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

#3921  Postby Alan B » Sep 16, 2019 4:32 pm

Perhaps he's getting lonely. Maybe his Anglican congregation is approaching single figures...
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9615
Age: 83
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3922  Postby Macdoc » Sep 16, 2019 4:47 pm

single old figures.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15819
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3923  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 17, 2019 7:01 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Consequent to that, the fact that you have been told dozens of times by multiple people that NO, sexual selection does not mean 'self-created' with ample examples refuting your claim...


True, I have been told many times that sexual selection does not mean 'self created’ but I can’t recall a single example being offered. I’m not even sure what a counter example would look like. From my side I offered Maslin (2017) as an example where all the actors are within-species. I pointed out that this was not an isolated line of argument, but originated with Darwin, was passed on by Desmond Morris, and that with Maslin this thread nosedived into triviality in the face of with the hugely creative human faculties of speech and symbiotic-like relationship with objects.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1090
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3924  Postby newolder » Sep 17, 2019 7:36 am

M.C. Escher's, "Drawing hands" would be an example of self creation if it weren't just a drawing.

Sexual reproduction is not self creation by any stretch of any imagination.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6476
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3925  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 17, 2019 9:03 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Consequent to that, the fact that you have been told dozens of times by multiple people that NO, sexual selection does not mean 'self-created' with ample examples refuting your claim...


True, I have been told many times that sexual selection does not mean 'self created’ but I can’t recall a single example being offered.


Oh well that's useful then, isn't it.

Now your recollection is the bar we're supposed to meet? :nono:

Well, I can recall them, even if you can't.

For example, after numerous attempts to get you to understand, I took a picture of my chilli plants to provoke in you some actual thought about what your idea entails, and how readily it is shown false.

Did you respond?

Of course you fucking didn't. You're not interested in whether your idea corresponds well with facts. You want your ideas to be taken as fact. Well, that's not going to happen.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not even sure what a counter example would look like.


Well, that's a serious indictment on your little theory then, isn't it? In the real world, you're rather obliged to work hard to find ways your pet notion could be falsified, because if it's not even open to falsification, then it's not an operational theory at all.

A counter example would be quite simple: sexual selection is just a component of natural selection. A lion - i.e. an organism which is not you - 'selects' you because you look a bit weaker, less able to run away, you've got a gammy leg... a female of your own species - i.e. an organism which is not you - 'selects' you because you look a bit stronger, a bit more numerous in the sperm count, and you've got a magnificent <insert species appropriate appendage>. The 2 cases are functionally the same; it's only your typical half-baked lack of sensible reasoning argumentation which sneaks in the stupid notion that individuals of the same species can be consider 'self' in the first place.


Jayjay4547 wrote: From my side I offered Maslin (2017) as an example where all the actors are within-species.


You posted that a couple of days ago.

That's in comparison to the months you've been banging on repeating yourself, ignoring every reply, and I already expressly told you that ...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2712144

You replied to another one of my posts JJ, but I am not going to invest the time to read it until you invest the time to make a decision regarding your manner of posting.

Just as Scot was taken to task for being aggressive and generally toxic, so you need to stop using this forum as a platform as a means of venting your hostility about boogeymen atheists that exist only in your imagination.



So until you make that decision, I'm simply not going to bother with any of your endless series of babushka dolls. And by not bother, I mean not even read. So it's really up to you whether you're spending that time typing expecting people to read your post, or whether you are simply casting your words into the wind.

However, it's clear you are - once again, and with zero justification - taking sexual selection to be analogous with 'self' when sexual selection very expressly requires more than just self.

But again, this is typical as your very next line shows:

Jayjay4547 wrote:I pointed out that this was not an isolated line of argument, but originated with Darwin, was passed on by Desmond Morris, and that with Maslin this thread nosedived into triviality in the face of with the hugely creative human faculties of speech and symbiotic-like relationship with objects.


Repeating things that have been shown categorically false. When you refuse to amend erroneous ideas, then you can't just smuggle them back in as if they support your latest categorically false idea.

Other animals employ speech.
Symbiosis, as the name implies, involves two living organism cooperating or cohabitating. Hammers don't cooperate with people; hammers get nothing out of the deal because hammers are just shaped steel and wood; they don't give a bugger if they're useful to humans, they don't give a bugger what shape they're in, they just have properties which are useful to tool-using hominids.

You refuse to amend your patently stupid ideas, then you have the gall to pretend you're here for a serious conversation! :what:
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: 24748
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3926  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 17, 2019 9:56 am

Spearthrower wrote:A counter example would be quite simple: sexual selection is just a component of natural selection. A lion - i.e. an organism which is not you - 'selects' you because you look a bit weaker, less able to run away, you've got a gammy leg... a female of your own species - i.e. an organism which is not you - 'selects' you because you look a bit stronger, a bit more numerous in the sperm count, and you've got a magnificent <insert species appropriate appendage>. The 2 cases are functionally the same; it's only your typical half-baked lack of sensible reasoning argumentation which sneaks in the stupid notion that individuals of the same species can be consider 'self' in the first place.


It's love on the run, Spearthrower. Trying to mate while escaping from the hyena is like roller-skating and doing your taxes at the same time. Good nutrition is important, too. Eat at the Y.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

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

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3927  Postby laklak » Sep 17, 2019 10:22 am

Fish just splooge on the eggs.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19695
Age: 65
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3928  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 17, 2019 12:57 pm

Lets do what always happens just to show why we're still here 10 years later.

First, I will put up sources which disprove JJ's contention.

Then, JJ will ignore them all, or most of them, unless he can find a snippet somewhere in the text which, if taken out of context, and if engaging wilful ignorance of the rest of the text, could possibly be distorted just enough to not completely demolish his central contention.

After that, JJ will go find some other source, which will be either distant and abstracted from the argument and thus perhaps be less specific in its use of language to leave room for quote-mining, or else find something that completely confounds his argument, but will include 3 words next to each other that JJ can appeal to ad nauseam as if he's struck gold.

Finally, he will simply pretend it never happened and continue repeating the same falsehoods while protesting his perfect innocence, castigating everyone else for noting the argumentative deceit, and pretending it all ultimately - through some serious contortions - underscores what he's been saying all along about teh atheists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with (intersexual selection), and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex (intrasexual selection). These two forms of selection mean that some individuals have better reproductive success than others within a population, either because they are more attractive or prefer more attractive partners to produce offspring.


Sexual selection is a form of natural selection where one sex prefers a specific characteristic in an individual of the other sex.



https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... cle/evo_28

Sexual selection is a "special case" of natural selection. Sexual selection acts on an organism's ability to obtain (often by any means necessary!) or successfully copulate with a mate.



https://web.stanford.edu/group/stanford ... ction.html

Sexual selection can be thought of as two special kinds of natural selection, as described below. Natural selection occurs when some individuals out-reproduce others, and those that have more offspring differ genetically from those that have fewer.

In one kind of sexual selection, members of one sex create a reproductive differential among themselves by competing for opportunities to mate. The winners out-reproduce the others, and natural selection occurs if the characteristics that determine winning are, at least in part, inherited. In the other kind of sexual selection, members of one sex create a reproductive differential in the other sex by preferring some individuals as mates. If the ones they prefer are genetically different from the ones they shun, then natural selection is occurring.

...

That second type of sexual selection, in which one sex chooses among potential mates, appears to be the most common type among birds. As evidence that such selection is widespread, consider the reversal of normal sexual differences in the ornamentation of some polyandrous birds. There, the male must choose among females, which, in turn, must be as alluring as possible. Consequently in polyandrous species the female is ordinarily more colorful -- it is her secondary sexual characteristics that are enhanced. This fooled even Audubon, who confused the sexes when labeling his paintings of phalaropes. Female phalaropes compete for the plain-colored males, and the latter incubate the eggs and tend the young.



https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-selection

The concept of sexual selection as a special form of natural selection is easily explained. Other things being equal, organisms more proficient in securing mates have higher fitness.



https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfl ... -selection

Sexual selection is a special kind of natural selection in which mating preferences influence the traits of the organism



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2210015198

Sexual selection is a concept that has probably been misunderstood and misrepresented more than any other idea in evolutionary biology, confusion that continues to the present day.


*cough cough*

While in some ways less intuitive than natural selection, sexual selection is conceptually identical to it, and evolution via either mechanism will occur given sufficient genetic variation.



Sexual selection really is just one part of natural selection, specifically the part concerned with traits that provide preferential mating success; as natural selection isn't really about survival but ultimately about mating success, there is no real distinction in terms of the process which occurs. We could, of course, come up with special names for all manner of subdivisions of selection: eating selection, predator selection, germ selection and so on which focus on traits which are acquired and varied that result ultimately in differential reproductive success, but we tend to clump all them together under one heading. Just as genes beneficial in one circumstance can be a hindrance in another, so with sexual selection where a trait selected for by potential mates actually makes survival harder for the bearer of said trait, but as the bearer of that trait is more likely to find mates and therefore reproduce, they are more likely to send that trait into the next generation, and that phenotype will become statistically more wide-spread in the population.

What many people don't realize is that natural selection isn't trying to craft beautiful bodies that can survive mountains falling on their heads. Natural selection only equates to the outcome; the presence of certain genes in the next generation. The best and most cunningly adapted to their environment may be horribly inept at getting mates, doing the business or just have poor fertility and consequently leave less of their traits in future generations, meanwhile an individual with relatively poor survival traits but who is fecund and attractive could be overly represented in future generations even if their genes made their heads melt, their hearts explode, or their teeth fall out... just so long as they get time to produce more offspring than their competitors, they will be selected for.

It's common for Creationists to think of evolution basically working like Pokemon, and understandably so when they're still basically wedded to the Medieval Great Chain of Being, but the reality is far more prosaic and statistical.
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: 24748
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3929  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 17, 2019 1:05 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:What is it that makes you think there's a significant predator-prey relation to develop? Your observations of modern humans and modern hyenas?


Your evasive reply shows that in your opinion there wasn’t a significant relationship between our ancestors and predators like hyena. That is my point, that (rightly or wrongly) the atheist ideology drives towards visualising our ancestors “evolving” like actors on an empty stage. You express that position extremely.


I don't, JJ. That's your beef and your bigotry, and (ultimately) merely displays your obsession with atheism. You are now stuck leaving no middle ground between your strawmanning of "atheistic" evolution theory as positing early humans "evolving like actors on an empty stage" and early humans subject to a variety of conditions, only one of which is predators, but along with, and of considerable significance, for example, their sociality (including reproductive strategies) and their diet. You'd say avoiding predators drove sociality, but that's your obsession with predator-prey relations and your myopic rejection of anything that doesn't support your creotard god-bothering. You've had this explained to you multiple times, so I'll leave you to your obsessions and your bigotry on this point.


Actually I wouldn’t say that avoiding predators drove sociality; rather, it seems to me that the human faculty of speech has enabled huge social organisation, obscuring any underlying animal socality we might have.



Cito di Pense wrote: Please understand that the idiotic posturing in which you're engaged isn't enhancing my regard of theists. I've had civil conversations with at least a few theists; your bigotry and obsession makes such an outcome at least unlikely. I don't know what I should do to appease you, except to genuflect to your creationist masturbation fantasy. It can't be that you take yourself so seriously as an evolutionary biologist. Evolutionary biologists, theist or otherwise, would treat you as a caricature of a biologist as which you present yourself.


The last authority I quoted to make a point about human origin story, was a professor of geography (Maslin). I have as much right to use and discuss findings by biologists as he does and as you do.


Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: I didn’t express a terror of hyena, just that their appearance would naturally have grabbed the attention of an animal the size of Australopithecus, appreciating that they didn’t have guns. If your sneer means anything it is that hyenas would not have grabbed their attention.


It's just my opinion, JJ, but I do think you're projecting your own terror onto early humans. Terror by itself is disabling. You know nothing about how frequently early humans confronted predators and what strategies they employed to minimize the danger when they appeared. All you are doing is projecting your own responses onto them, and that's in service, ulitmately, of your (idiosyncratic) theist ideology. You're still stuck being a kind of loner in your obsessions with both predator-prey relations and with atheism in general. I wish I knew why you find atheism so disturbing, because it is such a minority position, but more on that coming up shortly.


Again, you impute a position to me that I have never expressed. I’m not “disturbed” by atheism, I just think that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story, and that the human origin story is important and interesting.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s most personally offensive. I actually developed my understanding of the effect of atheist ideology on the human origin story, from attending to what people like you say about human origins.


Your obsession with atheism, unjustified, and your disgust are not useful weapons for you in this debate. Take all the offense you like. You still need to get past your obsessions with atheism and with your idiosyncratic ideas about early human evolution. I don't expect you ever will, and you will just die someday, and your place will be taken by some theistic idiot or other. You don't believe death is the end, though, so I hope you find your beliefs comforting in the face of all the offense you're taking.


What I found personally offensive was your text :” ”Are you afraid something is going to bite off your dick? By my estimation, you're too old to do much but wave your hand at your dick. You developed that technique from concocting your theories of human evolution”.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Yes, that the distinctive dual enabling of a symbiotic-like relation with objects, and speech, have led to the current human destructive impact.


Ah, the "humans are special" trope, again. But let's talk about the "destructive impact", shall we?


Humans are distinctively enabled, in having speech and a symbiotic-like relationship with objects. How these faculties were created is a guide to how creation has worked in general.

Cito di Pense wrote: If humans are created, then their destructive potential was created. So your story has to deal with that. Why do you separate speech and tool use from every other characteristic of humans, including their over-active endocrine systems? Sometimes that just leads to being terrified, and sometimes it leads to strong pair bonding and procreation. Each is a factor in producing the destructive effects you're now obsessing about.?


I was talking about the creation of the distinctive human faculties of speech and symbiotic-like relation with objects; at one time these didn’t exist, now they do, that is creation. I don’t know about our over-active endocrine systems; I suppose endocrine levels of activity are controlled by circumstance, these systems are shared with many other species and were created a long time ago.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:What I learn from past catastrophes is that the ability on this planet, for creation to continue, has recovered with notable power: see the red curve in this graph which I have put up before:


Creation will continue, regardless, even if it's back to microbes on the deep ocean floor. Somebody should ask you why you think it cannot recover after human activity has done its thing. Well? Do you want to give us some more nonsense about humans as the intended ultimate product of creation?


That graph I posted demonstrated exactly that the creation will probably continue regardless. Where it will lead is radically unpredictable.

”Men have knowledge of the present.
As for the future, the gods know it,
Alone and fully enlightened”
(Cavafy)

NOT knowing the creative future is the human condition, distinguishing us from gods.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I know plenty of atheists who feel just as responsible, guilty and worried about the 6th extinction as theists. Some Christian denominations do foreground the principle “God is in charge”, which can imply “just let go”, like you say. Maybe humans are in the same condition as a culture in a petri dish, consuming all the resources then they die. Or maybe the appearance of speech, “the Word” in the mouth and minds of our troublesome species, is a game changer there also. I don’t know, and that radically unpredictable feature of the Creation, together with it’s marvellous products hitherto (cf the movie microcosmos) is the point I want to make now.


Well, after all the words you've written, I can see you've thrown in your lot with the Word. Words, of course, cut both ways, and I can write a lot of them, too, as you see. I'm actually better with words than you are, but that's partly a function of our genetics and partly a function of the environments in which we have operated.


Crumbs.

Yes words are important, truth is important, truth is expressed in words that lock into our minds whether we like it or not.

Cito di Pense wrote: Frankly, JJ, just stow it, because you haven't managed to discover why your rant isn't working. Blame it on ideology, but repeating yourself continues to be ineffective.


What, in all the words you have written Cito, would incline me to believe that it is other than ideology that is driving you? Consider the words you fling around. A sample: idiotic creationist diatribes, rant, fucking dead, masturbation, fantasy.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1090
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3930  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 17, 2019 2:50 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:Actually I wouldn’t say that avoiding predators drove sociality; rather, it seems to me that the human faculty of speech has enabled huge social organisation, obscuring any underlying animal socality we might have.


So I guess you're wisely dropping this point, as I expected you would:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:What is it that makes you think there's a significant predator-prey relation to develop? Your observations of modern humans and modern hyenas?


Your evasive reply shows that in your opinion there wasn’t a significant relationship between our ancestors and predators like hyena. That is my point, that (rightly or wrongly) the atheist ideology drives towards visualising our ancestors “evolving” like actors on an empty stage. You express that position extremely.


I don't, JJ. That's your beef and your bigotry, and (ultimately) merely displays your obsession with atheism. You are now stuck leaving no middle ground between your strawmanning of "atheistic" evolution theory as positing early humans "evolving like actors on an empty stage" and early humans subject to a variety of conditions, only one of which is predators, but along with, and of considerable significance, for example, their sociality (including reproductive strategies) and their diet.


You know, that bit about actors on an empty stage. Atheist ideology messing up the human origin story. What would you have me do about it? Should I be convinced by now that atheistic messed-up evolutionary theory has gotten the story wrong, and I should recognise the Hand of the Creator, jerking us all off? You've also very wisely dropped the point about how the destructive potential of these "created humans" was part of the package from inception.

Jayjay4547 wrote:What, in all the words you have written Cito, would incline me to believe that it is other than ideology that is driving you? Consider the words you fling around. A sample: idiotic creationist diatribes, rant, fucking dead, masturbation, fantasy.


The only basis for treating you more kindly is to regard you as delusional, rather than just someone with an obsessive animus as regards atheism.

I don't think it much bothers you whatever it is your Creator has set in motion. The important thing is to recognize its Truth. Of course you believe you've shown this, and so the only factor blocking acceptance of what you think you've demonstrated is some sort of ideology. That's also a belief of yours. It's a delusional one, but so it goes. The only alternative to regarding you as delusional is to regard you as a savant. The rest of the discussion of your parody of human history and biology shows this is not the case. That leaves the alternative of your obsessive nastiness directed at atheism. Tell me it's all ideology, now.

Are you not going to dabble in redemption and perdition, not even a little? Don't hide your light under a bushel.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

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

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3931  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 18, 2019 2:57 am

Spearthrower wrote:Lets do what always happens just to show why we're still here 10 years later.

First, I will put up sources which disprove JJ's contention.

Then, JJ will ignore them all, or most of them, unless he can find a snippet somewhere in the text which, if taken out of context, and if engaging wilful ignorance of the rest of the text, could possibly be distorted just enough to not completely demolish his central contention.

After that, JJ will go find some other source, which will be either distant and abstracted from the argument and thus perhaps be less specific in its use of language to leave room for quote-mining, or else find something that completely confounds his argument, but will include 3 words next to each other that JJ can appeal to ad nauseam as if he's struck gold.

Finally, he will simply pretend it never happened and continue repeating the same falsehoods while protesting his perfect innocence, castigating everyone else for noting the argumentative deceit, and pretending it all ultimately - through some serious contortions - underscores what he's been saying all along about teh atheists.


I don’t go in for castigation or accusing others of “argumentative deceit”. Is that lying? Thanks for all those quotes giving modern consensus in general biology on the relationship between natural and sexual selection:

Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection[/b b]Sexual selection is a form of natural selection]Sexual selection is a "special case" of natural selection.
Sexual selection can be thought of as two special kinds of natural selection
The concept of sexual selection as a special form of natural selection
Sexual selection is a special kind of natural selection
Sexual selection is a concept that has probably been misunderstood and misrepresented more than any other idea in evolutionary biology, confusion that continues to the present day.While in some ways less intuitive than natural selection, [b]sexual selection is conceptually identical to it
.


So now we have a few data points on the human origin narrative in terms of TofE

1859 Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)
In chapter 4 he mentioned sexual selection:

And this leads me to say a few words on what I call Sexual Selection. This depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection.


1871” Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, about two thirds of which was devoted to sexual selection, which he justified on the grounds that natural selection could not account fr racial differences.

At about the same time (1872) Darwin added to his description of sexual selection in the 6th edition of Origin: : This leads me to say a few words about sexual selection. This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is therefore less rigorous than natural selection”

2019: Spearthrower quoted a number of sources showing that in modern biological understanding, natural and sexual selections are basically the same thing.

So, Darwin, who introduced both concepts, actually adapted his presentation in the wrong direction, to emphasise a distinction that modern biologists take care to deny. It’s pointless to speculate on why he did that, but the objective result was to set the style for human origin narrative in which the actors are all within the same species. And that style has been followed up till today, demonstrably on this ratskep topic where every effort by me to discuss relations involving other species, is routinely ridiculed. This place is a great laboratory for exploring that bias.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1090
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3932  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 18, 2019 4:23 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Actually I wouldn’t say that avoiding predators drove sociality; rather, it seems to me that the human faculty of speech has enabled huge social organisation, obscuring any underlying animal sociality we might have.


So I guess you're wisely dropping this point, as I expected you would:

I never made that point Cito, it is in the copious world of what you think I must have claimed.

Cito di Pense wrote: You know, that bit about actors on an empty stage. Atheist ideology messing up the human origin story. What would you have me do about it? Should I be convinced by now that atheistic messed-up evolutionary theory has gotten the story wrong, and I should recognise the Hand of the Creator, jerking us all off?.


I would be healthier not to visualise the creator of all you see around you, as someone jerking us all off. You are presenting an opposing viewpoint to mine, I don’t expect that to change.

Cito di Pense wrote: You've also very wisely dropped the point about how the destructive potential of these "created humans" was part of the package from inception.


Rather, the destructive impact of the created human faculties of speech and symbiosis-like object relations, is now revealed. I tried to use this obviousness just to demonstrate the real significance of the distinctive enabling of our species, in the face of the origin story trope of smudgism (“just n animal”)

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:What, in all the words you have written Cito, would incline me to believe that it is other than ideology that is driving you? Consider the words you fling around. A sample: idiotic creationist diatribes, rant, fucking dead, masturbation, fantasy.


The only basis for treating you more kindly is to regard you as delusional, rather than just someone with an obsessive animus as regards atheism.


The highly coloured pejorative terms you sprinkle your text with are inaccurate. True, they don’t make me feel that warm towards atheism. Why do you "obsessively" take up my posts? No-one else to do the job?

Cito di Pense wrote: I don't think it much bothers you whatever it is your Creator has set in motion. The important thing is to recognize its Truth.


As Nietzsche aid, Truth shall have no gods before it. I don’t imagine that everything I think is true, but I’m not persuaded by terms like : idiotic creationist diatribes, rant, fucking dead, masturbation, fantasy.

Cito di Pense wrote: Of course you believe you've shown this, and so the only factor blocking acceptance of what you think you've demonstrated is some sort of ideology. That's also a belief of yours. It's a delusional one, but so it goes. The only alternative to regarding you as delusional is to regard you as a savant.


It doesn’t take a savant to figure that an origin story is bound to reflect and reveal the ideology of the teller.

Cito di Pense wrote: The rest of the discussion of your parody of human history and biology shows this is not the case. That leaves the alternative of your obsessive nastiness directed at atheism. Tell me it's all ideology, now.


Obsessive nastiness? Shouldn’t that manifest itself in actual words, like idiotic creationist diatribes, rant, fucking dead, masturbation, fantasy?

Cito di Pense wrote: Are you not going to dabble in redemption and perdition, not even a little? Don't hide your light under a bushel.


Hopeful misrepresentation.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1090
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3933  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 18, 2019 4:52 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t go in for castigation or accusing others of “argumentative deceit”. Is that lying?


You have no reason to castigate others for argumentative deceit so obviously you can't go in for it whether you want to or not... in fact, given your following sentence, I am not sure why you thought to write all these words just to express this non-sequitur. Why would not going in for castigating others be lying? Only, you didn't mention - perhaps you could've thrown in a line about the variety of goods at your local supermarket, or what your shoe size is at the same time just to ensure that no sense was conveyed at all?

Regardless, I am absolutely accusing you - not castigating - of argumentative deceit, and I've shown expressly where you've been deceitful. So are you going to respond to that in terms of trying to persuade me I was wrong by explaining yourself, or you know, apologize and stop fucking doing it? :doh:


Jayjay4547 wrote: Thanks for all those quotes giving modern consensus in general biology on the relationship between natural and sexual selection:

Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection[/b b]Sexual selection is a form of natural selection]Sexual selection is a "special case" of natural selection.
Sexual selection can be thought of as two special kinds of natural selection
The concept of sexual selection as a special form of natural selection
Sexual selection is a special kind of natural selection
Sexual selection is a concept that has probably been misunderstood and misrepresented more than any other idea in evolutionary biology, confusion that continues to the present day.While in some ways less intuitive than natural selection, [b]sexual selection is conceptually identical to it
.


So now we have a few data points on the human origin narrative in terms of TofE


These aren't data points on anything other than how, despite your frequent assertions to the contrary, sexual selection is not something distinct from natural selection, and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with any 'human origin narrative'. Unless, of course, you're under yet another erroneous notion that sexual selection only occurs in humans. If so, think peacock. If not, think peacock anyway because it would help to get you in the habit of thinking.


Jayjay4547 wrote:1859 Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)
In chapter 4 he mentioned sexual selection:

And this leads me to say a few words on what I call Sexual Selection. This depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection.


1871” Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, about two thirds of which was devoted to sexual selection, which he justified on the grounds that natural selection could not account fr racial differences.

At about the same time (1872) Darwin added to his description of sexual selection in the 6th edition of Origin: : This leads me to say a few words about sexual selection. This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is therefore less rigorous than natural selection”


Are you really trying to claim that a book from 150 years ago is meant to be considered the last word on evolutionary theory?

Oh what am I saying? You think the Bible is the last word on everything, so of course you're under this utterly foolish impression.

Further, thanks for confirming one of my stated predictions:

Spearthrower wrote:After that, JJ will go find some other source, which will be either distant and abstracted from the argument and thus perhaps be less specific in its use of language to leave room for quote-mining, or else find something that completely confounds his argument, but will include 3 words next to each other that JJ can appeal to ad nauseam as if he's struck gold.


So here we go with your endless squirming to refuse to ever acknowledge your errors.


Jayjay4547 wrote:2019: Spearthrower quoted a number of sources showing that in modern biological understanding, natural and sexual selections are basically the same thing.


Indeed he did, and of course we live in 2019, not 1872, and our discussion has occurred in 2019, not 1872. So are you trying to claim that you were right all along.... if this was 1872?

How about acknowledging your frequently repeated error, JJ? See how this works? When you refuse to do so, when you've spent dozens of pages making a false assertion then you finally can no longer pretend otherwise, it's time for you to dig out a little residual courtesy and acknowledge your mistake. Failing to do so just adds gravity to the accusation of you refusing to engage honestly. You make your own bed, JJ... then whinge about how badly it's turned out.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So, Darwin, who introduced both concepts, actually adapted his presentation in the wrong direction, to emphasise a distinction that modern biologists take care to deny.


Nope, that doesn't remotely follow from anything you've quoted. You're going to need to actually cite the part you're talking about and attempt to render it into your own words, because I know what you're trying to do, having predicted exactly this.

Further... :lol: ... do you even listen to yourself as you write? You're trying to argue that Darwin started something that has continued through to today - you know, the atheist ideology perverting the narrative of human origins... but here you are saying exactly the opposite - that modern Biologists expressly contradict Darwin, ergo it can't be the same ideology if it's wholly in contradiction. No better example of how veneer thin your 'argument' is and how much it's motivated by your need to express you vacuous prejudice.

Oh and let me go grab my tinfoil hat for your latest erected conspiracy delusion. Modern Biologists don't really give a rat's hoot about what Darwin did or didn't say because it's ancient news. The chap didn't even know about genes, ffs JJ. Over the years, you've become ever more the Creationist to the point you're now at the lowest common denominator where you pretend that Darwin is authoritative gospel which modern scientists must conform to. Inane.


Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s pointless to speculate on why he did that,...


Says the guy doing exactly that.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... but the objective result was to set the style for human origin narrative in which the actors are all within the same species.


Ignorance restated. The quote you cited says exactly the opposite. It quite clearly says that natural selection is more rigorous, so you can't spin it to mean the exact contrary position.

Ergo, you're misrepresenting written records. Ergo, more argumentative deceitfulness.

Further, as laughably inept as it is, you've just argued the opposite - that modern Biologists specifically deny what Darwin said in this regard. Are you even going through the motions of making sense, JJ? Do you just want to call us all evil cunts and be done with it?


Jayjay4547 wrote: And that style has been followed up till today, demonstrably on this ratskep topic where every effort by me to discuss relations involving other species, is routinely ridiculed.


1) You've made yet another nonsensical leap. You've gone from the false claim that Darwin set up a human origin narrative in which the actors are all within species, to this producing some ridicule in people 150 years later on a web discussion forum. You don't even try to link the 2, you're just throwing stuff out to express your routine prejudice yet again.

2) Your argument is so tangled up now you don't even know what you're saying any more. That 'style' you pretend exists originating in Darwin is supposedly about sexual selection which you've just stated modern Biologists wholly contradict Darwin on... ergo, no 150 years of ideology driving the narrative, ergo your entire thread has just been shown false by you! :lol:

3) The reason your inane assertions are ridiculed has been spelled out so many times. Your assertions are provably wrong, provably ignorant of the topic matter, you refuse to amend those assertions even when the contrary evidence is beyond compelling, you repeat the same demolished assertions over and over again, and when you find yourself pinned you slink off to another crazy assertion before coming back a few pages later pretending that this latest one goes onto the pile with the previous ones you refused to amend or failed to defend. It's not YOU who's being ridiculed, it's your absurd behavior.


Jayjay4547 wrote:This place is a great laboratory for exploring that bias.


Your bias in motion. You are motivated wholly by hostility and prejudice to an obsessive level that makes you come back week after week to sling shit at people who don't genuflect to your belief system, you sad little man.
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: 24748
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3934  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 18, 2019 5:13 am

So let's strip this out because it's so illuminating of who JJ really is.

Of course, it's wrong, but that's by the by - look at how the argument operates.

So, Darwin, who introduced both concepts, actually adapted his presentation in the wrong direction, to emphasise a distinction that modern biologists take care to deny.


Darwin & Modern Biologists expressly differ - Darwin goes one way, Biologists the other in mutually contradictory directions.

... the objective result was to set the style for human origin narrative in which the actors are all within the same species.


The way JJ alleges Darwin went, but has already acknowledged is exactly contrary to modern Biology.


And that style has been followed up till today,...


Internal contradiction - this cannot follow from what's been written. In fact, the previous sentences necessarily suggest the exact opposite where contemporary biologists, being in direct opposition to Darwin's alleged position, cannot possibly have been following that same style until today. Were JJ right about Darwin's position - which of course he's not - then the exact opposite would follow, and at some point in the intervening 150 years the scientific position would've changed about face and gone the other way, meaning of course that the underpinning argument JJ's trying to make about a pervasive ideology running throughout has just been shown categorically wrong by JJ.


... demonstrably on this ratskep topic where every effort by me to discuss relations involving other species, is routinely ridiculed. This place is a great laboratory for exploring that bias.


And this, of course, doesn't follow from anything else previously stated, but is included because this is the real motivation for JJ's posts; it doesn't really matter that none of the above made any sense and actually demolished his own 6 year argument - what matters is that JJ got the opportunity to... once again... express his disdain for the people he elects to repeatedly engage.

Pure prejudice.
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: 24748
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3935  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 18, 2019 6:14 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Rather, the destructive impact of the created human faculties of speech and symbiosis-like object relations, is now revealed. I tried to use this obviousness just to demonstrate the real significance of the distinctive enabling of our species, in the face of the origin story trope of smudgism (“just n animal”)


So, what sort of Creator has been revealed to you? If it's not also revealing some sort of grand purpose, what's the point? It would be fun if this clash of opposing viewpoints revealed something about God's Grand Plan.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Where it will lead is radically unpredictable.

”Men have knowledge of the present.
As for the future, the gods know it,
Alone and fully enlightened”
(Cavafy)

NOT knowing the creative future is the human condition, distinguishing us from gods.


OK, so that answers my question. No insights into God's Grand Plan. So really, this is just a difference of opinion about whether or not evolution theory has messed up the story of human origins. Even without your concocted issue, we wouldn't really know what was going on.

Of course, i can't treat this as simply a difference of opinion, given what you're using to argue your side; you, too, treat it as more than a mere difference of opinion. You appear to believe something else is at stake, even though that is not revealed to you.Your pantomime of humility is overshadowed by your certainty that the atheists have screwed up your theist party.

Clearly, atheists only represent a different sort of relation to this Creator, but we are also a part of this creation that has been revealed to you. You'd accept the presence of an opposing viewpoint with a little more élan, if theism had any value as an ideology. That you do this by whining is part of my puzzlement at your making theism such a hard-sell.

For fuck's sake, JJ. You've given up any pretense of being anything but another run-of-the-mill theist who claims the hand of God is manifest, and then bows out, saying nothing more than, "God works in mysterious ways." You do this with more energy than most, more empty verbiage, more whining that atheism is messing up the party. At last, your diatribe is really common as dirt. The bulk of the noise you generate is your lame pantomime of 'discussing' science.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t imagine that everything I think is true, but I’m not persuaded by terms like : idiotic creationist diatribes, rant, fucking dead, masturbation, fantasy.


Well, you imply you believe some of it is true. For instance, do you believe that what you call "the distinctive enabling of our species" has some purpose, even though it's not revealed to you? If this purpose should be revealing the nature of this Creator you envision, what's our takeaway? If I call it "jerking us all off" and you call it "mysterious ways", it's just a system of opposing viewpoints. If theism is true, there's nothing for you to worry about; you're just seeing the will of God being enacted.

If theism is not true, well, you're wasting your time in a most ridiculous fashion. This is really the fun part, the classic clash of theism and atheism of a decade ago, losing all your obfuscation about "symbiotic-like relation to objects". This kind of stuff is supposed to carry the day for you. This creator of yours (you'd say ours) is subtle, but it is not malicious, to paraphrase somebody who liked to make metaphors of God using something more than word-salad such as "symbiotic-like relation to objects".

It's true, you and I are both humans, both animals. The clash of opposing viewpoints is what makes the game fun.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You are presenting an opposing viewpoint to mine, I don’t expect that to change.


So, your viewpoint is that this all is created, but so what? Just make yourself plain about whatever this reveals to you besides a viewpoint in opposition to which you find atheism. That's a tautology, JJ. Perhaps all you present is a system of opposing viewpoints. I think we knew that, already, Professor. Come on, JJ! Make this interesting. You can't do it without adding a lot of obfuscation, can you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:It doesn’t take a savant to figure that an origin story is bound to reflect and reveal the ideology of the teller.


So, would you be saying "ideology" is nothing more than an opposing viewpoint? I don't think that's all you believe about ideology, or about atheism. Do you, for example, believe atheism is responsible for anything bad, or should we stick to laying it all at the doorstep of this Creator you envision? After all, atheism is merely another aspect of the creation you envision.

I mean, really, JJ: if this is all the same old song and dance about the violation of religious belief represented by denying the God of the believer, you could speak more plainly about it.

Can we just agree that an opposing viewpoint to creationism (theism), in and of itself, is nothing particularly bad in and of itself in your view? That's ridiculous, of course.What you seem to have a problem with is merely that there is an opposing viewpoint at all. If this is not the case, please set me to rights. I know how much you love doing that.

You are re-generating this idea of "destructive potential", so I conclude it must be significant to you:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote: If humans are created, then their destructive potential was created. So your story has to deal with that. Why do you separate speech and tool use from every other characteristic of humans, including their over-active endocrine systems? Sometimes that just leads to being terrified, and sometimes it leads to strong pair bonding and procreation. Each is a factor in producing the destructive effects you're now obsessing about.?


I was talking about the creation of the distinctive human faculties of speech and symbiotic-like relation with objects; at one time these didn’t exist, now they do, that is creation. I don’t know about our over-active endocrine systems; I suppose endocrine levels of activity are controlled by circumstance, these systems are shared with many other species and were created a long time ago.


You call it creation. I call it evolution. Potayto, potahto, tomayto tomahto. Let's call this whole caricature off. These distinctive faculties are full of destructive potential, and if they're created, you know Who's to blame for that. Part of theism is, of course, to accept the will of the God you believe in. Really, your issue seems only to be that there is an opposing viewpoint to yours. Surely your belief in God's plan should be allowing you to accept this conflict with more equanimity.

Let's me close this with Spearthrower's unique brand of humor:

Spearthrower wrote:
Are you really trying to claim that a book from 150 years ago is meant to be considered the last word on evolutionary theory?

Oh what am I saying? You think the Bible is the last word on everything, so of course you're under this utterly foolish impression.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t imagine that everything I think is true....


You don't think everything in the Bible is true. I mean, "symbiotic-like relation to objects" doesn't appear in the Bible, so, some truth was obviously not accessible to those who generated the foundational documents of your opposing viewpoint.

Jayjay4547 wrote: And that style has been followed up till today, demonstrably on this ratskep topic where every effort by me to discuss relations involving other species, is routinely ridiculed.


So, nothing wrong with opposing viewpoints, as long as they don't involve ridicule. What if your ideas are ridiculous to anyone but you? I'm not seeing any evidence that anyone but you thinks your efforts to create your own brand of creationism are not ridiculous, and that includes other theists.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Sep 18, 2019 10:03 am, edited 2 times 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: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3936  Postby Sendraks » Sep 18, 2019 9:34 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:NOT knowing the creative future is the human condition, distinguishing us from gods.


I would love to see your evidence base for the characteristics of gods that you use to distinguish them from humans.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

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

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3937  Postby Alan B » Sep 18, 2019 9:55 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:NOT knowing the creative future is the human condition, distinguishing us from gods.

I thought there was only one, er, 'God'?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9615
Age: 83
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3938  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 18, 2019 10:04 am

Sendraks wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:NOT knowing the creative future is the human condition, distinguishing us from gods.


I would love to see your evidence base for the characteristics of gods that you use to distinguish them from humans.


Knowing the future. It's guess (and a tautology, too), but so it goes with the creatard masturbation fantasy.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

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

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3939  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 18, 2019 12:43 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:NOT knowing the creative future is the human condition, distinguishing us from gods.


I would love to see your evidence base for the characteristics of gods that you use to distinguish them from humans.



Evidence: JJ typed it, there it is right on the screen in front of you... evident. :cheers:
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: 24748
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3940  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 18, 2019 1:32 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote: You know, that bit about actors on an empty stage. Atheist ideology messing up the human origin story. What would you have me do about it? Should I be convinced by now that atheistic messed-up evolutionary theory has gotten the story wrong, and I should recognise the Hand of the Creator, jerking us all off?.


I would be healthier not to visualise the creator of all you see around you, as someone jerking us all off.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Rather, the destructive impact of the created human faculties of speech and symbiosis-like object relations, is now revealed.


Well, after all, you're nattering on about a creative god that has now unleashed the destructive potential of its creation. Why? God works in mysterious ways, but most likely is that if God looks like a complete asshole, then it goes right along with the idea that asshole believers construct gods in their own image. I don't know what's healthy with regard to gods, JJ, but worshiping an asshole doesn't seem healthy. Even if that is your choice. Even if that is your only choice.

What should be my assessment of your story of human origins, JJ? That you've perceived the divine, or that you've told an idiotic story -- in its own terms -- about a divine asshole?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

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

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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests