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

#3941  Postby felltoearth » Sep 18, 2019 3:28 pm

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


Hang on. Is JJ suggesting that because we fuck each other and not other species sexual selection can’t lead to natural selection and therefore no evolution?

If that’s indeed the case I would like to nominate that idiotic concept for a Crocoduck Award.

Spearthrower wrote:
You refuse to amend your patently stupid ideas, then you have the gall to pretend you're here for a serious conversation! :what:
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11620
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3942  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 19, 2019 6:11 am

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


Hang on. Is JJ suggesting that because we fuck each other and not other species sexual selection can’t lead to natural selection and therefore no evolution?

If that’s indeed the case I would like to nominate that idiotic concept for a Crocoduck Award.

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


This is unreasonable. You're letting your atheist ideology get in the way of apprehending the Truth. JJ's looking for a few good men. You can't handle the Truth.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The highly coloured pejorative terms you sprinkle your text with are inaccurate. True, they don’t make me feel that warm towards atheism.


Inaccurate with respect to what? The (atheist) universe quakes in reaction to JJ's lack of warm feelings. Oh, the oafishness of JJ's feeble hostility.

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.


Discuss? What is surprising you about the way you are being ridiculed, JJ? Why does your opinion deserve respect? Because it's TRUE? Cry me a river.

Of all the continents on all the planets in all the star systems of all the galaxies, God shows up on mine, as time goes by. Play it, Sam. Or, try extinction: We'll always have perish.
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: 28465
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3943  Postby Fenrir » Sep 19, 2019 6:38 am

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


Hang on. Is JJ suggesting that because we fuck each other and not other species sexual selection can’t lead to natural selection and therefore no evolution?

If that’s indeed the case I would like to nominate that idiotic concept for a Crocoduck Award.

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


I suspect it's even dumberer than that.

I suspect JJ is insinuating that the "Atheist Ideology" (with caps of course) has manipulated the "Human Origin Story" (more caps), nay, perverted it, to contend that humanity is entirely self-made. That fucking each other was the entirety of our shallow narcissistic evolutionary arc and indeed that it was the continual fucking (and the playing with the boobies) which led to bipedalism and large brains and manual dexterity and hair loss and sweat and lactose tolerance. That any hint of interaction with any other component of the environment has been systematically expunged from the record in order to further evil atheistic agendas cruelly and unfairly aimed at reducing the number of good god-fearing Anglicans.

Luckily we have JJ to remind us that this is a fucking stupid idea, and that anyone attempting such a moronic strawman would be rightly ridiculed.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3363
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

#3944  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 19, 2019 6:43 am

Fenrir wrote:I suspect JJ is insinuating that the "Atheist Ideology" (with caps of course) has manipulated the "Human Origin Story" (more caps), nay, perverted it, to contend that humanity is entirely self-made.


Your powers of deduction are unmatched. If only JJ had not stated this explicitly.

Fenrir wrote:That fucking each other was the entirety of our shallow narcissistic evolutionary arc and indeed that it was the continual fucking (and the playing with the boobies) which led to bipedalism and large brains and manual dexterity and hair loss and sweat and lactose tolerance.


This is the money shot. Lactose intolerance. With me, it's the milk of human kindness.

Somebody like Lily Tomlin made the joke that humans began walking upright to free their hands for masturbation. Male, female, makes no difference. What a bunch of wankers.

Fenrir wrote:That any hint of interaction with any other component of the environment has been systematically expunged from the record in order to further evil atheistic agendas cruelly and unfairly aimed at reducing the number of good god-fearing Anglicans.


Wanklicans.
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: 28465
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3945  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 19, 2019 7:52 am

Fenrir wrote:That any hint of interaction with any other component of the environment has been systematically expunged from the record in order to further evil atheistic agendas cruelly and unfairly aimed at reducing the number of good god-fearing Anglicans.


BWAHAHHHAHHHAAHHAA

And we would've gotten away with with it if it wasn't for this meddling Creationist!
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3946  Postby Sendraks » Sep 19, 2019 11:07 am

Cito di Pense wrote:That you've perceived the divine, or that you've told an idiotic story -- in its own terms -- about a divine asshole?


I've perceived, and experienced, some divine asshole's in my time. I'd fall short of worshipping them because, frankly worshipping specifics of the anatomical landscape is a bit weird. The creative powers of these assholes was quite limited as well although, some of it very enjoyable.
"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: 15139
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3947  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 20, 2019 7:49 am

Spearthrower wrote:
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


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


Spearthrower wrote:
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?


I put back in italics what you said, that gave context to my reply.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


Rubbish. I have no problem with these viewpoints. What I claim is that origin narratives in terms of sexual selection involve only actors of the same species; it forms a closed system. Whereas the creator is expressed in the actions of external actors. Indirectly in the case of peacock tails, directly in the more creative case of human speech and our symbiosis-like relationship with objects.

Spearthrower wrote:
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?


No, I’m offering evidence of a consistent trend in how human origin stories have been told : Taking general biology as a bench mark reflected in the first edition of Origin of Species and the modern presentations from your quotes, compared with the human origin story as reflected in Descent of Man, Darwin’s addition to his original definition, The Naked Ape, Maslin’s article and the denial of external actors evidenced by ratskep posters.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


That is careless misdirecting rubbish.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


I don’t see this other source, quote mining or something that confounds my argument. Confounds MY argument? And what 3 words? You aren’t making sense.

Spearthrower wrote:
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?


The theme in modern origin story telling has a historical origin; its development can be traced from 1872, as I traced in the post you are commenting on. And as I have tried to explain before.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


You could show that my argument is wrong by pointing to a TofE human origin narrative that isn’t all about our supposed sociality, male competition for the possession of females, female choice, “strategies” or male hunting.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


I did cite Darwin’s words, in double bold above. Maybe I should have used caps and big font as well to draw your attention to the point I was making. Your claims to having predicted my responses and that I squirm to avoid your points, are both crocks.

Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Darwin started a style of telling the human origin story in terms of human actors, and that style has been followed by human origin story tellers ever since. That stopped them from even seeing what kind of animal our ancestor Australopithecus was (fully adapted into hand weapon use), and from seeing even the basics of the creative path our ancestors adaptively followed (exaptation). These weren’t small mistakes.

In the meantime, general biologists, not seeing the point of differentiating between natural and sexual selection, have classified the latter as just a special case.

Spearthrower wrote: 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.


How could it be a conspiracy delusion if I have just made it and on this forum? Who could I be conspiring with? You are just throwing mud around in the confident hope that whatever you throw around will be taken here as sticking.

Not that it’s important, it seems to me that modern biologists give much more than a rat’s hoot about what Darwin said about natural vs sexual selection. If Darwin had known about genes, I don’t see what he would have changed in what he wrote.

Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Where do I “pretend” that? But it’s true that I have become more creationist in that I’m seeing real benefits in using that word, which previously I was shy about. Creation embodies the notions that we were formed by something greater than ourselves and that we cannot wrap our minds around it. The concept now seems to me more enduring than I had expected. Earlier, I used words like “environment”, “biome” “Africa” “Gaia” to point to the thing that appear to have the power of creation and was slow to appreciate that the old word “creator” points directly to that power.

One could argue that in the Mediterranean societies, a recognition of the human status as created beings, led to them painting this creator through myth in more concrete detail than warranted by what they could prove. As a Christian, I try to manage the problems involved in using the same word for a useful secular concept and one member of the Trinity, by not capitalising the former.

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


Says the guy doing exactly that.


There could be several explanations. Maybe Darwin needed to present a fat book on human origins and without his digression into sexual selection it would have been a slim volume. Maybe he was just fascinated with sexual selection as a biological phenomenon and shoe-horned it into his human origin narrative. Maybe he deeply intuited the ideological needs of his allies. These are all Maybes.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


Nonsense. Exactly what Darwin meant by natural selection being “more rigorous” isn’t clear and in any case is irrelevant. If an animal dies or just doesn’t procreate, the results in the gene pool are the same. That’s a sense in which sexual selection can be said to be a special case of natural selection.
I’ve always suspected that Darwin meant it’s tougher on a guy to be killed than just to not have kids.

Spearthrower wrote:
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?


I have zero interest in calling you evil cunts. Please don’t put filth in my mouth. You don’t seem to understand the model I have presented which is, a consistent trend in the human origin narrative, set against the backdrop of general biology that is less subject to the influence of atheist ideology.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


It’s not prejudice to see a pattern in story telling. The trail of evidence goes from Darwin through Desmond Morris and as I cited as more authoritative than on this forum, Maslin. It’s monotonic.

Spearthrower wrote: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:


The influence of theist ideology, associated with the dialectic developed in the CvE debate, is a tangled and large topic but the thread I’m exploring here is pretty simple: Darwin showed how to tell the human origin story in terms of humans only, you-all copied that slavishly, so you get the story wrong. Biologists in general, haven’t been so stupid.

Spearthrower wrote: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.


That narrative is no closer to the truth than the one you get from telling the human origin story only in terms of humans. At the same time as smudging the distinctions between humans and other humanoids. Both driven by sterile ideology.

Spearthrower wrote:
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.


That is personal ridicule and it’s inaccurate; I’m not sad. It’s you who carelessly slings shit around.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1064
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3948  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 20, 2019 9:15 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I put back in italics what you said, that gave context to my reply.


Except, of course, that it doesn't give context to your reply. You castigate others for noting YOUR argumentative deceit. You know, what I wrote.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


Rubbish. I have no problem with these viewpoints.


No problem except that they completely contradict your spiel of 40+ pages.


Jayjay4547 wrote:What I claim is that origin narratives in terms of sexual selection involve only actors of the same species;...


Ahh here's the revisionism we've all come to expect.

This is a) untrue of what you've said b) untrue of what is factually the case, so basically, it's about as untrue as one could manage with just a dozen words.

What you've actually pretended is that the evil atheist consortium has perverted the human origins narrative since the inception of the idea of evolution by doing away with natural selection, instead focusing on sexual selection, which you have described nonsensically as 'self-creation'.

As sexual selection is not actually distinct from natural selection, as is shown by those quotes you supposedly have no problem with, then your argument is clearly nonsensical, as in, possesses no coherent sense whatsoever. This is because you don't comprehend what you're talking about due to a lack of relevant knowledge and a surfeit of overblown confidence in your interpretation of your motivating religious ideology.

Sexual selection, of course, occurs with other forms of natural selection, and all these competing factors interplay in the survival of genes into the population in the next iteration. These multi-dimensional tugs of war produce 'infinite variety' because there's no absolute directionality to it - another of your endless series of bullshit babushkas. Instead, genes which may result in a little extra hair growth that may be beneficial in a given environment, compete with genes that may result in less hair growth which may be less beneficial in a given environment... and those given environments could be climatic or social in either case, or in both cases concurrently. At the same time, there are other genes vying for their ticket into the next generation, and these may influence, negate, or promote those previous genes, in turn hampering or improving the fitness and the survival of the organism bearing them.

But of course, you pretend it's all so simple. As I've said, it's only simple when you have a simple understanding of it. When you start conceiving of billions of genes engaging in this interplay and the statistical shuffling involved in the representation of variety across a gene pool from one iteration to the next, then you could no longer pretend to yourself that it's simple.


Jayjay4547 wrote: it forms a closed system.


No, this is completely wrong. This is only an indication of how little you know. A closed system would simply repeat itself, there'd be no variation, and therefore no evolution. Why do you pretend to know what you're talking about?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Whereas the creator...


Sorry, you don't get to smuggle in unevidenced entities while bullshitting about science.


Jayjay4547 wrote: is expressed in the actions of external actors.


Gibberish. Moronic gibberish at that.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Indirectly in the case of peacock tails, directly in the more creative case of human speech and our symbiosis-like relationship with objects.


Nice assertions you got there. Must look pretty on the church altar. Tawdry counterfeits in reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
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?


No, I’m offering evidence of a consistent trend in how human origin stories have been told :


You seem to think you're some kind of magician, JJ.

Citing a 150 year old book cannot, in any serious way, be taken as 'evidence' for a 'consistent trend' can it?

Further, given you acknowledged that Darwin and modern biologists disagree, then you're obviously not even trying to make sense as this would be diametrically opposite to a 'consistent trend'.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Taking general biology as a bench mark reflected in the first edition of Origin of Species and the modern presentations from your quotes, compared with the human origin story as reflected in Descent of Man, Darwin’s addition to his original definition, The Naked Ape, Maslin’s article and the denial of external actors evidenced by ratskep posters.


This looks more like a mental health issue than a serious discussion: apophenia. You're throwing assorted scraps at a wall and pretending to yourself they make coherent pictures. In reality, they're a) mutually contradictory and b) irrelevant. The former, as is clearly the case, your interpretation of Darwin's quote is inconsistent with the position of modern Biology, ergo it is evidence contradicting your contention. The latter, ratskep posters have absolutely fuck all to do with anything. Really, the latter is just an indication of the prejudice motivating your posts here. I concur with Hermit insofar as this is clearly a deeply unhealthy obsession on your part.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


That is careless misdirecting rubbish.


That is indeed careless misdirecting rubbish evading how valid my point was. You're trying to appeal to Darwin to claim that atheists and modern scientists must necessarily believe it, whereas that makes no sense in terms of science or atheism... it's only religious fundamentalists who engage this form of mental subordination to doctrinal authority.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t see this other source, quote mining or something that confounds my argument. Confounds MY argument? And what 3 words? You aren’t making sense.


Like you'd ever acknowledge it even if I went through word by word. Of course you don't acknowledge it, JJ. That's because you're a bullshit artist blagging moronically about things you clearly are poorly equipped to deal with.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: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?


The theme in modern origin story telling has a historical origin; its development can be traced from 1872, as I traced in the post you are commenting on. And as I have tried to explain before.


And your arguments in this thread were written in 2019, and the subject of your arguments was never about what was understood in 1872, but always about what's supposedly the case now. To succeed in pulling the wool over my eyes, you're going to need at least some wool JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
You could show that my argument is wrong by pointing to a TofE human origin narrative that isn’t all about our supposed sociality, male competition for the possession of females, female choice, “strategies” or male hunting.


Oh I could, could I?

Yeah, and so what's happened in the past when I've done exactly this? Did you acknowledge your errors and change your argument?

Of course you didn't, you either spin, misdirect and quote-mine, or ignore it if you can't fathom a way to blag it.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


I did cite Darwin’s words, in double bold above. Maybe I should have used caps and big font as well to draw your attention to the point I was making.


Uh where do I suggest I didn't notice you'd cited Darwin, JJ?

I absolutely noticed you cited Darwin, which is why I referred to the quote you cited by Darwin and said that your argument doesn't remotely follow from anything you've quoted.

I even spelled out what you would need to do, but of course, why would you expose yourself to specifics when you thrive in ambiguity? We all know how well it's worked out for you in the past when you're pinned down to something.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Your claims to having predicted my responses and that I squirm to avoid your points, are both crocks.


Because you're going to be the judge of that? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are so predictable, JJ. That's only because your M.O. has been thoroughly exposed here over the last few years. My prediction was perfectly accurate. You went hunting for a quote, misrepresented a tiny sliver of it, and now you're going to pretend you've attained an unassailable position. Spot on. Wanna take a poll among the others here? Oh wait, we're all a faceless heathen mass to you, mass indoctrinated by our shared ideology, so that protects you from any such notion of community feedback, eh JJ?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Darwin started a style of telling the human origin story in terms of human actors, and that style has been followed by human origin story tellers ever since.


Ever since, except that all the quotes shown expressly contradict everything you've written on the topic over the last 60 pages.

You keep pretending that modern Biology (as part of the atheist ideology starting with Darwin) ignores natural selection in favour of sexual selection, i.e. what you call 'self-creation'. Whereas the citations I provided state that modern Biology doesn't see sexual selection as being something distinct from natural selection.

That is to say that your entire argument of dozens of pages is categorically false.

Which of course, you will never acknowledge, and will keep repeating the same bullshit for the next 10 years, which is why you're held in such high regard here JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:That stopped them from even seeing what kind of animal our ancestor Australopithecus was...


Ahh we're back to your magical vision.

That magical vision of 'seeing' what baraminological KIND (you frothing creationist) of animal "Australopithecus" (the genus) was... that special power you possess which somehow also lets you fail to know the difference between an afarensis and an africanus, a male and a female, and a juvenile and an adult...

And you STILL THINK YOU'RE CREDIBLE! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote: (fully adapted into hand weapon use),


The Goebbels School of Argumentation.

Go learn how adaptation works.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and from seeing even the basics of the creative path our ancestors adaptively followed (exaptation). These weren’t small mistakes.


There are no mistakes, JJ, because there's no plan, no oversight, no goal, no intended outcome... just differential survival according to a suite of genes and a concurrent environment, with a healthy dollop of sheer chance involved. I make sure to add that last one as I know it will send you into paroxysms of anxiety. It's ok: once you've regained control of your motorneurons, you can soothe yourself by intoning the 'atheist ideology' mantra.


Jayjay4547 wrote:In the meantime, general biologists, not seeing the point of differentiating between natural and sexual selection, have classified the latter as just a special case.


Or in other words, completely contradictory to hundreds of repetitions of your previous argument. Babushka, babushka, babushka!


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: 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.


How could it be a conspiracy delusion if I have just made it and on this forum?


Uhh because Tuesday? I have 3 non-sequiturs in the morning? Do you like anvils on toast?

How would you making it and it being on this forum obviate it being a conspiracy delusion?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Who could I be conspiring with?


Umm well, I mean, nice try at equivocation, I guess... but a conspiracy theory isn't a conspiracy and doesn't mean the conspiracy theorist is engaging in a conspiracy; understandably confusing for you as it does unhelpfully possess the word 'conspiracy' which seems to have thrown you there! :)

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

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5] Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.[7][8]


Any suggestion of a conspiracy theory requiring other people to conspire?

An individual can concoct a conspiracy theory JJ, i.e. just like your conspiracy theory above. The conspiracy, of course, being that modern biologists take care to deny something that Darwin said... remember? That original non-sequitur you're still grooving from?


**cont**
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3949  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 20, 2019 9:15 am

**cont**

Jayjay4547 wrote: You are just throwing mud around in the confident hope that whatever you throw around will be taken here as sticking.


Alternatively, you're talking a load of bollocks and have no recourse once you're called out for it. Go on: wave your hands some more.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Not that it’s important,...


Ahh so it's not important now.

So it's unimportant misdirection, which is why you've spent so many words addressing it. Good to know.


Jayjay4547 wrote: it seems to me...


Well that's a poor start, isn't it? We've long experience of how distant from any shareable reality the things that seem to you are.


Jayjay4547 wrote: ... that modern biologists give much more than a rat’s hoot about what Darwin said about natural vs sexual selection.


Well, that would be because you're basically entirely ignorant of modern Biology. At best, you've read a scattering of popular books over the last few decades, and then you've run them through your Creationist sieve to sort out the doctrinally acceptable parts.

In reality, modern biologists simply don't talk much about Darwin at all. It's not like anything he said is really relevant to any knowledge today aside from having been the first to publish the idea. As I've already pointed out to you: Darwin was wholly ignorant of the unit of inheritance, he didn't know about genes. You might as well claim that modern Biologists natter endlessly about Mendel. Of course, modern biologists are just a tad too busy doing modern Biology to be worried about history and Creationist revision of reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote: If Darwin had known about genes, I don’t see what he would have changed in what he wrote.


And? Again, you think you're a yard-stick. A guy with no formal training and clearly very, very little knowledge about Biology doesn't see what would've changed.

So?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: 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.


Where do I “pretend” that?


In the above which I cited and you must've read in order to reply.


Jayjay4547 wrote: But it’s true that I have become more creationist in that I’m seeing real benefits in using that word, which previously I was shy about.


Awww JJ. And now it's so empowering to be counted among the scientifically illiterate reality deniers for doctrine.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Creation embodies the notions that we were formed by something greater than ourselves and that we cannot wrap our minds around it.


Evolution also embodies the notions that we were formed by something greater than ourselves that you cannot wrap your mind around.

It just has one less entity. Really, it's that entity which is the important thing to you; nice story though bro.


Jayjay4547 wrote: The concept now seems to me more enduring than I had expected.


Right because when you started believing in Creation you thought to yourself, you know this isn't likely to endure, but I'll believe in it for a while anyway just because.

:lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote: Earlier, I used words like “environment”, “biome” “Africa” “Gaia” to point to the thing that appear to have the power of creation and was slow to appreciate that the old word “creator” points directly to that power.


Earlier you tried to sneak the concept of your preferred divine entity into the discussion by employing different labels but were called on it each and every time because, regardless of what you call it, a pile of shit still stinks.


Jayjay4547 wrote:One could argue...


One could argue many things, the motivation for so doing might be of more interest at this point.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... that in the Mediterranean societies, a recognition of the human status as created beings, led to them painting this creator through myth in more concrete detail than warranted by what they could prove.


Oooh Mediterranean societies.

Are we plumbing some new layer here, JJ? Were these Mediterranean societies perhaps comprised of some compelling genetic characteristic that helped them in their formidable recognition?


Jayjay4547 wrote: As a Christian,...


:lol:

You're not a Christian anymore, JJ. You're a Creationist.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I try to manage the problems involved in using the same word for a useful secular concept and one member of the Trinity, by not capitalising the former.


Translation: I try my best to smuggle in my pet god concept through the back door and never understand why people still spot it.


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


Says the guy doing exactly that.


There could be several explanations.


It would only be pointless for someone else to speculate, amirite JJ? You with your special powers of seeing, well that's a different story, right?


Jayjay4547 wrote:Maybe Darwin needed to present a fat book on human origins and without his digression into sexual selection it would have been a slim volume. Maybe he was just fascinated with sexual selection as a biological phenomenon and shoe-horned it into his human origin narrative. Maybe he deeply intuited the ideological needs of his allies. These are all Maybes.


Indeed, like maybe you've acquired an adaptation to your speech anatomy that now functions from the alternate end of your digestive tract.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


Nonsense.


That's EXACTLY what occurred: it's still written right there.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Exactly what Darwin meant by natural selection being “more rigorous” isn’t clear...


LOL you cited it, you referred to it, and now you want it to lack clarity?

Who the fuck do you think you're talking to JJ? Some 13th century illiterate peasant?


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and in any case is irrelevant.


Wasn't irrelevant when you were citing it and pretending it meant exactly the opposite of what it says. Funny that, eh?


Jayjay4547 wrote: If an animal dies or just doesn’t procreate, the results in the gene pool are the same.


Does not follow. All animals die, JJ... well, with some potential exceptions, fringe cases.

For them to be the same, the animal who dies needs to have not procreated prior to dying, in which case, you've just erected a tautology.


Jayjay4547 wrote: That’s a sense in which sexual selection can be said to be a special case of natural selection.


No, it's just normal natural selection.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I’ve always suspected that Darwin meant it’s tougher on a guy to be killed than just to not have kids.


You intuited that did you? Special sight again?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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?


I have zero interest in calling you evil cunts.


You do it over and over, just without those words.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Please don’t put filth in my mouth.


And yet more fatuous blagging.

Where did I put words in your mouth?

I asked you a question: Do you just want to call us all evil cunts and be done with it?

Nice try again, but these are not working out well for you, are they?


Jayjay4547 wrote: You don’t seem to understand the model I have presented...


a) it's not a model, it's just a silly assertion b) it's internally inconsistent c) you disproved it yourself d) you're either full of shit or have forgotten what you argued for dozens of pages - guess which one I think is most likely?


Jayjay4547 wrote:...which is, a consistent trend in the human origin narrative, set against the backdrop of general biology that is less subject to the influence of atheist ideology.


None of the component pieces you've ever established as existing outside the confines ff your obsessively bigoted mind.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


It’s not prejudice to see a pattern in story telling. The trail of evidence goes from Darwin through Desmond Morris and as I cited as more authoritative than on this forum, Maslin. It’s monotonic.


See? Logical challenge to your claim. You simply restate the claim.

This is why you're still here 10 years later having made no headway at all. You're the internet equivalent of a foam-flecked soap box demagogue who's not interested in engagement, or conversation, or dialogue... he just needs his words to be heard! They don't agree? Then SHOUT LOUDER!


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: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:


The influence of theist ideology, associated with the dialectic developed in the CvE debate, is a tangled and large topic but the thread I’m exploring here is pretty simple: Darwin showed how to tell the human origin story in terms of humans only,...


Ummm no. Not only did Darwin not do that, Biology has never done that either.


Jayjay4547 wrote: you-all copied that slavishly,


You're breaking up, JJ... you need to take your meds.


Jayjay4547 wrote: so you get the story wrong. Biologists in general, haven’t been so stupid.


You wouldn't know a Biologist if it bit you on the arse.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: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.


That narrative is no closer to the truth than the one you get from telling the human origin story only in terms of humans.


Literally no one ever has told the human origins narrative in terms only of humans. It's another of your inane strawman attempts.

Recall, I studied Biological Anthropology, so I was actually immersed wholly in human origins - not much on the narrative front, but that's another of your babushkas we can ignore for a moment - and we repeatedly looked at interspecific competition in the evolution of humans, ergo, your ignorance is showing pet.


Jayjay4547 wrote: At the same time as smudging the distinctions between humans and other humanoids. Both driven by sterile ideology.


Sorry, I speak English. There's no word 'smudging' that's relevant here, and you've erected the notion of 'ideology' without establishing any ideology.

In other words, stop repeating your inane bullshit that's been spanked back to the Bronze Age a dozen times, JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


That is personal ridicule and it’s inaccurate;


Bollocks.

It's personal ridicule and it's wholly accurate.

You are ridiculous. A perfectly ridiculous figure.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not sad.


Oh sorry, I forgot you're from 1872. Another meaning of the word 'sad' typically used in such sentences as 'you sad little man' would be 'pathetically inadequate'. Welcome to 20th century vocabulary; enjoy your visit.


Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s you who carelessly slings shit around.


Wouldn't need to if there wasn't a rabid, deranged bigot manically obsessed with expressing his hatred of me because I don't genuflect to his antiquated magical myth.
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3950  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 20, 2019 9:42 am

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.



I didn't really notice when I cited it, but this is remarkably apposite, serving as a near perfect description of JJ's tenure on this forum.
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3951  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 22, 2019 3:26 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:That [focus on telling human origin story in terms of other humans] stopped them from even seeing what kind of animal our ancestor Australopithecus was. [fully adapted into hand weapon use],[/..


Ahh we're back to your magical vision.

That magical vision of 'seeing' what baraminological KIND (you frothing creationist) of animal "Australopithecus" (the genus) was... that special power you possess which somehow also lets you fail to know the difference between an afarensis and an africanus, a male and a female, and a juvenile and an adult...

And you STILL THINK YOU'RE CREDIBLE! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


When I put up a pic of a sculptured Australopithecus skull to demonstrate their distinctive lack of fangs, Spearthrower declared flatly that it was of a female, that he knew this because he knew what specimens the sculptor had used, blah blah. On a hunch I asked the manufacturer (Dinosaur Corp) whether it was of a male or female, and was told, MALE. Now he jeers at me for supposedly failing to know the difference between male and female.

Ironically, the distinctive feature across the Australopithecus genus, was that neither male nor females had fang like canines.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The influence of theist ideology, associated with the dialectic developed in the CvE debate, is a tangled and large topic but the thread I’m exploring here is pretty simple: [i]Darwin showed how to tell the human origin story in terms of humans only,.[you-all copied that slavishly so you get the story wrong. Biologists in general, haven’t been so stupid].


Ummm no. Not only did Darwin not do that, Biology has never done that either....You're breaking up, JJ... you need to take your meds.....Literally no one ever has told the human origins narrative in terms only of humans. It's another of your inane strawman attempts.


There is a population of human origin narratives told in terms of evolution, just as there is a genre of detective novels. If you can find one that isn’t in terms of other humans or at least humans acting on animals (hunting) rather than reacting to the will of other species, then bring it up here for discussion.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s you who carelessly slings shit around.


Wouldn't need to if there wasn't a rabid, deranged bigot manically obsessed with expressing his hatred of me because I don't genuflect to his antiquated magical myth.


For a long time I have experienced ratskep posters reacting extravagantly to my posts and I have come to see that as a group ploy. If you keep on jeering at me, that inclines others to disregard what I say. That goes with the territory. But you are particularly on my case, obsessed with cutting my sentences, denying any capacity in me to make a point and grossly misrepresenting my position. Cito also, to a great extent. It’s not me who is obsessed here, it’s you.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1064
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3952  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 22, 2019 5:37 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Ahh we're back to your magical vision.

That magical vision of 'seeing' what baraminological KIND (you frothing creationist) of animal "Australopithecus" (the genus) was... that special power you possess which somehow also lets you fail to know the difference between an afarensis and an africanus, a male and a female, and a juvenile and an adult...



Once again, either clueless or a bullshit artist. I am going to toss this out to the forum to see which you think it is.

JJ, of course, didnt ask the MANUFACTURER. He asked a SELLER of Dinosaur replicas. JJ's either pretending it's the manufacturer because he is desperate to add a little legitimacy to his argument, or he's just this clueless and, driven by desire for corroboration, he didn't for a moment think to validate anything about his inquiry.

How can we know its not the manufactuer?

Well, for a start, the very same replica skull is sold on... at a first pass without really bothering to try too hard... 24 different websites, all in competition with one and other.

In reality, there is actually an independent sculptor who made this replica (it's actually specified on most of these websites), which he then sold on to all these sites selling replicas, and he made this particular model... to the best of my knowledge, approximately 22 years ago.

As many may remember, after JJ dropped his little foray into 'research'... he promptly disappeared for a few weeks. There was some amused discussion as to whether he believed he had achieved a mic drop moment, or whether he'd realized a few minutes after posting it just how fucking stupid it made him look and had consequently scurried off to hide for a bit and let the heat dissipate.

In the mean time, I decided to conduct a fun experiment. Of course, not being motivated by ideology, understanding the problems of asking a single seller a leading question and then hanging everything on their response, and also having scientific training which necessarily doesn't build castles from single data points and understands concepts like controls.... I decided to write an email to all the companies on my list adding controls; I wrote to 20 of the websites but 2 addresses were rejected, so 18 total. However, in my emails I changed just one detail. In 1/3 of them, I asked whether the replica was male. In 1/3 I asked whether it was female. And in 1/3 I simply asked what sex it was.

The format was:
Dear <company>, I am looking to buy a <gender or unspecified> Australopithecus afarensis replica skull. Could you please tell me what gender <their product number> is?

Obviously this is going to sail right over JJ's head, but I am sure other people here are not so dense and can explain to JJ why I did it this way.

Unfortunately, not all the websites were as strong in the customer service department as the one JJ happened to write to, but I still received back 10 replies. However, these are a little skewed now - damn uncontrollable humans, don't they know this is an experiment?

1) Requesting Male
Sent: 6
Total replies:3
Responses: 2 said male, 1 said they didn't know but could find out for me (ooh honesty!)

2) Requesting Female
Sent: 6
Total replies:3
Responses: all 3 said female

3) Unspecified gender
Sent: 6
Total replies:4
Responses: 2 said male, 1 said female, one said it was unknown :scratch:

So what is this phenomenon we're seeing?

Well, I submit that a seller of replicas who buys in models of thousands of different species (and in fact on most of these sites, replicas of historical art and various archaeological finds) can't really expected to have the training necessary to make any identification whatsoever, so unless they happened to have those details to hand, they instead opted to tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. This could sound unscrupulous, and perhaps in some of these cases it was unscrupulous - they quite possibly think that no one knows what sex it is, so telling me what I want to hear isn't going to hurt anyone.

Whatever the case is, it's a perfect example of JJ's confirmation bias. He found a single source which corroborated what he wanted to hear, did nothing whatsoever to corroborate it, then latched permanently onto it in typical close-minded fashion.

I provided a fairly complete list of characteristics which allows trained palaeoanthropologists to sex male or female Australopithecus afarensis' crania, I also supplied something in the region of 20 independent sources from expert palaeoanthropologists reporting in respectable peer-reviewed journals explicit anatomical descriptions which professionals in the field recognize as metrics for establishing the sex of afarensis... JJ has outright ignored each and every one of these - not even replying to those posts - his bar is a single email to a seller of Dinosaur replica items with no training whatsoever in anything relevant to sexing any hominid, let alone Australopithecines, let alone specifically afarensis... and now he actually thinks he can score back some credibility.

Is this knowing bullshit, or is he really this ignorant?

In terms of this thread, what actually occurred is that JJ tried to make one of his ever-retreating arguments that relied on comparing a male gorilla with a female Australopithecus afarensis, I took much amusement from this as he hung so much on in, and had been pounding his chest declaring his special ability to see what kind of animal Australopithecus (an entire genus of animals) truly was, yet he wasn't even able to tell a female from a male.

On top of that, we have hard recorded evidence in this thread of JJ being unable to tell the difference between a juvenile and an adult specimen, and most amusingly, unable to even tell the difference between an Australopithecus afarensis and an Australopithecus africanus!

And yet... he still wants to pose as someone serious and credible, and is still trying to sell his special ability to really see what kind of animal a... genus of animals that diversified anatomically over millions of years.... truly was. Clown.

This is why people laugh at Creationists.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Sep 22, 2019 5:53 am, edited 2 times 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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3953  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 22, 2019 5:43 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Ironically, the distinctive feature across the Australopithecus genus, was that neither male nor females had fang like canines.


It is indeed ironic that you still think this given the number of references to papers by trained palaeoanthropologists I've cited expressly contradicting this dogmatic belief you insist on in the absence of evidence or education.

The irony is that you continue to believe this because you are motivated by a religious belief which in no way requires you to hold this position.

The reason you continue to hold this position is a combination of pure arrogance and confidence in your Creationist beliefs, and a hostile prejudice against the members of this forum.
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3954  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 22, 2019 5:45 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:There is a population of human origin narratives told in terms of evolution, just as there is a genre of detective novels.


No, there isn't.


Jayjay4547 wrote: If you can find one that isn’t in terms of other humans or at least humans acting on animals (hunting) rather than reacting to the will of other species, then bring it up here for discussion.


Fantastic, you've done what you always do and contradict yourself while pretending you are still right.

Humans acting on animals? :lol:

What about animals acting on humans, JJ? Never read any papers at all ever about the impact of predation on human evolution?

No?

Well, you run along and do some elementary reading, and when you garner a basic knowledge of the data in this field, we can have a serious discussion.
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3955  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 22, 2019 5:48 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
For a long time I have experienced ratskep posters reacting extravagantly to my posts and I have come to see that as a group ploy. If you keep on jeering at me, that inclines others to disregard what I say. That goes with the territory. But you are particularly on my case, obsessed with cutting my sentences, denying any capacity in me to make a point and grossly misrepresenting my position. Cito also, to a great extent. It’s not me who is obsessed here, it’s you.


No group ploy.

Even if I was alone and everyone on your side, I would still be jeering at you for your inane foolishness, disregard for reality, and insistence that whatever you say must be taken as fact even when all the evidence directly contradicts it.

Regardless of your education and expertise in engineering, you really are the most stupid of men as you are wholly blind to yourself. No real knowledge can be achieved without first knowing yourself, your limitations, and your motivations. You don't see how it's you being motivated by hostility to engage here and prove everyone and everything wrong. You don't see how your litany of errors and foolish claims make you look like an erroneous fool, which is why you have no credibility whatsoever and have become the butt of jokes. So deep down the rabbit hole of your own rectum you are, that it's not YOU who's obsessed, it's literally EVERYONE ELSE!

Seek help.
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3956  Postby Fenrir » Sep 22, 2019 9:36 am

And yet JJ doesn't misrepresent my position. :smoke:

JJ very carefully does not respond at all to my points. :lol:
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3363
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

#3957  Postby THWOTH » Sep 22, 2019 10:22 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The main external relations for our deep ancestors, like for any prey species in a deeply structured biome like in Africa, would be their predators.


JJ, you've set up humans and something external to humans in order to place humans at the center of whatever relations you're postulating. If you don't understand that this assumes your conclusion, then you don't. You're still trying to portray the environment as forcing human evolution. But that's also your conclusion.


Not so complicated Cito, I was identifying the “external relations” for our early hominin ancestors. Then I went on to model how those relations bore on the human creation.

Yeah, that's what Cito just said.

This 'human origins story' isn't like a Marvel superhero origin story. There's no devised grand narrative arch to be played out, with popcorn. No hero, no antagonist, no catharsis, no redemption, no actors, agents, producers, directors, or writers all working to bring a story to life, as it were. So what if it's all just dumb material doing dumb material stuff, and that we call all that evolution, and that us two-legged thunking mammals are just one of the results of alll of it? Really, what's wrong with that story?

Sure, it's (relatively speaking) important to tell each other stories about where we've come from, where we are, and where we're going. In fact one might argue that our evolved capacity for story-telling is a response to certain environmental pressures, and that this capacity allowed our ancestors to succeed by offering them a means to transmit information and plan ahead, and all that jazz. However, your stories about early humans being involved in a unique and peculiar Battle Royal between themselves and Nature, a battle that by rights humans should have lost if not for the helping hand of Shiva, Odin, Arceus, Bandu, Him, Her, or whatever deity, starts with humans being a special species and continues to justify that specialness on the basis that... well... on the basis that humans are just special.

If that story works for you then that's great. jayjay, I think you're special. Really, really special.

Now tell me again why it's not OK for people to think that they're nothing special or why nobody else can be special unless they accept your story as actually factually true?
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3958  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 22, 2019 12:53 pm

One of those lovely echoing ironies in this thread is how far removed from knowledge JJ is, yet how full of bluster and bravado he is. Confidence and ignorance, those inseparable bed-fellows.

Previously, many pages back, JJ put up a picture of an A. africanus skull that he thought was afarensis, and didn't realize was a juvenile. This, despite having a raging hard on for Raymond Dart, the finder of this specimen.

So now we have yet another layer of ignorance to add to it.

How did the Taung child die? You know - the very same individual which JJ cited but didn't know the first thing about?

As first reported by Berger and Clarke in 1995 - yes, that makes it 23 years of JJ failing to grasp this - the taung child was killed by an eagle.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8485710603
Eagle involvement in accumulation of the Taung child fauna; Berger and Clarke (1995)

Further confirmation 8 years later through comparative analysis
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scr ... 7000600013
Further evidence for eagle predation of, and feeding damage on, the Taung child, Berger and McGraw 2007


So there goes another babushka.

Of course, that doesn't mean JJ will actually stop using that babushka just yet - if he was in the habit of acknowledging his factual errors, this thread would be about 197 pages shorter.
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: 24390
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3959  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 24, 2019 10:40 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Ahh we're back to your magical vision.

That magical vision of 'seeing' what baraminological KIND (you frothing creationist) of animal "Australopithecus" (the genus) was... that special power you possess which somehow also lets you fail to know the difference between an afarensis and an africanus, a male and a female, and a juvenile and an adult...

Once again, either clueless or a bullshit artist. I am going to toss this out to the forum to see which you think it is.

JJ, of course, didnt ask the MANUFACTURER. He asked a SELLER of Dinosaur replicas. JJ's either pretending it's the manufacturer because he is desperate to add a little legitimacy to his argument, or he's just this clueless and, driven by desire for corroboration, he didn't for a moment think to validate anything about his inquiry.

How can we know its not the manufactuer?

Well, for a start, the very same replica skull is sold on... at a first pass without really bothering to try too hard... 24 different websites, all in competition with one and other.

In reality, there is actually an independent sculptor who made this replica (it's actually specified on most of these websites), which he then sold on to all these sites selling replicas, and he made this particular model... to the best of my knowledge, approximately 22 years ago.

As many may remember, after JJ dropped his little foray into 'research'... he promptly disappeared for a few weeks. There was some amused discussion as to whether he believed he had achieved a mic drop moment, or whether he'd realized a few minutes after posting it just how fucking stupid it made him look and had consequently scurried off to hide for a bit and let the heat dissipate.


I explained during that interim, I had to focus on work. But also, after revealing how shallow the grounds were for your expert opinion that this was a sculpture of a female, I felt some disgust for the whole forum. Every now and then I have just taken a break.

Spearthrower wrote:
In the meantime, I decided to conduct a fun experiment. Of course, not being motivated by ideology, understanding the problems of asking a single seller a leading question and then hanging everything on their response, and also having scientific training which necessarily doesn't build castles from single data points and understands concepts like controls.... I decided to write an email to all the companies on my list adding controls; I wrote to 20 of the websites but 2 addresses were rejected, so 18 total. However, in my emails I changed just one detail. In 1/3 of them, I asked whether the replica was male. In 1/3 I asked whether it was female. And in 1/3 I simply asked what sex it was.

The format was:
Dear <company>, I am looking to buy a <gender or unspecified> Australopithecus afarensis replica skull. Could you please tell me what gender <their product number> is?

Obviously this is going to sail right over JJ's head, but I am sure other people here are not so dense and can explain to JJ why I did it this way.

Unfortunately, not all the websites were as strong in the customer service department as the one JJ happened to write to, but I still received back 10 replies. However, these are a little skewed now - damn uncontrollable humans, don't they know this is an experiment?

1) Requesting Male
Sent: 6
Total replies:3
Responses: 2 said male, 1 said they didn't know but could find out for me (ooh honesty!)

2) Requesting Female
Sent: 6
Total replies:3
Responses: all 3 said female

3) Unspecified gender
Sent: 6
Total replies:4
Responses: 2 said male, 1 said female, one said it was unknown /scratch:

So what is this phenomenon we're seeing?

Well, I submit that a seller of replicas who buys in models of thousands of different species (and in fact on most of these sites, replicas of historical art and various archaeological finds) can't really expected to have the training necessary to make any identification whatsoever, so unless they happened to have those details to hand, they instead opted to tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. This could sound unscrupulous, and perhaps in some of these cases it was unscrupulous - they quite possibly think that no one knows what sex it is, so telling me what I want to hear isn't going to hurt anyone.

Whatever the case is, it's a perfect example of JJ's confirmation bias. He found a single source which corroborated what he wanted to hear, did nothing whatsoever to corroborate it, then latched permanently onto it in typical close-minded fashion.


It just delighted me that the people who sold or had commissioned this sculpture from “master sculptor Steve Pinney” told me a different sex than the one Spearthrower had so long jeered at me for not recognising.

Spearthrower wrote: I provided a fairly complete list of characteristics which allows trained palaeoanthropologists to sex male or female Australopithecus afarensis' crania, I also supplied something in the region of 20 independent sources from expert palaeoanthropologists reporting in respectable peer-reviewed journals explicit anatomical descriptions which professionals in the field recognize as metrics for establishing the sex of afarensis... JJ has outright ignored each and every one of these - not even replying to those posts - his bar is a single email to a seller of Dinosaur replica items with no training whatsoever in anything relevant to sexing any hominid, let alone Australopithecines, let alone specifically afarensis... and now he actually thinks he can score back some credibility.

Is this knowing bullshit, or is he really this ignorant?


All that is just the next ply in a developing argument. I don’t have any problem with the notion that suppliers of Steve Pinney’s work sexed it according to what they thought the enquirer wanted to hear. If it were a gorilla skull, that would be another matter.

It’s still unclear to me on what grounds Spearthrower flatly declared that this sculpture was intended as that of a female Au. afarensis. The only direct evidence he offered was a cartoonish marking up of images I had supplied, and without explanation.

From the evidence so far, it may well be that the sculpture wasn’t intended to be that of either sex. Unlike chimps or gorilla, where no one could mistake the sex.

Spearthrower wrote: In terms of this thread, what actually occurred is that JJ tried to make one of his ever-retreating arguments that relied on comparing a male gorilla with a female Australopithecus afarensis, I took much amusement from this as he hung so much on in, and had been pounding his chest declaring his special ability to see what kind of animal Australopithecus (an entire genus of animals) truly was, yet he wasn't even able to tell a female from a male.


No problem, here are reposted images of undoubted MALE gorilla and Au. afarensis skulls, demonstrating that our male ancestors lacked the features that enable gorilla male skulls to both take and dish out punishment. I added a modern human skull. It looks to me that modern humans have this difference from gorilla, in more extreme form.
males _Gorilla_Au_afarensis_Human.jpg
males _Gorilla_Au_afarensis_Human.jpg (11.61 KiB) Viewed 59 times


Other things being equal, enough people would get the same impression, ascribe this difference to Australopithecus using hand weapons and associate its exploitation with the the human faculty for speech which seems to require a larger brain, for that to be a significant thread in human origin narratives. But I argue that it isn't, partly because atheist ideology focuses on origin human origin stories where the actors are other humans. While the explanation for those skull differences involves other species as main actors, i.e. large African predators.

Spearthrower wrote: On top of that, we have hard recorded evidence in this thread of JJ being unable to tell the difference between a juvenile and an adult specimen, and most amusingly, unable to even tell the difference between an Australopithecus afarensis and an Australopithecus africanus!


I doubt whether I could tell afarensis from africanus but my argument is that those who can, including you and also the many posters who jeer at my argument without themselves being able to tell one from another, are all blinded by your group-think.

Spearthrower wrote: And yet... he still wants to pose as someone serious and credible, and is still trying to sell his special ability to really see what kind of animal a... genus of animals that diversified anatomically over millions of years.... truly was. Clown.

This is why people laugh at Creationists.

All australopithecines and their descendants seems to have shared the characteristics I point out above.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1064
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3960  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 24, 2019 11:18 am

THWOTH wrote:

This 'human origins story' isn't like a Marvel superhero origin story. There's no devised grand narrative arch to be played out, with popcorn. No hero, no antagonist, no catharsis, no redemption, no actors, agents, producers, directors, or writers all working to bring a story to life, as it were. So what if it's all just dumb material doing dumb material stuff, and that we call all that evolution, and that us two-legged thunking mammals are just one of the results of alll of it? Really, what's wrong with that story?


The human origin story just isn’t so boring. And it is really important because we are its outcome.

THWOTH wrote:
Sure, it's (relatively speaking) important to tell each other stories about where we've come from, where we are, and where we're going. In fact one might argue that our evolved capacity for story-telling is a response to certain environmental pressures, and that this capacity allowed our ancestors to succeed by offering them a means to transmit information and plan ahead, and all that jazz.


Thanks

THWOTH wrote: However, your stories about early humans being involved in a unique and peculiar Battle Royal between themselves and Nature, a battle that by rights humans should have lost if not for the helping hand of Shiva, Odin, Arceus, Bandu, Him, Her, or whatever deity, starts with humans being a special species and continues to justify that specialness on the basis that... well... on the basis that humans are just special.


Darwin said it depends on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions. I don’t have a problem with that. Other organic beings and external conditions have sometimes offered creative opportunities. For our ancestors, the creativity has turned out to be so extreme that its consequences are felt by all life. Call the source of creativity by any name of a god you like, I prefer just the word “creator”.

THWOTH wrote: If that story works for you then that's great. jayjay, I think you're special. Really, really special.


Go soak your head.
THWOTH wrote: Now tell me again why it's not OK for people to think that they're nothing special or why nobody else can be special unless they accept your story as actually factually true?


Like elephants, humans are particular. I don’t accept your story as actually factually true.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1064
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests