tai forest https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/conten ... dation.pdf
This fascinating article details how a leopord ran from a group of male chimps, presumably because it needed to.


Undoubtedly it ran from a group of male chimps, JJ, because as I've told you dozens of times in this thread and you've tried to deny - 1) leopards are stealth hunters which pick off isolated, injured, or juvenile prey not engage in gladiatorial combat as per your woolly ideas 2) group responses are how ground primates respond to predatory threats: not defensive biting.

It's like you suddenly abandoned all your arguments and are now admitting that all the things I've told you over the last 30 pages are actually correct, even though you denied them repeatedly.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And how another survived a night attack with deep scratch injuries, showing that the predator had been forced to break off an attack.


And? It's hardly like it offers a jot of support for your contentions.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Wild monkeys or apes? And you just grabbed them with your bare hands? No problem? Goodness me.


No 'danger' JJ - remember what you asserted? That it was 'dangerous'. It's really not with most primates because they're a damn sight smaller than us. Even a bite isn't going to kill you (aside from infection) because most primates are so much smaller that the bite would be equivalent to that of a house cat; the 'danger' is really put in perspective; try a tiger's bite to see the real world deficit of your argument.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Well you also aren’t an australopithecus, armed with a stopper and a striker, in a group of foraging australopithecines similarly armed, alert and expert at using kinetic hand weapons.


No, but I am a human, and I'll happily give you a stopper and a striker (you and your silly idiosyncrasies) and film you fend off a hungry tiger if you'd like? That'd last all of 5 seconds, and then it'd be lunch... unfortunately, you wouldn't be partaking in lunch aside from by being it.

Have you never seen this video, JJ?



That guy has two sticks and a fucking elephant JJ, and it helped him not a jot! :lol:

That's where real world rips apart your fiction, garrotes your nonsense, then chows down heartily on your make-believe. I don't think you have the faintest idea what predators are capable of.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: 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?


Here’s a youtube of a baboon chasing off a lion, until other members of the tribe turn up.


:lol:

Before even looking at the video, I have to laugh at how stacked you need the deck. Baboons are the largest non-hominoid primates, so even if we were to see (which I know we won't) an example of the fiction you've been peddling, you still need to explain how your 'argument' is consistent with all the primates weighing a fraction of the baboon. For example, take the pygmy marmoset weighing in at 100 grammes and tell us how its canine teeth help it stave off lions! :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote: Evidently the lion did think the baboon posed a danger.


HA! That's brilliant. Once again, it's almost like the part of your brain your cognitive bias keeps bullying to be quiet has forced its way to the front so that you end up making a total mockery of your own argument! :lol:

1) Did you see any 'defensive biting' JJ? :lol:

2) What happened to the 'brave' baboon, JJ? Now remind us how this trait is selectively favoured! :lol:

Hilarious.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Here you are promoting sexual selection as the only possible driver for long sharp canines, as opposed to natural selection:


Don't lie JJ. I have written MANY times that the primary function of teeth, and consequently the most important adaptive pressure is for the consumption of food. When you lie like this, it is not only obvious that you are lying, but it also evidences why people consider your argumentation to be so deceptive.

Secondly, I am not an adaptationist, JJ. I don't believe that every millimetre has to be accounted for with a just-so adaptation story. I know beyond doubt that there is variation among any population, and consequently I know that the majority of those values are perfectly adequate for an individual to make a good living. Ergo, there's no 'one' driver, there are competing factors that play out in the aggregate over geographical space and generational time.

Thirdly, I have already explained to you in detail that sexual selection is PART of natural selection, so you are forwarding an entirely erroneous notion that is indicative of the paucity of relevant knowledge you possess on this topic. Your argument is fallacious, and your comprehension is faulty. Given that you have been educated about this in detail, it once again indicates how deceitful your argumentation is, and how lacking your position must be to keep erecting falsehoods.


Jayjay4547 wrote: exactly opposite to my argument.


Yes, your argument is provably wrong. Direct observation shows it is wrong. Your ability to collect words and formulate sentences does not lend the resulting assertion any validity: it remains an assertion you have failed to establish, and worse, have been shown wrong by real world data.


Jayjay4547 wrote:To take up your scenarios: a primate male whose long sharp canines enable it to dissuade predators from attacking and survives, or who is only is killed after impregnating a number of females because it is the alpha male, will pass on the genes favouring its defensive fighting genes


Thanks for playing.

Let's assume that sometimes it works. Sometimes, a primate ( :lol: sorry, I am laughing at the concept of a langur standing its ground against a tiger, but hey, let's enjoy the fantasy)... sometimes a primate stands its ground and thereby deters the attacker. Well done, it gets to pass on its stand-your-ground genes. Unfortunately, evolution is statistical, the aggregate of every individual's genes in a population... and statistically, those monkeys which stand their ground rather than flee up a tree die - they do not survive. So the occasional one lucky bugger who just so baffled the predator that it survived offers no actual example of an evolutionary pressure towards standing ground because, on balance, standing your ground gets you killed. If that same heroic monkey tried it again the next day, the result would almost inevitably be it becoming lunch.

I already debunked this fantasy scenario of yours before JJ. In fact, this entire post has already been addressed before, so basically this shows how you repeatedly ignore all the arguments which counter your assertions, evidencing that you are proselytizing, not discussing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:On the other hand, if a male fails in defence the effect on the whole troop may be catastrophic, maybe wiping out its entire gene pool and probably weakening the troop’s foraging ability.


No, they're all up a tree JJ which is a far better bet for a primate when faced with a hungry predator, as the brave baboon you appealed to found out.
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3629  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 29, 2019 11:19 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
What a smokescreen you put up there,...


And so JJ has decided that this is the best rhetorical angle he's got. He tested out a few ideas so far to avoid acknowledging facts, and even though this one is weak, transparently self-serving, and basically just means he's calling me a liar, he's decided that this offers the best angle going forward.

What a deceitful person you are, JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote: to hide the central truth that, as the Smithsonian Institution put it succinctly, “They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans”. You tried to dismiss that as just a few words. When those few words are about facts and come from a source that isn’t deeply invested in a chatroom argument, then they should be taken seriously.


Your argument is pathetic, JJ. I've addressed this dozens of times already. What clownishness. You have taken one single adjective and pretended that it justifies all the arguments you've made.

Of course, in reality, it does no such thing.

There's no 'central truth' there, JJ... there's only your abject confusion and unwillingness to allow reality to invade your ego-driven proselytization.


Jayjay4547 wrote:http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis
A bit lower down in the same educational article, the Smithsonian expands on the canine facts:

“Au. afarensis shows strong sexual dimorphism in that the body sizes between males and females are quite different; however, sexual dimorphism in other primates is usually characterized by size differences in bodies and teeth. Fossil evidence shows that male Au. afarensis individuals had canine teeth comparable in size to those of females’.


So how do you account for the scientific papers I've cited here that say otherwise, JJ? Oooh I know! Cherrypick! It's your go-to strategy! :)

Again, because you know basically fuck all about the topic, you are unaware of the decades of discussion about australopithecine dimorphism, and how new finds keep changing the position back and forth.

One of the issues here I've already talked about around 30 pages ago is that you are working on an essentialized 'australopithecus' that doesn't even acknowledge different species, let alone variation within that species. That acts like a blinker for you. So you're unaware that of the dozens of fossils we've found of afarensis, there has been huge variation. The variation is both geographical and temporal. Earlier afarensis, like Lucy, were only 3 feet tall and possibly weighing around 25 kg, while more northern and later finds were well over 4 feet tall potentially weighing up to 60kg - that's a massive range of values. Similarly, we have a wide range of dimorphic qualities between the various individuals. If you went back 20 years or so, you'd find that most anthropologists conceived of afarensis as exhibiting approximately the same degree of sexual dimorphism as gorilla, then about 10 years ago that would have changed to about the same as modern humans, but most analysis (amusingly the Bayesian analysis you appealed to even though you didn't understand it) suggests that afarensis as a whole was probably slightly more sexually dimorphic than the common chimpanzee, i.e males were around 20% larger than females.

Similarly, as the papers I've cited show, there is ample evidence that afarensis males had longer canines than females, as well as a huge number of other cranial morphological distinctions, some of which I've already pointed out to you. But the question you continually refuse to even consider is 'how much longer' and the answer to that is really quite complicated and has resulted in around 25 years of discussion in the scientific literature because there's no simple way to approach a comparison. Again, one has to employ statistical analysis of available specimens, measuring a number of values to predict canine length (among other things) based on variables like jaw depth and length where dentition was not preserved, but there is not a single methodology and different analyses yield different results, so the samples and systems some anthropologists use are challenged by others, and in turn their own methodology is challenged by yet other groups.

So the page from Smithsonian is not exactly correct; it's a gross simplification of an on-going discussion - but then again, as I've pointed out a dozen times already, it's basically a dummy's guide to afarensis, so it consequently lacks a massive degree of specificity that you'd only find by reading peer-reviewed literature. My guess is that their information is taken from Reno et al's resampling techniques used to estimate sexual dimorphism who concluded that there was less dimorphism than in modern humans. But of course if you read the literature, you'd know that technique was immediately criticized by Plavcan et al, the criticisms including that Reno's basal sample AL 333 is unrepresentative, that many of the samples they used actually belong to a smaller number of individuals than was inferred and the results consequently skewed, that the majority of the samples were probably from males which weighted the analysis incorrectly, that some of the specimens were juvenile and consequently misrepresentative due to the long developmental period of canine crown formation, and consequently the resulting values are underestimated and that the dimorphism is actually greater than reported. Ironically, one of their most interesting arguments was that the analysis did not take into account natural variability among different individuals basing nearly all of their estimates on the values derived from the baseline of AL 333.

Of course, there's been a back and forth about this over the years, but there's no final answer to make a compelling conclusion. At present, the best reading of the data is what I already gave you many times and which you've ignored: there was approximately as much dimorphism in afarensis as between modern chimpanzees, which means that afarensis male canines were about 1.6 times the length of a female's. This does again reflect on your notion that you can simply eyeball a picture (a picture which isn't even an actual fossil) and simply assert reality. It also reflects on your claim that things are simple and they're being unnecessarily complicated: no, they are necessarily complicated if you want your position to be as accurate as possible.

Finally, as I told you... 35 pages ago? You really should focus on A. africanus because it exhibits the least sexual dimorphism in canine length of all the australopithecines, which ironically, is why I kept telling you to stop using numpty language and talking about 'australopithecus'.


Jayjay4547 wrote:To look a bit further into your highly technical-sounding explanation of why you had been able to state flatly that the sculptured model of Au. Afarensis was that of a female,...


It's not 'technical-sounding' JJ - it's just technical.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I looked up the prominent Google references dealing with A.L.822-1 (Lucy), the famously well preserved fossil of a female.


We've already addressed how poorly this goes for you. Looking stuff up on Google might, in some contexts, be commendable. But you have to realize that spending 5 minutes on Google does not mean you have arrived at the facts. You still need to know what it is you're looking at.

This provides yet another instance of such an example that you will undoubtedly fail to learn.

AL 822 is NOT Lucy.

Lucy is AL 288 - a completely different specimen found 25 years apart, and separated by around 150,000 years. That's a lot of time, JJ. That's a lot of time for a lot of variation. This is one reason why you might need a little bit more expertise than just being able to type words into Google.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Donald C. Johanson (2004) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3631138

William H. Kimbel and Yoel Rak (2010) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0070

It’s really clear from both of those articles that the diagnostic used to sex Lucy was was from size dimorphism just like the Smithsonian article said.


Lucy... not AL 822... :doh:

There's rather an obvious reason why you couldn't sex Lucy from her cranium, JJ. Can you guess what that might be? :doh:

Clearly you can't guess, and you've just bumbled your way along here without a clue.

Here JJ: look at a picture of the Lucy fossil, now take a close look at the cranium and tell me what you see. :lol:

Image


Jayjay4547 wrote:In Lucy, they also had a large part of the rest of the skeleton to establish sex from size dimorphism.


In Lucy they did, yes, it's most of the cranum they're missing! :doh:


Jayjay4547 wrote: It also became clear to me that Lucy provides so far the most nearly complete female skull of that species.


It became 'clear' to you that Lucy, the first specimen found of afarensis, and a specimen nearly entirely lacking any cranium at all provides the most complete female skull of afarensis?

You're so far down your hole, and you just keep digging! :lol:

Once again, we have an example of the 'signal' you keep going on about, and how you keep ignoring all the 'noise' which is all the bits you really should be paying attention to, but you're so egotistical, so certain of yourself, that you don't even notice when you make such a ridiculous error.

This is exactly what I have pointed to throughout: you really clearly know fuck all, and yet here you are expounding confidently while manifestly being entirely clueless. That's this thread, JJ. The entire content of this thread, your entire tenure here, is summed up perfectly by this comedy.

***continued below***
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3630  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 29, 2019 11:19 pm

***cont***

Jayjay4547 wrote:So your picture of the “many skulls” being used as a guide by the sculptor, sounds odd.


Sounds odd to you, does it? :)

That's nice.


Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s even odder that a sculptor should use only female models and then not label his product a female.


As I mentioned before, you'd need to take that up with the sculptor - it's not me who decided to post a model of a skull rather than posting the fossils. Perhaps you should choose a more legitimate source in the future?


Jayjay4547 wrote: It just doesn’t compute.


Clearly, it really does not compute, but yet you still are so full of yourself.


Jayjay4547 wrote: In the three pics below, the two on the left are expert reconstructions of (a) Au.afarensis male and (b) female, for comparison with the sculpture (c) that you put such an effort into declaring was female, that it “just is” female, and then offering all that impressive sounding technical explanation. Followed by a stylistic flourish that I coloured blue, above.


You don't seem to have a point there, aside from suggesting you're impressed by the technical explanation. :)

Are you going to tell me something about how you've eyeballed it and they look the same or something?



Jayjay4547 wrote:It looks to me that the sculptor could have used both those reconstructions in his modelling; the male for the brows, maybe the female for the prognathous jaw, that he didn’t set out to sculpture a female, that you had poor grounds for insisting it was female,...


It looks to you... and? We've already established that what something looks like to you is a poor yardstick comparative to what it actually is. Remember? You couldn't tell a male from a female, couldn't tell an adult from a juvenile, and couldn't even tell one species from another? :lol: THAT's how well your eyeballing methodology works, and it's right here recorded for posterity.

And all the above is just pointless misdirection, because the morphological descriptions I gave are still relevant and accurate.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... that most of your technical explanations would only emerge from meticulous study of the originals, not from pics...


:lol:

Guilty as charged!

Fuck me JJ, you're on a roll tonight! :lol:

That is LITERALLY what I told you over and over and over again. I KNOW what fossils its based on, and therefore I KNOW that it is female, and I can see the female morphological characteristics in the dodgy model you posted and are STILL arguing about.

Either you're engaging in the most magnificent deceit yet, or you've lost your marbles JJ - which is it?

LOOK! :lol:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699807

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.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699807

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


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699818

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.


And that's only perhaps half or less of the times I expressly told you this amazing thing you've only just alighted on 30 fucking pages later!

Do you just ignore everything that other people write? That would go a long way to explaining why you keep repeating your errors after being corrected.

I told you over and over and over again that I know it's MEANT to be a female because I know what fossils it's based on (because as we've already established, there is a shit tonne of variation among afarensis finds, and so it's actually quite easy to the trained eye to spot what that model is based on) and consequently I knew what it was meant to be.

Similarly, I also know what's wrong with that model - the model you posted and the model which you're still appealing to now 30 or 40 pages later after having been shown you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Here's a tip JJ: don't post models any more. Post the fossils themselves and then you won't find yourself in such a contorted situation that you and you alone have put yourself in.


Jayjay4547 wrote:and that you were shooting from the hip while piling on the appeal to authority.


Non-sequitur. Knowing the fossils doesn't amount to 'shooting from the hip'. And factually, I didn't appeal to authority at all, in fact, in the quote you cited I expressly told you that the morphological descriptions weren't ones I had made up and were right because I said so, but because they were the ones described in the papers around those fossil finds.

Stop bullshitting eh, JJ? It's not helping you in any way.


Jayjay4547 wrote: One just can’t mix valid scientific authority with internet street fighting.


You may know about the latter, but you're irrelevant with respect to the former, and have made it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that you wouldn't know scientific validity if it was fucking you up the arse! :) There you go; I've given you something to whine about so you can distract from your monumental failure.


Jayjay4547 wrote: All that argument about the sex of a sculpture is a smokescreen to hide an essential message from our ape-brained Australopithecus ancestors:...


No, it's just a factual description of the morphological features of a female afarensis which you were wholly ignorant of.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Their males didn’t have long sharp canines and in that they were similar to the females.


Numpty 'australopithecus' is back again, and consequently you're completely wrong. You'd be much closer to being right if you were talking about A africanus, as I've told you before, but you've ignored because you don't really know what you're talking about. But for afarensis, males factually had reasonably substantially longer canines than females.


Jayjay4547 wrote: The impact of atheist ideology on the human origin story...


And after this monumental voyage into embarrassing public idiocy, you're back with your thesis statement which is the only smokescreen here: for you to engage in self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.


Jayjay4547 wrote: isn’t about subtle technical biases,...


Gosh, that would be useful for you if it were the case, wouldn't it JJ?

Unfortunately, it really is the case. You can count the number of people who know how to sex an australopithecine fossil in the hundreds. But even though you're one of the 7.7 billion people who can't, you still think you can simply decree your way onwards via assertion.


Jayjay4547 wrote: it’s about gross alignments at 90 or 180 degrees to the truth.


I think that's a very accurate description of your entire participation on this forum.


Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s how ideologies mess with our minds and the stories we tell.


I couldn't agree more: Creationism is bad for your mind.


Jayjay4547 wrote: In this case it’s about a 100% buy in to sexual selection as opposed to natural selection.


Case in point: you've just repeated an extremely elementary error even after you've had that error explained to you a dozen times. Your arrogance, your ego, your hatred of atheists has made a public fool out of you. You've become rational skepticism's village idiot, JJ.
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3631  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 29, 2019 11:28 pm

I know I've already responded to this above, but I want to just pull it out separately and leave it right here for the amusement factor.

Let's recall, JJ said he would leave the forum in shame if he had misidentified a primate skull. Well, test case scenario, not just misidentified here, but then waxed lyrical about how everything is so clear to him when he doesn't even have the faintest idea what he's looking at.


To look a bit further into your highly technical-sounding explanation of why you had been able to state flatly that the sculptured model of Au. Afarensis was that of a female, I looked up the prominent Google references dealing with A.L.822-1 (Lucy), the famously well preserved fossil of a female.

Donald C. Johanson (2004) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3631138

William H. Kimbel and Yoel Rak (2010) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0070

It’s really clear from both of those articles that the diagnostic used to sex Lucy was was from size dimorphism just like the Smithsonian article said. In Lucy, they also had a large part of the rest of the skeleton to establish sex from size dimorphism. It also became clear to me that Lucy provides so far the most nearly complete female skull of that species.


:lol:
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3632  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 30, 2019 12:09 am

And let's highlight some of the difficulties here.

Firstly, the majority of papers I would want to cite are behind a pay wall - it's a small field, they need to make money.

Secondly, as I explained to JJ earlier, and which seems to have caused him much afront, the language used between experts in this field is highly technical.

So let's take a look at an extract expressly about canine dimorphism in afarensis from William Kimbel, Director and Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment at the Institute of Human Origins.

... Nevertheless, the A.L. 444-2 maxillary tooth size is larger than the mean values for comparable teeth assigned to A. afarensis (with the exception of the MD dimension of I1). In fact, the MD dimensions of the P4, M2, M3, and La (B)L dimensions of the I1 and P1-M3 define the high end of the range for these teeth in the hypodigm. As a result, and because the A.L. 444-2 canine size is not unusually large (it is matched or exceeded in LaL breadth by A.L. 333-1, A.L. 333w-2, A.L. 333x-3, and LH 3), its canine:postcanine tooth size is lower than in the few other A. afarensis specimens in which the ratio can be calculated. It is, of course, nothing like the extreme disproportion seen in later Australopithecus dentitions (Robinson, 1956; Tobia 1967; White et al., 1981; Suwa 1989).

Although little useful morphology remains on the A.L. 444-2 dentition, the new Hadar collection includes maxillary dental elements that amplify previous descriptions of A. afarensis dental morphology, especially that of the more diagnostic anterior teeth (White et al., 1981). Four adult maxillary canines have been added to the Hadar hominin sample as a result of the fieldwork. Two of these are fairly heavily worn (the teeth associated with the A.L. 444-2 and AL. 417-1d maxillae) but two isolated specimens (A.L. 487-1c and A.L. 763-1) are relatively unworn permitting comparative evaluation. Crown dimensions suggest that A.L. 487-1c is from a male individual (which is also indicated by the size of the associated lower canines, postcanine teeth and jaw fragments); morphologically it compares favourably with the canines from A.L. 333-2 (worn) and LH6 (relatively unworn). The A.L. 763-1 canine is smaller and is most likely from a female individual.



What odd descriptions of teeth that are supposedly - according to JJ - the same in male and female!

It couldn't possibly be that it's just not as simple as he'd like to believe, and that despite his protestations to the contrary, it's not that it is simple, but rather that it's his understanding which is simplistic.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 30, 2019 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3633  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 30, 2019 12:36 am

And a 2010 paper by Ward and Plavcan has pictures, which is the only way I'm supposedly allowed to present information, but sadly not pictures of the fossils, but rather a chart:

Dental dimensions for mandibular canine crowns and roots
Image

Dental dimensions for maxillary canine crowns
Image
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3634  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 30, 2019 4:06 am

newolder wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:...
Here’s a youtube of a baboon chasing off a lion, until other members of the tribe turn up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebd36p4zkw Evidently the lion did think the baboon posed a danger. ...

Do you really refer to a group of lions as a tribe? Evidently, the single lioness toyed with the prey until others arrived to assist with the kill.


The interesting thing was that she needed to wait for morel lions to arrive before tackling the baboon, contra Spearthrower's claim that the long sharp canines characteristic of primate males (apart from hominins) can do no more than "scratch" a predator.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1166
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3635  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 30, 2019 4:13 am

Spearthrower wrote:Ill be back later to deal with the later offal dumped confidently onto the forum but I couldn't resist laughing at the ongoing foolishness of this:

I looked up the prominent Google references dealing with A.L.822-1 (Lucy), the famously well preserved fossil of a female.


That's not Lucy, JJ. Why do you keep pretending you know what you're talking about when you so obviously don't know what you're talking about?

Lucy is AL 288-1.

The fossil you're talking about was found 25 years later.

What does 'famously well preserved' mean with respect to a fossil? :)


That was a stupid mistake to call A.L. 822-1 "Lucy". Fuck. It doesn't change anything else I said about A.L. 822-1, or the picture of the reconstructed skull.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1166
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3636  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 30, 2019 4:42 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The interesting thing was that she needed to wait for morel lions to arrive before tackling the baboon,...


Says who?


Jayjay4547 wrote: contra Spearthrower's claim that the long sharp canines characteristic of primate males (apart from hominins) can do no more than "scratch" a predator.



JJ, the video offered zero evidence supporting your claim - no teeth were bared at all. You flunked.

Luckily, you didn't flunk as hard as the baboon who became lunch instead of scarpering off up a tree.

So much for that evolutionary strategy, eh? :lol:
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3637  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 30, 2019 4:44 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
That was a stupid mistake to call A.L. 822-1 "Lucy". Fuck. It doesn't change anything else I said about A.L. 822-1, or the picture of the reconstructed skull.


Ummm

You might want to read what you typed actually JJ, because everything you wrote was utter shite due to that cock-up.

Recall writing that it was 'clear' to you that Lucy is the best example of a complete afarensis skull... and how you tried to leverage that?

Recall citing articles about Lucy from which you drew conclusions... that were completely irrelevant to AL 822-1? :)

You make your bed chap.
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: 25791
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3638  Postby newolder » Jun 30, 2019 8:08 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
newolder wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:...
Here’s a youtube of a baboon chasing off a lion, until other members of the tribe turn up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebd36p4zkw Evidently the lion did think the baboon posed a danger. ...

Do you really refer to a group of lions as a tribe? Evidently, the single lioness toyed with the prey until others arrived to assist with the kill.


The interesting thing was that she needed to wait for morel lions to arrive before tackling the baboon, contra Spearthrower's claim that the long sharp canines characteristic of primate males (apart from hominins) can do no more than "scratch" a predator.

You don't know what she needed jj. You are speculating without data and your output is uninteresting. A single hunting instance provides some, but very little, information. Here's another speculation, based on years of watching the behaviour of felids, but as invalid as your own...

A hunting pack of lionesses from a closely knit pride based nearby were out investigating some scrub bushes - perhaps for a water hole. :dunno: They spread out over, say, half a hectare whereupon one lioness met, and surprised, a baboon taking a shit. Oh, how she laughed to see the monkey upset by the intrusion and decided to play along for a while before an inevitable snack. She taunted the baboon with subliminal messages like, "Oh, please don't bite me with those big fangs of yours." (in a squeaky voice but all the while giggling under her breath). Anyhoo, the other lionesses got the drift of what was occurring and approached and killed the baboon forthwith and without a scratch or bite being delivered by the baboon.

Stories without data are just stories.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6618
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3639  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 30, 2019 10:25 am

newolder wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
newolder wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:...
Here’s a youtube of a baboon chasing off a lion, until other members of the tribe turn up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebd36p4zkw Evidently the lion did think the baboon posed a danger. ...

Do you really refer to a group of lions as a tribe? Evidently, the single lioness toyed with the prey until others arrived to assist with the kill.


The interesting thing was that she needed to wait for morel lions to arrive before tackling the baboon, contra Spearthrower's claim that the long sharp canines characteristic of primate males (apart from hominins) can do no more than "scratch" a predator.

You don't know what she needed jj. You are speculating without data and your output is uninteresting. A single hunting instance provides some, but very little, information. Here's another speculation, based on years of watching the behaviour of felids, but as invalid as your own...

A hunting pack of lionesses from a closely knit pride based nearby were out investigating some scrub bushes - perhaps for a water hole. :dunno: They spread out over, say, half a hectare whereupon one lioness met, and surprised, a baboon taking a shit. Oh, how she laughed to see the monkey upset by the intrusion and decided to play along for a while before an inevitable snack. She taunted the baboon with subliminal messages like, "Oh, please don't bite me with those big fangs of yours." (in a squeaky voice but all the while giggling under her breath). Anyhoo, the other lionesses got the drift of what was occurring and approached and killed the baboon forthwith and without a scratch or bite being delivered by the baboon.

Stories without data are just stories.


That's what you have done: built up a story close knit pride, water hole, hectare, shit, laughed play long, taunted, subliminal message, without a scratch. The only constructive word I used was she "needed" to wait for backup. That is, I assumed the predator and prey were both acting logically. In these clips:
Brave monkey fights lion.jpg
Brave monkey fights lion.jpg (12.54 KiB) Viewed 182 times

At 10s the baboon jerks back, surprised by the lioness who is out of sight from the camera but is coming around the bush.
At 11s the lion appears looking directly at the baboon.
At 12s the baboon is lunging towards the lion, who is recoiling.
At 16s the lion is side on to the baboon and looking at her chaser, but later on she continues running away.

Basically that baboon was in a hopeless position but at every stage it seems to have been doing the logical best in the situation. When other lions appear it retreated under a bush where it could present a front.

You say you have spent years watching the behaviour of felids. Have you ever seen a lion running away from prey without it being in danger from that prey?

If this conversation carries on, someone is going to mention that this lioness seemed to be a juvenile, so it might as well be me.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1166
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3640  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 30, 2019 10:29 am

I see JJ is still confusing his rectum for a source information.
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: fluttermoth and 3 guests