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

#3981  Postby Fenrir » Sep 28, 2019 6:26 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
JJ wrote:Read my words. If it turned out that some Australopithecus had fangs, that would mean they weren’t in fact fully adapted into kinetic weapon use and my whole model of the influence of atheist ideology on human origin stories would be wrong.


Read my words.

No.

It.

Would.

Not.

Lrn to logic.


If a scrap like that is "logic" then thanks I'll stay away from it.



Why break the habit of a lifetime? Why indeed.


Unless and until you provide some testable causal connection between canine size and weapon use then you have nothing past a comforting conjecture pressed into service to support a self-serving fabrication. A trivially wrong comforting conjecture.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3387
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3982  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 28, 2019 7:35 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
To AWE the public? Good science tries rather to engage the public. On this topic, you have been an appalling spokesman for science.


Look at all the substance you ignored and what you focused on.

And your self-gratifying ministrations are from topsy-turvy world. Between you and me, I've comparatively been a glowing fucking angel of science spokesmanship because I am not making up bullshit and ignoring evidence I don't like, whereas you've been a stellar example of Creationism.

Not, of course, that it's even a consideration in the slightest as I am not engaging here as a spokesman for science: no one elected me Internet Representative of Science! Of course, you know fuck all about science as has been shown repeatedly through this thread - an example of which I just identified and you responded by ignoring, no doubt still smugly satisfied in your absence of evidence acting as evidence.

What this really is about is you doing your usual transparent evasions. Can't respond to the substance? Engage in Spin Some Bullshit mode.


Jayjay4547 wrote:There is no shortage of reconstructions of sabretooths with fangs.


Oh really? Have you done research into the number of sabretooth cat reconstructions to know this, or are you just tossing it out at random?

Obviously, even this little foray contains a glaringly obvious oversight on your part. The sabretooth feline family have a massively oversized piece of dental anatomy that they're named after. And the sheer dimensions of that piece of anatomy also means they are more likely to survive fossilization in tact than the much smaller canines of other animals.

But of course, this is you engaging in near perfect simplification again: no interest in reality, only in what bits you can spin.


Jayjay4547 wrote: In the pics you showed of long sharp canines, the long sharp parts were the roots.


:lol:

Oh JJ, you really are horribly out of your depth, aren't you? You sit here pretending to know what you're talking about, constantly whining about how you want a serious conversation and how no one treats your proclamations with due gravitas... and then you say something as abjectly clueless as this.

No JJ, the roots of teeth are not long and sharp, nor do they have an enamel covering like the crowns.

I love how you toss out these one line declarations after ignoring evidence for dozens of pages: it's like it's taken you this long for your Morton's Demon to come up with a way to spin the information and protect your beliefs. Of course, it has your deep pool of ignorance to draw on, so what it eventually comes up with is completely nonsensical.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Regardless, let's turn it back the other way. If A. afarensis (or any Australopithecine) male possessed small, flat canines, then somewhere along the dozens of fossils and photographs of fossils, you'd be able to find and present a picture showing that. Why can't you? Well, first of all because you're wrong, and secondly because it's not even certain that you'd know what an afarensis canine looks like given how you've failed so many times in that regard in this very thread.


Image



It's frankly stunning how stupid you are. Genuinely gobsmacking.

You're now, once again, after all this time, nominally posting a picture of a male afarensis, yet blithely posting a picture of a FEMALE afarensis... AL 822-1

Idiocy repeats itself, because you've not learned a damn thing, so you're still making the exact same mistakes you did 50 pages back when this thread of conversation started.

This shows how so much of what you've been saying is wrong. You claim to have access to this information without needing to go through any expert channels, that you possess the competence to use Google to compete with expert knowledge, and yet time and time again, you show that you don't even know what you're looking at! This is why pictures are not the ultimate arbiter JJ, because you still need to know what you're looking at, and you manifestly do not. I bet you thought this was male, didn't ya? And now you're going to beat your chest pretending that we should all just assume it's male while I have to run around proving to your satisfaction that it's female, and because you're not motivated in the slightest by any honesty, you will simply refuse to acknowledge it at any point.

You have stupefying mix of ignorance and self-confidence.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Like I said, if I am shown one, that will so upset my understanding of human origins that I will leave this forum. I won’t leave it because you call me a lying little runt:


Like I said: what a silly reason. You're pretending you have some credibility that would be damaged by being shown wrong in a field you manifestly know fuck all about.


Read my words. If it turned out that some Australopithecus had fangs, that would mean they weren’t in fact fully adapted into kinetic weapon use and my whole model of the influence of atheist ideology on human origin stories would be wrong.


I've read your words: I could restate your simple argument with no difficulty whatsoever. I couldn't fill in the logical gaps, of course, because they're insoluble, but I know what silly ideas you've rammed together in the absence of any real world intervention.

There is no such thing as 'fully adapted into kinetic weapon use' - it's one of those endless streams of asserted bullshit which you never actually evidence and ignore all challenges to, so consequently no one is going to be buying into any idea comprised of this nonsense.

Further, you don't have a model of the influence of atheist ideology - stop rubbing yourself off - you have an assertion, a declaration, a thesis statement.... and the 5 years and hundreds of pages in this thread show that even with all the space and time in the world, you can't provide a single jot of support for that thesis statement, which is why it still remains in statement format.

It's funny to think that you consulted with students on their theses. The only way I can square that is if you were helping them correct their punctuation, spelling and grammar, because you don't appear to have any grasp of what actually constitutes a written thesis.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Yesterday, once my Windows update had quite finished, I did feel a little anxiety. I was quite relieved to see no skull pic in your response. Was i going mad? Turned out, I wasn't.


This just comes across as batshit, JJ.

You sound deranged. What level of obsession you must have to experience anxiety when you've got nothing whatsoever riding on the outcome.

But it does highlight why you refuse to acknowledge the ranks of evidence contradicting your claims: you're emotionally invested in the outcome. You won't consider anything that contradicts your position, whether that be dozens of experts' articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals making statements that outright contradict your declaration or empirical evidence showing you wrong... you approach this as if it's a battle you have to win for your team, and you won't give an inch anywhere.

That's fine for me: it's easier to keep poking fun at someone so wrong and so insistent they're right: you're a great advert for why Creationism fails.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt. I take full responsibility for those words, and I stand by them. I would happily stand an inch from your face and say exactly the same thing. You're an obsessive liar, you're an object example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and you need psychological help to deal with your obsessive hostility.


My emphasis.


Yes, go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt.

You can't cite it every post. I'll go grab the post where you called everyone rabid dogs, shall I?


Friendly advice to other viewers, don’t by mistake say something that could possibly be taken negatively, even if you are on the same side of the fence. You could get bitten. Not by rabid dogs, just over-excited promoters of scientific authority.

Edit: "scientists" to "promoters of scientific authority"



Friendly advice to other viewers, JJ is deeply prejudiced against the members of this forum - like all prejudice, it's irrational, which is why JJ can't come to terms with it, but aside from being the motivation for posting this thread in the first place, and the years he's invested coming here to express that deep anger and hostility, it also often ends up as is so often the case with motivated bigotry with him comparing the people here to animals. An example of this is when he likened us all.... all of us... as a group.... to crazed dogs rending each other in his presence. He then tried to play the victim card when people turned round that colourful little statement of bigotry.

This is a very disturbed individual here with a deeply unhealthy obsession who keeps trying to mask his motivations, but who keeps failing at it, and showing what's really going on under the hood.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Sep 28, 2019 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3983  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 28, 2019 7:38 am

Fenrir wrote:They were red too.

Red lines!

Will that be the next mortal sin worth gormlessly whining about?

Or does JJ have some till now unseen point he'd like to make?



It's not just laughably inept, it's also kinda weird that JJ actually had to think this out, sit down and type it, and then press submit without his brain even once suggesting that it was perhaps an insanely dumb evasion to try and use.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3984  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 28, 2019 7:39 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If a scrap like that is "logic" then thanks I'll stay away from it.



Why break from form, eh JJ? Lifetime habits are well worn comforting grooves you can slide into with the minimum of intellectual expenditure.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3985  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 28, 2019 7:51 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:You originally said flatly that the sculpture was of a female, to contradict my point that Australopithecus genus didn’t have fang-like canines. All your later pics and graphs, (without explanations) and now your open appeal to authority via a Yale professor, fail to touch the point I made long ago: if any Australopithecus male had fang-like canines, then somewhere among the hundreds of sculptures and reconstructions, there would be at least one creditable pic, showing an Australopithecus male with fang like canines.



Spearthrower wrote:Ahhh so you're going to appeal to absence of evidence as evidence of your claim? :lol:

...

Regardless, let's turn it back the other way. If A. afarensis (or any Australopithecine) male possessed small, flat canines, then somewhere along the dozens of fossils and photographs of fossils, you'd be able to find and present a picture showing that. Why can't you? Well, first of all because you're wrong, and secondly because it's not even certain that you'd know what an afarensis canine looks like given how you've failed so many times in that regard in this very thread.


And JJ's response - no accompanying text, just a mic-drop moment with a single photograph:


Jayjay4547 wrote:Image


He posts a photograph of the reconstruction of a FEMALE afarensis. :doh: :crazy: :lol:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Lat ... 6_46380828

Lateral view of A.L. 822-1 'final' restoration (cast), showing the superiorly extended position of the nuchal lines as expressed by W. E. Le Gros Clark's nuchal area height index: maximum height of nuchal lines (upper horizontal line) above Frankfurt Horizontal (lower horizontal line) as a percentage of maximum cranial vault height above FH (vertical line).



And the describing paper which I already cited in this thread, and whose author has also written papers describing sexual dimorphism in afarensis which clearly and directly contradict JJ's contentions about male afarensis' canines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981961/

in A.L. 822-1 (a female)



This is why people laugh at Creationists.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3986  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 28, 2019 8:04 am

Spearthrower wrote:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2701232

(b) You could have actually re-posted these “several pics” of australopithecines with sharp [long] pointy canines. That would have simply ended my career on the ratskep forum...


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2701420

If you posted up a pic of an australopithecus skull with long/pointy or sharp canines that would show me that my whole understanding of human origins was wrong. It would be a bit like finding the earth is actually flat. Certainly I would leave this forum.


Now, for clarity, I am neither asking nor hoping you will leave the forum. More than anything, I am hoping that you stop and think for a while about the way you engage here and consequently seek to improve it.

But I do think that you generate an awful lot of drama here when you find yourself in a bind, and I think you have brought it on yourself many times over that such things cannot simply be politely ignored.

Why did you write this grand statement of personal integrity when it's clearly not true?

The list of basic errors in comparative primate morphology grows all the time.

For example;

You mistook a female afarensis replica for a male.

You mistook afarensis fossils for other, unspecified primates.

You mistook A. africanus for A. sediba.

You mistook a juvenile australopithecine skull for an adult australopithecine skull.

You mistook A.L. 822-1, a fossil comprised of just a cranium and associated mandible, for Lucy A.L. 288-1, a post cranial fossil nearly entirely lacking any cranium.


And these are just the most egregious; I could list half a dozen more immediately, but of course, you dispute them so there's little point in rehashing. However, aside from the first point above (on which your evasions have, frankly, been spanked long and hard), you don't dispute any of these: you know you made these errors, you know it's there in the written public record, and you declared previously that if you were caught in such an unavoidable acknowledgement of elementary error, you would leave the forum, presumably under the consideration of feeling you'd have lost all credibility.

Do you think that you haven't lost all credibility? Do you think if you keep talking about signals and smokescreens that these incidents will be forgotten or that people will feel compelled to give you the benefit of the doubt?



So here we are many pages later with JJ once again repeating the same error that's first on the list.

When you can't acknowledge and learn from your mistakes, you're not open to honest discussion, you're not motivated by truth... so the idea that a single photograph would cause you to flee the forum in a fit of noble humility is an entirely comical proposition. You have no credibility, you've been shown wrong so many times, and you just refuse to ever acknowledge your errors, simply repeating them ad nauseam as if they're unassailable support for some other nonsensical claim you've asserted.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3987  Postby newolder » Sep 28, 2019 8:36 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:...

If a scrap like that is "logic" then thanks I'll stay away from it.


Quite. Why would you start to learn how logic works at this late stage in your development? :roll:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3988  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 28, 2019 9:52 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: fail to touch the point I made long ago: if any Australopithecus male had fang-like canines, then somewhere among the hundreds of sculptures and reconstructions, there would be at least one creditable pic, showing an Australopithecus male with fang like canines.


Ahhh so you're going to appeal to absence of evidence as evidence of your claim? :lol:

Of course, there's a logical gap in your 'reasoning' there. You might be hyper-excited about photographs, but in reality, written reports is where the majority of information resides.

In reality, I have actually posted pictures of male A. afarensis canines, but of course, they weren't attached to the maxillary bone as long, thin, sharp things tend to break under pressure... the kind of pressure that results in fossils./Instead, there are associated canines. ....If you want to see pictures of all their bits stuck together, that's called a 'reconstruction' JJ. Reconstructions tend to be only used to awe the general public because computers allow far more flexibility when it comes to viewing anatomical geometry.


To AWE the public? Good science tries rather to engage the public.


You're "the public" now, JJ? Nope, you're just a loathsome, frustrated, obsessive god-botherer, making another crank call to your favorite atheist forum. Science can engage anyone who's willing to engage with it. You might have some delusion that you are engaging with science and scientific theory, but there's nothing left but your sputtering fury. Spearthrower has given you plenty with which to engage, and you have declined the offer enthusiastically.

Based on my recent exchanges with you, it doesn't appear that you're too engaged even with your own attempts at theology, either. Maybe you should go back to surveying, but who'd have you?
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: 28501
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3989  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 29, 2019 9:39 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There is no shortage of reconstructions of sabretooths with fangs.


Oh really? Have you done research into the number of sabretooth cat reconstructions to know this, or are you just tossing it out at random?

Sabretooth_skulls.jpg
Sabretooth_skulls.jpg (27.36 KiB) Viewed 118 times

Spearthrower wrote:
Obviously, even this little foray contains a glaringly obvious oversight on your part. The sabretooth feline family have a massively oversized piece of dental anatomy that they're named after. And the sheer dimensions of that piece of anatomy also means they are more likely to survive fossilization in tact than the much smaller canines of other animals./But of course, this is you engaging in near perfect simplification again: no interest in reality, only in what bits you can spin.


Your argument seems to be that the reason why there are no credible reconstructions of male Australopithecus with fang like canines is that the canines were so small that they didn’t survive fossilization intact. But there are plenty of reconstructions of Australopithecus with small canines. And you have presented graphs and pics of intact Australoptihecus canines, which you have presented as showing that they did have fangs. So why are there no reconstructions of male Australopithecus that could give context to your claims?

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: In the pics you showed of long sharp canines, the long sharp parts were the roots.


:lol:

Oh JJ, you really are horribly out of your depth, aren't you? You sit here pretending to know what you're talking about, constantly whining about how you want a serious conversation and how no one treats your proclamations with due gravitas... and then you say something as abjectly clueless as this.

No JJ, the roots of teeth are not long and sharp, nor do they have an enamel covering like the crowns.

I love how you toss out these one line declarations after ignoring evidence for dozens of pages: it's like it's taken you this long for your Morton's Demon to come up with a way to spin the information and protect your beliefs. Of course, it has your deep pool of ignorance to draw on, so what it eventually comes up with is completely nonsensical.


Here is the graphic you posted earlier showing hominin teeth:
Yohannes Haile-Selassie wrote:Image


What seem to me to suggest “long and sharp” are towards the bottom of the images but those are the roots; what seems to have enamel and would be exposed, are the unimpressive top bits.


Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

Exposed URL: researchgate.net/profile/Yoel_Rak/publication/46380828/figure/fig2/AS:307410678894593@1450303825328/Hadar-cranium-AL-444-2-Note-the-low-position-of-the-compound-temporal-nuchal-crest.pngXX

It's frankly stunning how stupid you are. Genuinely gobsmacking.

You're now, once again, after all this time, nominally posting a picture of a male afarensis, yet blithely posting a picture of a FEMALE afarensis... AL 822-1


Well spotted Spearthrower, my mistake. Though notice in the raw link to that image exposed above, it was identified as AL-444-2, which is of a male, I believe. That seems to be wrong and I should have spotted it.

Here is a reconstruction of that male fossil, showing that it didn’t have fang-like canines. Compare with those of male gorilla or chimps, which I have posted often.

Image

To see the wood for the trees, Australopithecus male skulls were more like the female ones, than is the case in modern gorilla and chimps. As I have often demonstrated through pics.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1094
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3990  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 29, 2019 9:46 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
You're "the public" now, JJ? Nope, you're just a loathsome, frustrated, obsessive god-botherer, making another crank call to your favorite atheist forum. Science can engage anyone who's willing to engage with it. You might have some delusion that you are engaging with science and scientific theory, but there's nothing left but your sputtering fury. Spearthrower has given you plenty with which to engage, and you have declined the offer enthusiastically.

Based on my recent exchanges with you, it doesn't appear that you're too engaged even with your own attempts at theology, either. Maybe you should go back to surveying, but who'd have you?


Wot sputtering fury Cito? You are just trying to get at me personally. That shouldn't be a persuasive way to debunk creationism.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1094
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3991  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 29, 2019 10:32 am

Fenrir wrote: Unless and until you provide some testable causal connection between canine size and weapon use then you have nothing past a comforting conjecture pressed into service to support a self-serving fabrication. A trivially wrong comforting conjecture.


I don’t understand what is comforting about the connection between canine size and weapon use and nothing about the creative origins of human beings is trivial.

Consider a thought experiment using this frame from the PBS video “When Humans were Prey”. Some questions:
hyena_chasing_hominin_PBS_When_Humans_Were_Prey.png
hyena_chasing_hominin_PBS_When_Humans_Were_Prey.png (356.34 KiB) Viewed 115 times

(a) What chance does this small-canine unarmed hominin have?
(b) Is this a realistic scenario for hominin-hyena competition? I mean, did they really just traipse around the savannah until some predator happened to spot them?
(c) Do hyena predate on baboons, whose males do have fangs?
(d) What other characteristics of hominins is out of place with them being fully adapted into using kinetic hand weapons for predator avoidance?
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1094
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3992  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 29, 2019 10:35 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
You're "the public" now, JJ? Nope, you're just a loathsome, frustrated, obsessive god-botherer, making another crank call to your favorite atheist forum. Science can engage anyone who's willing to engage with it. You might have some delusion that you are engaging with science and scientific theory, but there's nothing left but your sputtering fury. Spearthrower has given you plenty with which to engage, and you have declined the offer enthusiastically.

Based on my recent exchanges with you, it doesn't appear that you're too engaged even with your own attempts at theology, either. Maybe you should go back to surveying, but who'd have you?


Wot sputtering fury Cito? You are just trying to get at me personally. That shouldn't be a persuasive way to debunk creationism.


I responded to your point about the duty of science to engage with the public, but you seem quickly to have dropped that one, in favor of continuing your trolling expedition and feeling offended. My responses to you are personalized only insofar as I know anything about you beyond the creationist caricature that you present to me. The rest is just my derision of your single-minded hostility to whatever might threaten your fantasy of absorbing anything about human evolution. I wonder why you still feel you're deserving of engagement. You seem to lack understanding of how anyone can go on believing in God while accepting a scientific theory as the best available explanation of human origins. Don't forget, the rest of the universe tells us that this planet is not the focus of the cosmos. How one has to accept the special creation of humans to go on believing that it is goes beyond any questions you have addressed.

I (for one) don't need persuading against creationism, JJ. I've seen posts from no one other than you who could profit from having creationism debunked. I rather thought you were trying to persuade me in favor of some exceedingly wacky variant of creationism. You seem to be thinking now that I owe you an explanation of why I have not been persuaded of creationsism, but you can just fuck off with that, if that's what's behind your comment. Given the chance, I'd spit in your face just to see if you know how to throw a punch for Jebus, a fictional character who asks you to turn the other cheek instead of huffing about how offended you feel.

You enjoy ignoring the debunking and in return, throwing up the usual shit so you can imagine you're participating in some sort of debate. You are not. Spearthrower's data and commentary have amply shown this, although you deny it. If your screed is capable of persuading anyone not already believing in some Creator to adopt creationism, such a person is clearly beyond the help of any education I could add, absent their posting any actual questions about evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, I've never seen a creationist persuaded to drop creationism by this kind of discussion, despite the weight of data against them. You are, of course, a perfect case in point. Your variant of creationism is so far off the beaten track of what I am used to from creationists that it should profit me little to invest in debunking your extremely idiosyncratic masturbation fantasy of attacking accepted evolutionary theory.

To my eyes, this is more in the nature of a long-running video game. There are screaming clowns like you to shoot at in this cartoon world you're creating. Meanwhile, I've gotten a brief upgrade of my existing education in paleoanthropology, courtesy of Spearthrower. You could learn from it, but I think your creationism is immune to education. True believers - dogmatists - pride themselves on being impervious to any information that does not provide confirmation of their biases. I can't suddenly believe humans are some sort of special living organism simply because of anything you've published. You'll just have to do better than publishing a single (fanciful) image from a PBS documentary "when humans were prey". I understand how humans survived that phase of their evolution without resorting to Special Creation because, unlike you, I don't regard hyenas as demigods.
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: 28501
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3993  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2019 5:22 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There is no shortage of reconstructions of sabretooths with fangs.


Oh really? Have you done research into the number of sabretooth cat reconstructions to know this, or are you just tossing it out at random?

Sabretooth_skulls.jpg


Are you now answering in picture format?

I asked whether you'd done research into the number of sabretooth cat reconstructions to know that your claim was true or not. You've responded by posting some pictures.

This doesn't answer the question. How many reconstructions do those pictures actually represent? How many is 'no shortage' - presumably, a lot... but how many is 'a lot' exactly when it comes to reconstructions of a particular species?

None of this even elementary nuance is even touched on. You've made a point which dangles and does nothing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Obviously, even this little foray contains a glaringly obvious oversight on your part. The sabretooth feline family have a massively oversized piece of dental anatomy that they're named after. And the sheer dimensions of that piece of anatomy also means they are more likely to survive fossilization in tact than the much smaller canines of other animals./But of course, this is you engaging in near perfect simplification again: no interest in reality, only in what bits you can spin.


Your argument seems to be that the reason why there are no credible reconstructions of male Australopithecus with fang like canines is that the canines were so small that they didn’t survive fossilization intact.


That's a particularly odd reading, isn't it?

In reality, my argument is clearly that the sabretooth canines were so massively oversized that this extreme piece of skeletal anatomy forms the colloquial name for the entire genus, and consequently, being so large, they are more likely to survive fossilization than any species which possesses smaller canines.

That obviously doesn't say that other species have small canines. Perhaps you shouldn't try to reformulate my arguments when your reformulation completely misses my point? Or perhaps given the context in this thread, I would be fair to say you are intentionally misrepresenting my argument.

In reality, any force that is strong enough to break a sabretooth canine is strong enough to break any of the cranial skeleton of a sabretooth, whereas that's quite obviously not the case for the majority of animals.



Jayjay4547 wrote: But there are plenty of reconstructions of Australopithecus with small canines.


No, there aren't, and you've never shown any reconstructions of any australopithecine with small canines.

1) Again, please stop with the numptyism - you're talking about afarensis, the species, not Australopithecus, which can only be used as part of a species name. If you want to talk about the entire clade or genus, call them 'Australopithecines', and if you want to talk about A. afarensis, use the name. The problem for you is that the Australopithecines include a number of species with widely different attributes, and as I've told you before, small canines are not a diagnostic characteristics of the australopithecines. I've already pointed this out to you several times, and even went to the trouble dozens of pages ago, of suggesting that you appeal to a particular species of Australopithecine, it offering the best support for your argument, but you insist on using the genera term, yet talking about afarensis.

2) What's 'small'. You keep using words that are basically subjective - you're about to do this more in a moment having read on - but measurement is not a mystery, it's not some arcane element of scientific jargon you'd pollute yourself by using. I have to imagine that you continue to use these subjective terms to give yourself leeway to move the goalposts as you go along. Actually, the relationship between measurements of various parts - you know, the comparative part of the term comparative anatomy, is really what's interesting, and it's what all those numerous qualified professionals keep referring to when they say that male afarensis had large canines. Are they saying 'as big as a sabretooth'? Of course not, and if we were using sabretooth tigers as an example of 'large' then essentially all animals would have 'small' canines: instead, they're comparing them to other hominids, for example with one of the graphs I shared, it shows you a substantial overlap in canine size between afarensis and chimpanzees; this gives you a valid comparison, aside from the fact it also contains absolute measurements.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And you have presented graphs and pics of intact Australoptihecus canines, which you have presented as showing that they did have fangs.


Please stop bullshitting me to my face.

I robustly challenged and, in fact, completely demolished your attempt at inserting this woolly notion of 'fangs'. Spiders have fangs, hominids don't. So no, of course I've never presented anything at all concerning fangs as I reject it as nonsensical crap.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So why are there no reconstructions of male Australopithecus that could give context to your claims?


1) Why are there no reconstructions of male <insert a species, not part of the name for a species, and not quite a genus name here>? Well, firstly, who says there aren't? It's not like I'm the one saying... dude, I've put up reconstructions for you to peruse. For me, the reconstructions are not important whereas you've latched onto this notion that some specific yet unspecified bar is the only form of evidence you will accept. I find that laughable. I've provided ample evidence in many different formats supporting my position, I don't have to jump some hoop you've concocted to avoid acknowledging all that evidence.

2) Given that you tried this already, and I pointed out how pathetic it is for your position to appeal to a lack of evidence that you've seen as evidence for your position, when it's only you who wants this particular type of evidence, and you can't even show any evidence whatsoever for your case... and then when you try to, you once again post a fucking female afarensis, cluelessly, which is exactly what started this entire side-discussion, and which you're still arguing about 40 pages later, yet you still don't know what you're looking at.

And somehow, you still act like your position is credible. /shrug I can't help you: you're doing this to yourself, and I ain't coming to your rescue.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Oh JJ, you really are horribly out of your depth, aren't you? You sit here pretending to know what you're talking about, constantly whining about how you want a serious conversation and how no one treats your proclamations with due gravitas... and then you say something as abjectly clueless as this.

No JJ, the roots of teeth are not long and sharp, nor do they have an enamel covering like the crowns.

I love how you toss out these one line declarations after ignoring evidence for dozens of pages: it's like it's taken you this long for your Morton's Demon to come up with a way to spin the information and protect your beliefs. Of course, it has your deep pool of ignorance to draw on, so what it eventually comes up with is completely nonsensical.


Here is the graphic you posted earlier showing hominin teeth:
Yohannes Haile-Selassie wrote:Image


Point of order, here is one photograph of hominin teeth I shared earlier. To say it is 'the' one is to pretend that there is only one, whereas we all know there are many.

Secondly, yes? And?


Jayjay4547 wrote:What seem to me to suggest “long and sharp” are towards the bottom of the images but those are the roots; what seems to have enamel and would be exposed, are the unimpressive top bits.


I have no idea why you believe the roots are long and sharp - again, I can't really answer to your ignorance. What I can do is point to AL 333-35 and say 'there's an example of long, sharp canines in afarensis', and it's quite possibly a young female.

As usual, you don't really know what you're looking at, and as usual, it's like you're too proud to ask me. As if asking me means you've lost the high-ground, or something. I could do as I have in the past and just not inform you, and then watch as you pretend you know what you're talking about while making points that miss the mark, but go on, this time I will give you an easy pass.

The left hand picture is of a juvenile A. anamensis, the middle picture is loosely ascribed to A. anamensis, but as the fossil is represented only by teeth which show an intermediary transition is comparative crown to root length, and given the 3.8 mya dating of the site, it appears to form something of an imtermediary between anamensis and afarensis, the latter of which can be seen on the right.

Now there are a number of interesting points to make here, many of which impact on so much of your argumentation such as the fact that the later (a million and a half years in fact) afarensis specimen has comparatively larger canine crowns than anamensis which contradicts your 'simple' narrative and actually points to a far more interesting scenario concerning the sociobiology of the two species and how much information can be deduced from comparative analysis just of teeth, but to be honest, I can't really be arsed to explain stuff to you just to have you pretend expertise at me.

Instead, I will point out that comparatively, that is to body size, jaw size, other dentition size, and to root size, these afarensis specimens have large canine crowns. (Aside: before waving your hand over this, the only reason that you can say the sabretooth has large canines is as a comparative function: they're large compared to other parts of its body, so if the same length canine teeth were found on an animal 20 times a sabretooth's size and weight, then they'd no longer really be considered 'large'.)

However, that's still not the full story. The full story is even more interesting, and even more problematic for you. This site, known as 'the first family', actually offered a jumble of bones from many individuals - I have actually explained this already in the thread - and back when it was discovered in the 1970's, there were far fewer specimens to compare these to. As such, it took many years for it to become accepted that they were afarensis remains at all, and even longer before it became consensus that they represented many individuals, male, female, and juvenile. Back 20 years or so ago, Plavcan and Kimbel - 2 names you should by now have become familiar with, ran a comparison against the comparative size of canine and femur bones from other sites, many of which could be more reliably sexed, and arrived at the notion that afarensis exhibited far greater sexual dimorphism than in any other hominid, greater even than gorilla. I have already reported exactly this in this thread with citation. However, later analysis showed many discrepancies, particularly with newer fossils coming to light, and this basically caused a disagreement between two camps which lasted basically until about a decade ago.

Consequently, whenever I've been citing papers of information in this thread, I have actually been referring specifically to literature from within the last 10 years because newer finds have clarified much of the mystery of the past. What we know now, and I have shown already in this thread, is that afarensis canine sexual dimorphism was approximately the same as in modern chimpanzees (even though the afarensis lineage diverged potentially 13 million years ago), and significantly greater than in modern humans. Problematically for you, this is also true comparative to earlier australopithecines, and in fact, apes going back for several million years: as I mentioned many times already, the entire catarrhine clade exhibited reduction in canine size over many millions of years back into the Miocene, and there's an interesting point in history where the monkeys and apes essentially switched evolutionary niche if their dentition is anything to go by. What's ironic, and I've given you fair warning many times, and even explained exactly this to you before: Australopithecus afarensis is the worst australopithecine you could have selected for your argument, because it actually has comparatively the largest canine size of the hominina, and exhibits an increase in canine size over time with the more recent specimens exhibiting the largest comparative canines. As I told you before, you should have picked a. africanus, although you'd still need to contend with the problem of sediba's canines, and yet more detailed problems for you - even the definition of the earlier A. anamensis still has doubters who think it's actually just an early A. australopithecus, which would then indicate a very pronounced increase in canine size in the early Australopithecines over a fairly short period.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Well spotted Spearthrower, my mistake. Though notice in the raw link to that image exposed above, it was identified as AL-444-2, which is of a male, I believe. That seems to be wrong and I should have spotted it.


What do you mean 'well spotted'? It's bloody obvious, JJ. It's not 'well spotted' - it's confounding for me to conceive of how you didn't spot it, but perhaps it goes a long way in explaining why you find comparisons so confusing.

It's also absurdly ironic that this is literally how it all started, with you posting a picture supposedly of a male afarensis, then me saying 'dude, that's female'.

It also necessarily impacts on your declarations about how you can just trot off round the internet and round up all the information: no experts needed.

This is exactly what happened before as well: you posted something naively believing it was 1 thing, yet it was bloody obviously quite another. How do you keep on engaging in this level of self-deceit where you clearly don't know what you're looking at, yet you still keep arguing about it? It's exactly like my analogy of ignorant-of-engineering me insisting that a photograph of the 3 Gorges Dam is a picture of a bridge, and when you explain why it's not so, me posting another image of yet another dam and then declaring that proof.

Perhaps other people are bored of the minutiae here, perhaps other people won't notice this, but you can't seriously expect me to pretend like these events haven't occurred. It's not that you don't know enough, it's that you really don't know anything at all and what you SHOULD be doing is asking me to explain things to you so that you LEARN, just as if I wanted to discuss engineering I should listen to somebody who knows what they're talking about..


Jayjay4547 wrote:Here is a reconstruction of that male fossil, showing that it didn’t have fang-like canines.


:roll:

As I said before: point to the canines.

Your sentence is cute, but the actual sentence should read: here is a reconstruction of a make fossil which doesn't actually possess any associated canines.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Compare with those of male gorilla or chimps, which I have posted often.


Why would I need to?


Jayjay4547 wrote:Image


You'd think that by now you'd have learned to stop posting pictures of replica you find on internet shopping sites! :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:To see the wood for the trees,...


Um ego and hubris?

How can someone who literally can't tell a male from a female, an adult from a juvenile, or one species from another 'see the wood for the trees'?

Answer is: they really can't, and no one would ever take such a person seriously.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Australopithecus male skulls were more like the female ones, than is the case in modern gorilla and chimps.


Skulls? We weren't talking about skulls.

We were talking about canine teeth. As I have already evidenced in this thread, A. afarensis canine length is approximately the same as in chimpanzees.


Jayjay4547 wrote:As I have often demonstrated through pics.


Pics which you cite but don't understand the content of, pics which you keep mis-identifying, pics which don't even contain the information you are supposedly appealing to. You don't know what species you're looking at, you don't know what canine teeth look like, you don't know anything relevant, ergo what you have demonstrated is that your hubris vastly outweighs your competence.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3994  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2019 5:23 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Wot sputtering fury Cito? You are just trying to get at me personally. That shouldn't be a persuasive way to debunk creationism.



You're a Creationist: what you're touting here isn't Creationism.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3995  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2019 5:30 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
(a) What chance does this small-canine unarmed hominin have?


Answer: what on Earth are you talking about? You've got a picture of a naked modern man running through Savannah with hyenas 2 steps behind him. How is this meant to spell out any serious point of discussion?


Jayjay4547 wrote:(b) Is this a realistic scenario for hominin-hyena competition? I mean, did they really just traipse around the savannah until some predator happened to spot them?


No, it's a silly idea.


Jayjay4547 wrote:(c) Do hyena predate on baboons, whose males do have fangs?


Yes of course they do.

Image

Image

The reason for this shouldn't really need to be explained to anyone with half a clue, but considering how you are blinded by presuppositional ideology, it's because predator animals are bigger, stronger, and very specifically intent on killing, while prey animals survive by escaping predators, not by engaging them in gladiatorial battle and vanquishing them in a biting contest. When a baboon stops and bares its oh so impressive canines at a lion, hyena, or leopard, it essentially has just become supper. Not always, no... no doubt sometimes flashing your eyelids, gaping your mouth to show your teeth, and just fronting up all puffy and displaying your size may throw some inexperienced predator long enough to effect an escape, but statistically, it's a bloody stupid plan all but guaranteeing your on-going contribution to the gene pool ends here.

Hyenas, of course, cannot climb trees, and lo and behold, baboons can. So the best idea for a baboon facing up to a hunting hyena with a taste for monkey would be to scurry up the nearest tree; fuck fangs; use those numerous arboreal adaptations, for fuck's sakes! Even though both spotted and striped hyenas are considered a principal predator of baboons (along with leopards, lions, crocs and cheetahs) I expect that hyenas comparatively rarely attack baboons because they're social and need to feed a much larger collective stomach than a scrawny monkey can provide, so typically they wouldn't bother with baboons when massive meat bags on hooves are widely available.


Jayjay4547 wrote:(d) What other characteristics of hominins is out of place with them being fully adapted into using kinetic hand weapons for predator avoidance?


Reality, logic, sense. There's no such thing as being 'fully adapted into using kinetic hand weapons'; that's one of your silly ideas which has found no purchase whatsoever as it has no evidential grounding. It's what you want to argue, it's one of the things people reject, so obviously no one is going to be able to furnish you with justification for such a poorly conceived idea that even the proponent can't justify.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3996  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2019 6:05 pm

More perplexing than anything is that JJ thinks he can simply keep repeating claims that have been shown completely wrong by reams of credible information, in non-sequitur 'conclusions' where he attempts to both claim victory and simultaneously laud his special ability to see special characteristics no one else can detect.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3997  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2019 6:21 pm

https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/s ... afarensis/

Australopithecus afarensis

Updated 02/04/19

Body size and shape

females grew to only a little over one metre in height (105 – 110 centimetres) and males were much larger at about 150 centimetres in height

Jaws and teeth

canine teeth were pointed and were longer than the other teeth. Canine size was intermediate between that of apes and humans. Like apes, males had much larger canines than females.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3998  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 29, 2019 7:23 pm

JJ, you're wrong. Nothing's going to change that.

However, as I've already pointed out before, there are ways you can adapt your presentation so that you're not wrong.

For example, you could talk about canine reduction in the Hominoidea over millions of years, long before any of the hominins evolved. That IS true, and it is a very intriguing scenario because, as I've pointed out before...

Spearthrower wrote:... while the world today may have a lot more monkey species (19 genera) than apes (6 genera), the Miocene was completely reversed: it was an ape-world, with only a few species of monkeys. What we actually see is that monkey dentition changes arose which more closely resembled contemporary ape dentition, and then we saw a fast radiation of monkeys around the world and a dramatic increase in monkey lineages at the same time as we see numerous ape lineages go extinct. A lot of work has been done on the evolution of bones and teeth for this period by Hlusko at UC Berkeley’s Human Evolution Research Center.


Not only do we see a reversal in relative numbers of species, but we also see monkeys moving into ecological niches previously inhabited by apes, and to a lesser extent, apes moving into niches previously inhabited by monkeys. At the same time, we see, partly due to extinctions of species, the beginning of canine reduction in the ape lineage.

Hlusko's work is incredibly detailed, and just familiarizing yourself with it would probably take you a year or two given the huge amount of data in quantitative genetic analysis of dental variation they've recorded and analyzed. Baboons, for example, one of your favourite species to conjure erroneous pictures of, is a particular area of interest for them, and they published papers on the developmental genetics of baboons over a 10 year period.

But I realize this may well be too abstract for you: you're looking to overturn the human story, not the hundreds of millions of years prior to the hominins which you don't care about in the slightest.

So instead, you could also focus on early Homo (i.e. habilis and erectus) as this would greatly benefit your argument in a number of ways: 1) They exhibit the kind of dental patterns like reduced canine crown that you keep erroneously insisting exists in the Australopithecines despite the evidence contradicting you, 2) they indisputably used tools to a much greater degree than any of the evidence for tool-use in the Australopithecines suggests and 3) you will no longer keep making yourself look clueless by typing 'Australopithecus' to refer to a single species (i.e. Australopithecus afarensis) or a clade (Australopithecines), but instead can use a much simpler term you won't be able to mess up.

In addition to this, you can also benefit from the much wider evidential basis for these things, including many more near-complete cranial fossils and a wealth of material culture mostly absent from the Australopithecine record. The number of pictures you'll be able to look at and share with glee, if not understanding, will be far larger.

That way when you stop being wrong and start being right, your argument can move forward, and you can make all those claims you like without there necessarily being a gaping flaw where the predicates of your contentions are false.

Of course, I understand that you are obsessive and can only be emotionally satisfied by ignoring everyone and everything and insisting you're right about everything even while exhibiting such obvious ignorance, but it really is your choice. We can go another 40 pages of you asserting that the claims you've made which have been shown wrong are really right because of your special magical ability to see the truth which no one is going to actually lend credence, not only because it's fucking silly, but also because you've provided several recorded examples of clearly not having a clue what you're looking at while confidently asserting you know what you're looking at. Alternatively, you can move on to a position which actually offers you the opportunity to make the same arguments about language, tool use, canine reduction, and interspecific competition where your predicates won't be wrong, and consequently your arguments will not be silly but will instead be potentially worth discussing.

As always, it's your choice, and as always, I expect hubris to win out and that we'll spend the next 40 pages of you insisting you're right even when you've got nothing to support your claims other than your insistence and appeals to special powers of seeing stuff no one else can see.
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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3999  Postby Fenrir » Sep 30, 2019 8:29 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Fenrir wrote: Unless and until you provide some testable causal connection between canine size and weapon use then you have nothing past a comforting conjecture pressed into service to support a self-serving fabrication. A trivially wrong comforting conjecture.


<Conjecturing intensifies>
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3387
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

#4000  Postby newolder » Sep 30, 2019 8:54 am

Fenrir wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Fenrir wrote: Unless and until you provide some testable causal connection between canine size and weapon use then you have nothing past a comforting conjecture pressed into service to support a self-serving fabrication. A trivially wrong comforting conjecture.


<Conjecturing intensifies>


Since JJ has already informed us that they are not willing (or able?) to learn how logic, inference and hypothesis testing are tools for the growth of knowledge, it's not surprising that intensified conjecture is all that JJ or any other committed creationist deploys. Truly, a sad state of affairs but there we go. :sigh:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: monkeyboy, Svartalf and 4 guests