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

#4281  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 08, 2019 7:26 am

Which is more ridiculous: that Australopithecus wore a paper hat or that they roosted in trees where, unarmed, they “mobbed” leopard?


This is actually a great example sitting right here in how you attempt to distort and manipulate things.

No one has ever mentioned anything about mobbing leopards in trees.

Quite the contrary, as well you know; the actual scenarios not just discussed, but referenced to with observations of other primates... that there are ample strategies primates lacking gazelle speed employ to evade predators. One of them is fleeing up trees, another is mobbing.

So what you've done to smear a little scorn around is conflate the two even though no one has remotely suggested they occur simultaneously - each time they've clearly been separated as being distinct possible reactions to the sighting of a predator.

So this is clearly an intentional mischaracterization of what others have written.

A single instance of this would be readily understandable - perhaps you misunderstood - but it's not actually misunderstanding, it's intentional. This is your typical way of waving away arguments you don't want to address, and it's dishonest. The word used to denote when someone regularly employs intentionally false statements is "lie".

If you don't want that appellation being pointed your way; how about you stop doing it?

Yeah, that's another recurring theme of this thread - you lying, then complaining that people call it a lie. Usually, you have a little manufactured huff too and pretend you're not talking to that person while conveniently ignoring the argument you'd set out to obfuscate in the first place.

If you want to play the victim, you're going to have to find a new set of people without knowledge of your behavior, JJ.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

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

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4282  Postby zoon » Nov 08, 2019 11:31 am

Spearthrower wrote:
zoon wrote:I think I was misunderstanding your use of the word “innovation”; I was assuming it would refer to biological, evolutionary changes as well as to cultural ones, while you were confining it to cultural changes. When you wrote that A. afarensis showed no innovation, I took that as saying that they didn’t evolve, which stumped me, as it seems at least possible that they did evolve into other species such as A. africanus.


Ahhh I see - yeah, that explains the miscommunication. I didn't mean to suggest anything biological; I personally would always try to avoid using teleological language when it comes to evolution. I meant innovation in terms of tool use or manufacture.


I suspect that when I’m reading about evolutionary biology more generally, the authors often don’t need to be as careful as you are about using teleological language to describe evolutionary changes, because they are not dealing with organisms which are liable to complicate the issue by having brains which are capable of forethought and planning?

Spearthrower wrote:Quick side note as well Zoon.

If I pick up a rock and smash a nut and then get the nutrition from it. It's hard to think what benefit really accrues from making a slightly better nut-smasher. It's not like it gives me more nutrition. If it's easier, it's only very slightly so.

A more carefully crafted nut-smasher may take time to craft, and then becomes something I can't just pick up on the spot and use, but rather need to keep, to carry around when I want nuts, maybe even carry on the off-chance of finding nuts - or I have to bring the nuts back to the more optimal nut-smasher. Whereas, a completely un-worked rock still nets the same result, and they're quite possibly just sitting around waiting to be used.

Again, I just struggle to see how much value this notional gradual nut-smashing tool use improvement offers in terms of conferring a reproductive benefit, and consequently how it can generate a strong driver of adaptation. The only way I can really see that occurring is if nuts are my primary source of nutrition, whereas when I think of tool use in our ancestors, I think of generalization rather than specialization - there are many natural locks and we (talking more recently in our evolutionary history) were good at developing many different types of keys to open them.

I guess there's the adage of "If the only tool you have is hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail" - perhaps smashing lots of different things offered sufficient survival diversity that it did confer reproductive benefit, and therefore the morphology of smashing something heavy against another object could become adaptive. Just feels antiquated though - like 2001: Space Odyssey! :lol:

I suppose when thinking about evolution towards tool use, I was thinking vaguely about evolution of the brain as well as the morphology of the hand. Certainly, there is the general move towards more all-purpose computing as hominin heads increased in size, but the brain also has vast numbers of mini specializations which are so well coordinated that we don’t notice them? For example, the mental rotation of objects is an ability which may be chiefly located in specific parts of the brain, and while it’s not limited to a particular kind of tool, it’s the kind of ability which would be especially useful for the pre-planning which is involved in making tools.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3142

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4283  Postby zoon » Nov 08, 2019 11:36 am

Spearthrower wrote:
zoon wrote: Also, the leopard eventually caught the baboon by jumping out of the tree from the level where the baboon had been; I suspect that the baboon hadn’t chosen a high enough branch, because a leopard wouldn’t risk jumping from a height which would be likely to lead to broken bones.


I'd also remind that it's a very particular scenario with only 2 small trees close to each other. In an area with many more trees in baboon jumping distance, the leopard probably wouldn't even have bothered... unless it was very hungry, because very hungry animals (including humans) sometimes do very stupid things... and the baboon would have scampered away. There's not much difference in that scenario than a leopard coming across a baboon in the open. Trees aren't just a singular thing that a baboon goes up and a leopard does or doesn't follow (the kind of gross simplicity JJ always appeals to); they're usually a highway above the ground inaccessible to larger animals.

Would that highway have been inaccessible to A. afarensis as well? Human-like feet would not have stopped them from climbing, but they would have been less completely at home in trees than baboons or chimps. I’ve been concentrating on the fact that chimpanzees make sleeping platforms every night, and that these sleeping platforms are reasonably safe from leopards because they are supported by branches which are too thin to be safe for a leopard. I’m presuming this means that chimpanzees also have the option of merely climbing out on to thin branches when they need to make life difficult for a leopard, though, as you say, they would probably prefer to use the highway in the canopy to get further away. I suppose that the open woodlands which australopithecines lived in would have had fewer long stretches of unbroken canopy than the forests where most chimpanzees live.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3142

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4284  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 08, 2019 12:28 pm

zoon wrote:
I suspect that when I’m reading about evolutionary biology more generally, the authors often don’t need to be as careful as you are about using teleological language to describe evolutionary changes, because they are not dealing with organisms which are liable to complicate the issue by having brains which are capable of forethought and planning?


That's definitely true of palaeoanthropologists in general because of the potential for actual agency to produce results that could otherwise only happen through unguided selection. But in my case, I concluded all my studies in happy ignorance of Creationism and of fundamentalist disputes against science, and it wasn't until I joined anthropology discussion boards online that were routinely plagued by Creationists coming to attack their hated heathen that I realized that such people went far out of their way to twist, distort and manipulate the output of legitimate scientific inquiry and reporting to their own ideological ends. That does make it pay to be cautious with language so people can't selectively quote you to try and pretend you mean something different than you were actually saying.


zoon wrote:
I suppose when thinking about evolution towards tool use, I was thinking vaguely about evolution of the brain as well as the morphology of the hand. Certainly, there is the general move towards more all-purpose computing as hominin heads increased in size, but the brain also has vast numbers of mini specializations which are so well coordinated that we don’t notice them? For example, the mental rotation of objects is an ability which may be chiefly located in specific parts of the brain, and while it’s not limited to a particular kind of tool, it’s the kind of ability which would be especially useful for the pre-planning which is involved in making tools.


Yes, and this is where I think any adaptive tool use in the human lineage is likely to be located: in the mind, not the hand. And it's not adaptation specifically towards tools, although frequent tool use may exercise that function and improve it within an individual, but the routine manipulation of the environment towards desired ends through modeling futures, planning, and seeing how to realize possibilities may have been selected for indirectly. Just having that kind of brain offered a survival advantage, regardless of it being used differently with different tools in different contexts in different places. That generalization seems to me to be what really drove our species' conquest of the planet.
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

#4285  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 08, 2019 12:33 pm

zoon wrote:
Would that highway have been inaccessible to A. afarensis as well? Human-like feet would not have stopped them from climbing, but they would have been less completely at home in trees than baboons or chimps.


I think that's true: I think afarensis morphology suggests that they were routinely walking upright, but still retained adaptations which would have made arboreality within their capabilities in a way closer to chimpanzees than to modern humans; they'd have been much better climbers than we are, plus they weighed half as much. There's no doubt that afarensis was more specialised than earlier ancestors for bipedalism, but this would be the case with all intermediary species which translocated from one environment to another - they'd still retain a foothold, if you'll excuse the pun, in both worlds.


zoon wrote: I’ve been concentrating on the fact that chimpanzees make sleeping platforms every night, and that these sleeping platforms are reasonably safe from leopards because they are supported by branches which are too thin to be safe for a leopard. I’m presuming this means that chimpanzees also have the option of merely climbing out on to thin branches when they need to make life difficult for a leopard, though, as you say, they would probably prefer to use the highway in the canopy to get further away. I suppose that the open woodlands which australopithecines lived in would have had fewer long stretches of unbroken canopy than the forests where most chimpanzees live.


Quite possibly, but then again, they'd also be unarguably clever enough to identify safer places for sleeping sites.
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

#4286  Postby Jayjay4547 » Nov 09, 2019 6:28 am

zoon wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

Not to seem to be forcing you to address the issue, it looks to me that the outcome of this experiment is clear: IF we assume that australopithecus had climbed the tree unarmed, then the leopard would have attacked them in preference to the baboons because, lacking fangy canines they would have been helpless and lacking four hands, they could not have “assumed the position” of hanging from terminal branches, like this hapless lone baboon. It would have been like eating popcorn, so that scenario is invalid.

Two hands are enough for hanging from branches. That baboon’s canine teeth weren’t helping it.


It’s true that the baboon’s fangy canines weren’t helping it in this case and I only know of one record by Busse (1980) of about 20 baboons “threatening” a leopard from within 10 metres away. When baboons take refuge on a cliff that might be more common.

True also, that two hands are enough for hanging from branches but the issue in this thought experiment I posed, of a leopard choosing whether to attack baboons or hominids in a tree, would be whether the hominids could climb as well as the four-handed baboons. Consider also that the lighter the prey the further it could climb in a tree, an Australopithecus (31kgF-50kgM) would be more attractive prey than a Chacma-like baboon (13kgF-31kgM) as prey for a leopard (23kgF-31kgM).

So, it still seems to me that for a leopard, catching unarmed hominids in a tree would be like eating popcorn. Ergo, the hominids didn’t climb trees unarmed to avoid predation by leopard.


zoon wrote: The leopards were “terrorising” a whole group of baboons, and the baboons’ canine teeth made no difference. It seems to be generally agreed that leopards stalk or ambush their prey. Quoting a not especially authoritative source
here:

The leopard's hunting technique is to either ambush its prey or to stalk it. In either instance, it tries to get as close as possible to its target. It then makes a brief and explosive charge (up to 60km/h), pouncing on its prey and dispatching it with a bite to the neck. Leopards do not have the aptitude to chase their quarry over any kind of distance and will give up if the initial element of surprise is lost and the intended victim gets away.
....
These big cats eat a variety of food, from wildebeest to fish, but most of their diet comes in the form of antelope. Baboons and leopards appear to be ancient enemies. Leopards will often stalk baboons sleeping in the trees at night, and try to carry off one of the troop.


Baboons survive successfully, in spite of leopards raiding them at night. I expect that leopards, or similar big cats, did eat A. afarensis fairly regularly. Again, the baboons’ canine teeth are making no difference to the leopards, and the smaller but still noticeable canine teeth of A. afarensis would probably not have made any difference either.


The difference between hominin and male baboon canines is a lot more striking than you imply by calling the former “still noticeable”.
Afarensis_Chacma_Male_Skulls.jpg
Afarensis_Chacma_Male_Skulls.jpg (53.61 KiB) Viewed 100 times

>>>>>>>>

Surely, those baboon canines do signify something? Cheney and Seyfarth (2007)
“Baboon metaphysics: the evolution of a social mind” say “male baboons with their size and enormous canines, are much better equipped than females to fight leopard”
Image

And you can’t discount Busse’s accounts of open leopard predation on baboons by citing a general commentary including how they hunt antelope. But anyway, arguing whether leopard hunt baboons openly or by ambush can obscure the issue of what happens afterwards.
Cheney recounts where a leopard, trapped by a circle of baboons with human observers, knocked down and attacked a man, and was immediately leaped on and driven off by more than 20 baboons, including one female with a baby. In the Busse account I mentioned above, the “threatening” baboons were reacting to a leopard that had already killed a female in the tree. Fitzpatrick’s “Jock of the Bushveld” recounts a baboon troop driving off a leopard and rescuing its victim. Such a habit by prey would complicate the calculation a leopard would need to make before stalking a baboon.

[/quote][/quote]

Sorry to put it bluntly, you speak of “evidence” but actually you are in denial. You deny significance in the clear differences between the canines of hominins and baboons. You claim “evidence” that their anatomy is against the use of hand weapons although their descendants are uniquely and with the same body plan, highly adept users even of of simple weapons. You make out that its sufficient that hominins “can” climb trees. . And you claim “total” absence of any shaped stones” against the Lomekwi evidence 3.3mya of shaped stones.

Image

You can expect a lot of support here for this denial but it should raise warning bells: science is surely about seeking out pattern as the key to understanding. The reason for all this denial is simply because of the power of a false meta-story of human origins that is acausal and where the only actors are our ancestors themselves.
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

#4287  Postby Fenrir » Nov 09, 2019 7:33 am

Yes JJ, science is indeed all about seeking out patterns, not inventing patterns to match our predetermined conclusions.

And when are you going to stop repeating the pathetic "evolved themselves" strawman? The only person who claims science considers humans evolved only through their own agency is yourself. Unsurprisingly it is also only you pushing the fantasy that there is agency involved at all.
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

#4288  Postby Jayjay4547 » Nov 09, 2019 7:45 am

I see Dorothy Leavitt Cheney, that marvellous and humane student of baboons, died a year ago today.
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

#4289  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 09, 2019 8:32 am

You can expect a lot of support here for this denial but it should raise warning bells: science is surely about seeking out pattern as the key to understanding. The reason for all this denial is simply because of the power of a false meta-story of human origins that is acausal and where the only actors are our ancestors themselves.


All the denial is coming from you, JJ.

It's not denial to dismiss poorly conceived make-believe.

It is denial to ignore the evidence which routinely contradicts your poorly conceived make-believe.

You don't actually know anything about science. You have never studied it. You have never studied any of the expert scientific topics you proudly expound on. You keep talking about science as if it was your personal fiefdom. It's really not, you have completely failed to understand the most elementary scientific relationship between observation and inference. Instead, you have used Creationism's methodology. Creationism is not science, nor is it scientific - it's a fringe Christian belief characterized by fundamentalism, science denial, and hostility to people who don't conform to the belief.

You spent hundreds of words trying to smear my personal legitimacy, yet anyone with even a high school level grasp of how science works can see that you don't get it at all.

You're not fooling anyone here, JJ - so the question becomes why you keep up the charade.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Nov 09, 2019 10:26 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

#4290  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 09, 2019 8:43 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I see Dorothy Leavitt Cheney, that marvellous and humane student of baboons, died a year ago today.



Which has nothing to do with the thread.

Basking in the reflected light of a name-dropping?
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

#4291  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 09, 2019 9:00 am

And here we go AGAIN.

JJ is ONCE AGAIN lying.

He cites a scientist making a comment that he presents as if it supports his case.

However, he has carefully elided all the words around it which contradict his many claims.

This is what JJ presents:

Surely, those baboon canines do signify something? Cheney and Seyfarth (2007)
“Baboon metaphysics: the evolution of a social mind” say “male baboons with their size and enormous canines, are much better equipped than females to fight leopard”


This is what the paragraph on page 46 actually reads:

Although male baboons with their size and enormous canines, are much better equipped than females to fight leopard, the mass mobbing involved baboons of every age and sex. Juveniles, adult mothers, even mothers with young infants join to form a huge, hostile mob that tries to corner the leopard. The attack continues even after some baboons have received slashes on their arms, legs and face that open up huge wounds. One old low-ranking female, Martha, had a particular antipathy towards leopards. She was always in the vanguard of mobbing attacks. Over the years, she recovered from several leopard-inflicted injuries before finally being killed at the age of 20.


So JJ carefully cuts out all the words which contradict his position to make it seem like the statement agrees with his male baboons being a threat to leopards, even removing the sense of the sentence which is expressly showing the contradiction between the size and canines of the teeth being suggestive of this while not actually proving true when it comes to observation. You don't get many clearer examples of Creationist quote-mining mendacity than this - thanks JJ for providing yet another example of why it's justified to consider you a compulsive liar!

So what we ACTUALLY see is that regardless of teeth or size, the sheer weight of numbers is what constitutes a real perceived threat to the leopard, with juveniles, and mothers with babies even joining in the attack.

The entire section of the essay is about baboons mobbing leopards. That response which JJ has tried unremittingly to dismiss scornfully, never addressing it except to sneer at it as it's unworthy of his attention while he continues asserting his fiction as gospel.


Whenever JJ cites something - always, always, always go look it up, because given JJ's track record, it's invariably going to be a quote-mine lifted from a body of text that directly contradicts his own claims even though he's lying pretending that it supports his position.

And JJ used to help students with their theses... I can only shudder in horror at what terrible advice he must have given. The cornerstone of any academic writing is honesty - if a grading body sees you quote-mining like this, you're in for a world of disappointment.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Nov 09, 2019 10:28 am, edited 7 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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4292  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 09, 2019 9:01 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I see Dorothy Leavitt Cheney, that marvellous and humane student of baboons, died a year ago today.



Which has nothing to do with the thread.

Basking in the reflected light of a name-dropping?



And now we know that you honoured her memory by mischaracterizing what she wrote.

Great testimony there, JJ.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

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

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4293  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 09, 2019 9:15 am

So, it still seems to me that for a leopard, catching unarmed hominids in a tree would be like eating popcorn. Ergo, the hominids didn’t climb trees unarmed to avoid predation by leopard.


You have completely failed at logic in the above sentence.... clouds seem like cotton candy to me, ergo the sky must be made of sugar. From a cognitive development perspective, the logic behind your sentence structure is juvenile.

What 'seems' to you is not a platform on which to build arguments and certainly does not function as a proxy for evidence, else science would look very different today and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. In fact, you wouldn't even be living in South Africa and would probably think monkeys were a myth.

How science works is observation, JJ. Observation is data. Collect data, form an inference that expresses a relationship in that data. Test that inference with further observations. Find examples of your hypothesis? Great you've got some evidence, keep going... try building some more inferences with that original one as a platform - is it fertile? Do you find that more explanatory power is being won from your idea? Then you're onto something.

However, if your initial inference is not borne out by observations, or worse, if other observations directly contradict your inference, then it is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. No amount of words regardless of how politely written or insistently repeated is going to change that. In the very best possible scenario, it might not wholly be wrong; there may be some scenarios under which your inference still operates, but now the explanatory value is much diminished, and you need to reel back in so you don't look a numpty overselling it.

Your evidence-free inferences have been shown false through observations which contradict your position. You refuse to even acknowledge those observations, hand-waving them away scornfully. You're not doing anything even remotely equivalent to science at that point - you've ceased to be interested in the truth; it's become a game of ego. Ultimately, as no one else is buying into your claims, it's really just self-deception. You're spending all this time and effort to deceive only yourself.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Nov 09, 2019 9:20 am, edited 4 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: 24973
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4294  Postby Svartalf » Nov 09, 2019 9:15 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I see Dorothy Leavitt Cheney, that marvellous and humane student of baboons, died a year ago today.



Which has nothing to do with the thread.

Basking in the reflected light of a name-dropping?

regretting the female he'd have liked to study him is no longer there.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1325
Age: 50
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4295  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 09, 2019 9:21 am

Sorry for all the edits: these fucking drugs are giving me some kind of mild aphasia where I write a word that's similar in spelling to what I'd intended, but means something entirely different. For example, above I wrote 'because' when I'd intended to write 'become'.
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

#4296  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 09, 2019 10:25 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Image


Bears, of course, are predators.

They use those teeth and claws to kill prey animals, not to ward off animals 5 times bigger than them. Teeth morphology, as I've pointed out many, many times in this thread, is far more indicative of diet than anything else.

Own goal.
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

#4297  Postby felltoearth » Nov 09, 2019 1:34 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:

So, it still seems to me that for a leopard, catching unarmed hominids in a tree would be like eating popcorn. Ergo, the hominids didn’t climb trees unarmed to avoid predation by leopard.


Wonderful. It seems to you despite being shown otherwise. That’s all you have? It seems?

Worst case of passive aggressive trolling I’ve witnessed on this board.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11781
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4298  Postby felltoearth » Nov 09, 2019 1:36 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:I see Dorothy Leavitt Cheney, that marvellous and humane student of baboons, died a year ago today.

Oh, you learned something today! Good for you.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11781
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4299  Postby Jayjay4547 » Nov 10, 2019 2:57 am

Spearthrower wrote:And here we go AGAIN...

And JJ used to help students with their theses... I can only shudder in horror at what terrible advice he must have given. The cornerstone of any academic writing is honesty - if a grading body sees you quote-mining like this, you're in for a world of disappointment.


So much personal abuse..

I intentionally covered myself from Spearthrower’s accusation of quote mining by saying later in the same post:

“Cheney recounts where a leopard, trapped by a circle of baboons with human observers, knocked down and attacked a man, and was immediately leaped on and driven off by more than 20 baboons, including one female with a baby.

Emphasis added now.

The point about “mobbing” being made by Spearthrower and zoon is that australopithecines could have protected themselves against leopard by a massed attack, without using hand weapons and despite their males not having massive canines like baboons do.

Does Cheney’s observation of baboon mobbing attacks where males, females and even juveniles climb in, support that interpretation? An observation of female and juvenile baboons mobbing a leopard without males, would support it.

Whatever the reason is for females and juveniles participating in an attack on leopard it’s not that the male baboon canines are inessential and Cheney never suggested that.

I’m claiming denial by other ratskep posters of seeing significance in the stark contrast between the body plans of two primate types who shared their environment: baboons and australopithecus. One explanation of this contrast is that they had contrasting styles of avoiding predation: baboons bit and climbed trees while australopithecus used hand weapons on the ground and possibly, on sleeping platforms in trees.

That interpretation really isn’t bizarre, lots of people should be prepared to consider it. Indeed, in 1925 Dart built it into his interpretation that this bipedal primate, without long sharp canines used its hands for “offence and defence”. So, what is the problem? I’m claiming, the denial is because evolution enthusiasts don’t want to build an origin story where the actors or agents come from the world outside, or where there is mechanism to which one could apply the term “preadaptation”. Because that could lead other people to think wrong thoughts. Not you, surely, but those of weaker minds.

Ja No Well Fine but in denying clear patterns you produce a strikingly opaque visualisation. For example, can you actually visualise twenty primates built like us, falling screaming onto a leopard and trying to tear at it with their bare hands while biting it? That never happened in reality my friends.

This influence of atheist ideology on the human origin narrative is a huge issue; to unpack it would need seven men with seven brooms to sweep for seven years. But even one janitor can have some fun with a hand brush.
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

#4300  Postby Jayjay4547 » Nov 10, 2019 3:00 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:And here we go AGAIN...

And JJ used to help students with their theses... I can only shudder in horror at what terrible advice he must have given. The cornerstone of any academic writing is honesty - if a grading body sees you quote-mining like this, you're in for a world of disappointment.


So much personal abuse..

I intentionally covered myself from Spearthrower’s accusation of quote mining by saying later in the same post:

“Cheney recounts where a leopard, trapped by a circle of baboons with human observers, knocked down and attacked a man, and was immediately leaped on and driven off by more than 20 baboons, including one female with a baby.

Emphasis added now.

The point about “mobbing” being made by Spearthrower and zoon is that australopithecines could have protected themselves against leopard by a massed attack, without using hand weapons and despite their males not having massive canines like baboons do.

Does Cheney’s observation of baboon mobbing attacks where males, females and even juveniles climb in, support that interpretation? An observation of female and juvenile baboons mobbing a leopard without males, would support it.

Whatever the reason is for females and juveniles participating in an attack on leopard it’s not that the male baboon canines are inessential and Cheney never suggested that.

I’m claiming denial by other ratskep posters of seeing significance in the stark contrast between the body plans of two primate types who shared their environment: baboons and australopithecines. One explanation of this contrast is that they had contrasting styles of avoiding predation: baboons bit and climbed trees while australopithecines used hand weapons on the ground and possibly, on sleeping platforms in trees.

That interpretation really isn’t bizarre, lots of people should be prepared to consider it. Indeed, in 1925 Dart built it into his interpretation that this bipedal primate, without long sharp canines used its hands for “offence and defence”. So, what is the problem? I’m claiming, the denial is because evolution enthusiasts don’t want to build an origin story where the actors or agents come from the world outside, or where there is mechanism to which one could apply the term “preadaptation”. Because that could lead other people to think wrong thoughts. Not you, surely, but those of weaker minds.

Ja No Well Fine but in denying clear patterns you produce a strikingly opaque visualisation. For example, can you actually visualise twenty primates built like us, falling screaming onto a leopard and trying to tear at it with their bare hands while biting it? That never happened in reality my friends.

This influence of atheist ideology on the human origin narrative is a huge issue; to unpack it would need seven men with seven brooms to sweep for seven years. But even one janitor can have some fun with a hand brush.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1094
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 2 guests