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

#4361  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 11:02 am

Why are you so blind to obvious historical context?


The record in this thread shows unarguably that if anyone is 'blind' here JJ, it is you.

You go blind every time evidence is forwarded contradicting your increasingly wild assertions.

For example, the dozen or more papers I cited about afarensis' canine length, you act like they simply don't exist, continuing to assert that you are right even while you've never offered a single relevant source supporting your claim.

On top of that, you have shown time after time that you are severely lacking in even the most basic knowledge surrounding this topic let alone any of the expert knowledge involved, whereas we both know that the people who have followed this conversation are more than well aware that I do know what I am talking about, have shown it more than once, and have provided credible sources to support my positions even if you've then ignored those sources. I don't claim to know everything, but there's a massive gulf in knowledge here, both in breadth and depth, and you're insistence that it must be me who's blind to your excellent insight comes across as wilful delusion.

And talking of delusion, have you considered the fact that it's not that I am 'blind', but rather that there's nothing to see. That your delusion is accessible only to you, and the fact that other people not only don't see it, but provide direct observations countering it makes your claims more about arrogance than anything else.


Firstly, to build the human origin narrative, you look to similarities between hominins and other primates.


I don't build human origin narratives, JJ. I'm a palaeoanthropologist, not an apologist. I realize this fact escapes you, but experts are not the same thing as news articles you read, or entertainment documentaries you watch. Take up your criticisms with the way they present information with them.


For example, you either claim that male hominins did have canines resembling those of other primates, or that their canines weren’t significant.


I make my own claims. You don't make claims for me. The reason why this must be so is because I would never make such sloppy nonsensical claims.


That is 180 degrees from the right approach.


And yet it's your approach, not mine.


To tell the human origin narrative , you need to focus on what was distinctive about them as primates,...


Firstly, just who do you think you're fooling JJ?

Why would ANYONE who's been involved in or read the conversation in this thread think that you, of all people, would be in a position to instruct others on any aspect of human evolution, let alone someone who studied exactly that and who teaches it to undergraduate students?

Your ego is seriously infringing on your grasp of reality.

because their distinctiveness made up the distinctive path their descendants followed; principally, speech and technology.


As I've shown many times, you simply do not possess anything like a valid comprehension of how evolution operates.

To wit: afarensis possessed neither technology nor speech any more than any other hominoid, so looking for the origins of technology and tool use here is a fool's game as much as if you looked at the ardipithecines, or any other candidate human ancestor. To look at the role of technology and speech in human evolution, you need to look at a species which actually possessed them.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4362  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 11:04 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:The very notion of human distinctiveness is non-pc for the ideology biasing human origin stories, which demands obedience to the dictum that we are “just an animal” that did indeed “descend from an ape” (although not quite that, hey, so sophisticated) .


Yes, this is pure gibberish.

PC doesn't manufacture evidence, JJ. Evidence corroborates or falsified induction.

Learn how science actually works and save these crazy conspiracy claptrap outbursts for your under-informed peers.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4363  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 11:09 am

True, I have repeated my arguments many times but then so have you, maybe more obsessively than I.


The difference, of course, being that I have provided numerous sources establishing the validity of my arguments, whereas yours remain just declarations.

Yes, I said that, and you elided it - typical, this is exactly how you keep ignoring all those sources contradicting your assertions.


For example, you replied to my latest post with 14 of your own, and no one else has so far.


And that's a non-sequitur.

That I posted 14 times doesn't mean I have repeated the same arguments.

Why do you try these transparent scams, JJ?


And those posts include many personal insults.


You mean when I pointed out that you lied?

You can take that as an insult if you want, but then the way to stop it from occurring in the future is to STOP LYING.


I feel that by repeating arguments in slightly different ways, I am adapting closer to the essentials of how atheist ideology has messed up human origin stories.


He says repeating the same argument he's declared 500 times while never offering a shred of evidence in support of it.


And I have some faith in the common sense of skeptics that some will pick up that some of what I’m saying might be true. But I don’t expect a miracle.


If they believe what you're saying is true, then they're obviously not actually skeptics. The legitimate sources in credible scientific journals saying the exact opposite with reference to material evidence should be more than ample to tip off even a would-be skeptic... but those with a little more nous couldn't help but notice how you have singularly failed to support any of your claims, yet have repeated them for 200 pages. No actual skeptic buys into the Goebbels Doctrine, 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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4364  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 11:12 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:[Secondly, you don’t start by placing human ancestors in a creating context. You claim its silly that Au. could have avoided predation by leopard on the ground, without seriously confronting the issue: they did survive in that context, what they could have done about any predators, anywhere?



Again, you're lying.

Anyone reading this thread knows that I have not only offered many explanations as to how afarensis dealt with predation, but that I have also offered actual comparative direct observations of similar animals employing the very methods I suggest are vastly more realistic for afarensis to use than the manifestly false and cartoonish assertions you keep repeating.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4365  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 11:15 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
(The lion seems to be a specialised grasslands social predator, not around at the time of Australopithecus?)


You've written a question./I am stunned./Usually you just make something up and insist it is fact. What happened to your Google Fu, JJ? You know, your democratized knowledge which means you don't need no edukashun.


I wasn’t posing a question I thought you could answer; it was whimsical, like, Are we a grasslands species? Were we created by the c4 metabolic route? By the innovation of the retractable claw?



Ahh yes; I thought it was out of character for a self-absorbed narcissist to admit they didn't know something they clearly don't know.

Are 'we' a grassland species? No, we're a predominantly urban species.

Oh you mean our ancestors?

Some of them, yes.

Was afarensis a grassland species? No.

Did afarensis engage in hoplite gladiatorial combat with the ancestors of lions? No.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Sure as hang we didn’t create ourselves.


Magical man in the sky lovingly crafted each and every one of us, eh JJ?

Oh, and strawman.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4366  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 11:19 am

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2720250

Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.




Remember this next time JJ tries the pathos rhetorical response to having his lies pointed out.

JJ's going to want this to go away - this is typically the moment where we'll get a flurry of posts from JJ about some other argument, some facet that supposedly adds to his position while steering the conversation away. Then in several pages, once this has been lost in the intervening back and forth, JJ will come back and make the same assertions again as if this never happened. I wonder if we'll be treated to a cute little JJ style sentence such as 'eminent scientists who have spent their lives studying baboons agree with me that it's male baboons which fight off leopards'.



See?

JJ wants to pretend that this never happened.

In two pages he'll be repeating the erroneous claim. [CHECK]

In 5 pages, he'll be quoting a small section from my original response calling him out for lying, but now it will be all pathos about how terribly JJ is treated by the meanies here.

In 10 pages, he'll be acting as though he's proven his point and no one's managed to contend it. No doubt there'll be some reference to how eminent scientists support his position, or he'll cite a link to the article without referencing the fact that the substance of the essay completely contradicts his claims.

All the way through, he'll still be yammering about how atheist ideology has perverted the purity of divinely revealed science.



Jayjay4547 wrote: And those posts include many personal insults.


I appreciate that it's not exactly right as JJ only waited 2 pages and didn't bother citing the original response (yet), but I think I can still justifiably call this one!

Two predictions confirmed. :thumbup:

Then of course, there's the last sentence, and we've already been issued with our daily dollop of that, but this was always a shoe-in anyway, so I do feel a bit sleazy 'predicting' this... but I'll take it anyway! :lol:

Three predictions confirmed! :cheers:

Going to need to wait a couple more pages at least for the last one, but I am sure it will come to pass: it's just so typically JJ.

Always a Winner with JJ rhetorical bingo.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4367  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 3:23 am

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0056182

Wild Bearded Capuchin Monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus) Strategically Place Nuts in a Stable Position during Nut-Cracking


Skillful use of tools in Capuchin monkeys.

Capuchin monkeys are very small, weighing just 3kg with bodies around 100cm, they are hunted by all manner of animals like snakes, jaguars, cougars, coyotes, crocodiles and various birds of prey, there is no chance that their bite could cause any of these animals even minor damage, they use tools that are exactly the same as those used by chimps and afarensis...

So are they supposed to be candidates for 'hand weapon use'? If not, are they 'popcorn'? Or is this a manufactured false dichotomy and consequently do they follow the already discussed protocols employed by other primates confronted with a predator? I'll bet everyone - minus one person - can guess accurately. But then, as they're not on a direct line of human ancestry, I doubt that person doesn't give a toss about them and can simply dismiss this problematic conflict with his confident declarations from personal authority.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4368  Postby Fenrir » Nov 19, 2019 5:00 am

Get out of jail free card spotted.

They have canines, therefore no need for militias.

Size doesn't matter, or so it is said

Image
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3393
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

#4369  Postby Fenrir » Nov 19, 2019 5:01 am

So there. Loser.

Image
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3393
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

#4370  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 5:22 am

Fenrir wrote:Get out of jail free card spotted.

They have canines, therefore no need for militias.

Size doesn't matter, or so it is said


Their jaw gape is really narrow and their canines are i) about 3cm long and ii) flared so they don't even bite downwards. Even if they could get some part of an attacking predator in their mouth and manage to get a canine pointing the right way, it's unlikely even to scratch the skin through thick fur let alone do any deterring damage.

Of course, I appreciate that JJ refuses to be anything like reasonable or acknowledge any degree of reality, but I'm still happy to give him the chance. He can of course elect to make a total numpty of himself yet again by trying to comically claim that 3cm long teeth are going to act as a deterrent to a 2 metre long 70kg cougar, or a 90kg jaguar - it certainly wouldn't be the first time he's waved the cartoonish ramifications of his argument away, but the chances are he's going to simply ignore all this anyway. :thumbup:
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4371  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 19, 2019 7:44 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:And I have some faith in the common sense of skeptics that some will pick up that some of what I’m saying might be true. But I don’t expect a miracle.


Here we see expressed the fantasy hope that, despite the several individuals who post to show they are reading the thread, and who haven't "picked up" on what you're "saying", there is a host of invisible picker-uppers silently reading the thread, and who never make a peep for countering anything negative the skeptics have noted about your diatribe.

On top of your fantasies of human creation, other fantasies of yours are clearly on the books.

Yes, you have faith in the common sense of some skeptics. As with the UFO's, JJ, why aren't they present, except in your fantasies? Faith is an ideal response in the hope that something might be true, but I have to ask, what do we get if it actually turned out to be true? Faith is not what we get in that case. I get it that your arguments are to promote a truth, which is why you make such a hash of the evidence. Why have you pretended to wrestle with the evidence at all? You're no longer doing that.

When you say you hope that skeptics will pick up some of what you're saying, you're admitting that you are proselytizing us, but what a wacky apologetic you've developed.
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: 28549
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4372  Postby Jayjay4547 » Nov 20, 2019 7:18 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: You haven’t described “in great detail” how Au. can have avoided predation by leopard without using hand weapons.


I've described it in far greater detail than you have described your assertion that afarensis did


I don’t know in detail how Au. avoided predation by leopard, just that their body plan and especially the canines of their males, their feet, the capabilities of baboons as alternative prey, of leopard and of their distant modern descendants; those all point to their being fully adapted into using hand weapons for predator avoidance.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:You relied on the word “mobbed”...

I'm going to warn you once, JJ./You will render my arguments accurately, or I will report you for lying./You had best not be claiming that the only information I have forwarded on this topic is mobbing./Clarify.

Jayjay4547 wrote:as if the hominins, being highly social, could have as a group, grabbed a leopard with their bare hands.


Where did I say or suggest this?/ hink hard JJ because your last lie is only 2 pages back, and it's looking very much like you're working hard to justify that compulsive liar label.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And what then?


What happens in the fictional scenario you just pretended was something to do with what I had said?/How could I know?/Mobbing doesn't involve 'grabbing a leopard with your bare hands'; it's going to be very difficult for you to lie about this when I can show half a dozen instances of me spelling out exactly how mobbing is employed.

You have tried to make out, citing Cheney (see again below), that baboons employ mobbing in such a way that the canines of their males is irrelevant, So then, they might as effectively been mobbed by Australopithecines whose males didn’t have baboon-like canines. In other words, using their bare hands.

You fulminate and threaten me for having accurately identified the necessary reconstruction you would have liked left vague. You relied on the word “mob” without getting practical about what that would involve if Au. didn’t use hand weapons: that is, using their bare hands.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:When baboons mob a leopard that has involved itself with a victim, as Cheney noted, some of those baboons have massive canines, whereas Au. males didn’t:


You're once again referring back to a source that you intentionally quote-mined and lied about. The part you intentionally left out paints a very different picture to the one you are once again lying about.

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.


The material fact of your quote mine was to remove the grammatical context of the line Cheney used, and the following sentences showing that females and juveniles - both lacking 'massive canines' are involved in mobbing leopards. Thanks to the disproportionate number of females to males in baboon troops, this means that despite your attempts to blag otherwise, the preponderance of the group that mobbed the leopard were female. In turn, this shows that mobbing has nothing to do with canines.


As I have pointed out a few times, in the same post where you accuse me of quote mining Cheney, I cited her that when a cornered leopard attacked a man in the encircling mob, one of the 20 baboons that leaped on the leopard was a mother with an infant. Could you respond to that?

It would be logical for a leopard that is being mobbed by a mixed bunch of baboons, to be most concerned about the males in that bunch, because, as Cheney said, they are much better equipped than females to fight them. Let alone, infants. Certainly to me , an adult male baboon is distinctly more scary than a female.

Spearthrower wrote: ..This also underscores that your entire argument about canines is wrong. They're not used to frighten off predators, but I'd already established that a hundred or more pages ago. The size of canines in primates is relevant to agonistic mate selection and the degree to which coalition aggression plays a part in intraspecific competition. The difference, of course, is that I've cited papers in support of my claims, whereas yours were always merely assertion

.
As well as Cheney, I have several times cited
Cowlinshaw (1994) abstract below. I have to paste in the whole abstract to avoid a reflex accusation of quote mining, but see my emphasis.

This study investigates patterns of predation in Papio baboon populations across Africa. Using anecdotal reports collated from the primate and predator literature, the following analyses are conducted. First, the primary predators of baboons are identified. These are shown to be the terrestrial carnivores; in order of importance leopards, lions and hyena. Second, patterns of large felid predation on baboons are investigated in detail. In terms of prey selection, leopards are more likely to take (1) adults than juveniles and (2) males than females. While lion attacks are strictly diurnal, leopards will attack during both the day and night. However, both predators are usually limited to conducting attacks when and/or where visibility is limited. Leopards were about twice as successful as lions at hunting baboons. Nocturnal leopard hunts were more successful than diurnal hunts when twilight cases were excluded; in relation to this, leopard attacks at sleeping sites were more likely to end in prey capture than attacks at waterholes. Finally, patterns of baboon retaliation against predators revealed that males are more likely to retaliate than females and that such behaviour effectively deters predators. Males are particularly aggressive towards leopards, where in 4/11 cases the leopard was killed. These results may help to resolve a number of outstanding controversies regarding the nature of predation risk in baboons, indicating that diurnal predation is a substantial threat, that males are effective at deterring several predator species, particularly leopards, and that predators will successfully attack and capture males.

Spearthrower wrote: On top of that, your argument about afarensis' canines is wrong. I've already provided more than a dozen papers showing that male afarensis had larger canines than females, and that afarensis' canine size overlapped with modern chimpanzees - a species you appealed to in the past as being representative of this 'canine predator defense'. So this is another argument where you have ignored the hard evidence contradicting your assertions, and failed to offer anything but assertion for your claims.


For hard evidence, consider Cowlinshaw, above. Your dozen articles were just a smokescreen to avoid my challenge for you to offer one pic of an afarensis male skull showing canines that a viewer could be impressed by. Whereas I repeatedly put up the contrast below, that puts the Au. afarensis canines into their real perspective.

Afarensis_Chacma_Male_Skulls.jpg
Afarensis_Chacma_Male_Skulls.jpg (48.7 KiB) Viewed 83 times


Spearthrower wrote: Finally, as I've already explained, afarensis' hand anatomy makes your claims about their usage of spears pure fiction. You can't address this because you lack any relevant knowledge about skeletal anatomy and are on record for trying to dismiss any discussion of skeletal anatomy by pretending that it is intended to deceive.


If a chimp can hold a stick, and they can, then so could Australopithecus. And if an australopithecus could hold onto a branch, then they could hold a stick. Plus, their canines show that they must have held hand weapons.

Spearthrower wrote: So in summary, you want your assertions to be taken as gospel, you have no evidence supporting your claims, you don't want evidence to be considered at all, and you refuse to engage in any degree of substance while somehow thinking that repeating yourself over and over means you're making a solid case.


I’ve grown used to my assertions not being taken as gospel, but increasingly amazed at the position used to deny what seems to me quite plain. Your pattern of rigid denial of distinctiveness in human origins: that their canines weren’t distinct, nor their tree climbing abilities, not any feature distinguishing them from their ape and monkey relatives, is quite clear and it’s a dangerous line to take. Like I said, science feeds off pattern. Humanity has certainly arrived at a distinctively different place than other primates, and that by following a distinct path.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1117
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4373  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 20, 2019 7:35 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Plus, their canines show that they must have held hand weapons.


This is a lot like saying their canines show they employed mobbing to drive away predators. Isn't it?

I mean, think of all the examples you can find of species that engage in gladiatorial combat with predators. We have one example, which is you and your kerrie and your stories about how you could use it if you had to. You should really test this theory out, JJ. You'd make a delicious meal for some big cat and her family.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Nov 20, 2019 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28549
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4374  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 7:37 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t know in detail how Au. avoided predation by leopard,...


Umm, except that you launched into sneering whenever comparative observations of other primates were cited... in fact, you talked about baboons only for your own source to show you baboons mobbing leopards, but you still want to pretend it's unbelievable for afarensis by sticking in silly irrelevant addenda.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... just that their body plan...


JJ.

I've told you about body plans.

If you want to ignore that information... fine, make yourself look ignorant.

But you can't continue using your false definition and expect people to accept it.

The afarensis body plan is shared by all primates, unequivocally.



Jayjay4547 wrote:... and especially the canines of their males,...


The length of canines of male afarensis overlaps with modern chimpanzees as per the sources I shared. Ignoring information that disproves your argument means your argument is invalid, and therefore cannot be accepted.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... their feet,...


The only times you've mentioned their feet are when you say 'their feet'. You've never offered anything to justify why this would be on a list.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... the capabilities of baboons as alternative prey,...


We're talking about afarensis, and you talk about the capabilities of baboons. Ok, baboons mob leopards, as we know, so afarensis could mob leopards - so this contradicts your paragraph topic sentence.


Jayjay4547 wrote:of leopard and of their distant modern descendants;


This is a sentence that contains zero information.


Jayjay4547 wrote: those all point to their being fully adapted into using hand weapons for predator avoidance.


Whereas, quite clearly, that's false and you've just shown that even in your own mind, you do not have any justification for this conclusion. Quite the contrary.

Your list is:

body plan - the same body plan as all primates; in fact, all mammals.
canines - canines which are similar to a modern chimpanzee, not a modern human
feet - a word with no additional content
baboon behavior - which exhibit mobbing behavior even with female and juvenile baboons lacking male's longer canines
leopards - another word with no additional content

So of your 5 supporting points, 2 of them don't include any information relevant at all, 2 of them offer material evidence *against* your claim as no evidence of the wibbly 'perfect hand weapon adaptation' is present in them, and 1 is a completely misunderstanding on your part.

Ergo, your argument doesn't support your conclusion.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4375  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 7:42 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:You have tried to make out, citing Cheney (see again below), that baboons employ mobbing in such a way that the canines of their males is irrelevant,



No.

What actually occurred is that you LIED about your source by claiming that Cheney's words supported your argument that male baboons' canines act as deterrents to leopards.

You LIED in an obviously intentional way by specifically eliding the context of Cheney's quote.

You removed all the information that showed that females and juveniles - both of which lacking the larger canines of male baboons - participated in the mobbing.

This shows that mobbing is not concerned with canine size at all. That mobbing has nothing to do with canines.

If canines were relevant to mobbing, then only males would engage in it.

I realize you refuse to ever let reality change your mind, but you're not going to pretend that your source says otherwise, particularly after you were caught LYING about it.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So then, they might as effectively been mobbed by Australopithecines whose males didn’t have baboon-like canines. In other words, using their bare hands.


As I've already said: bare hands is irrelevant. As I've already said, mobbing operates by numbers, not by the possession of a particular length of a particular tooth, nor by what's being carried in the hands. Afarensis mobbing a leopard would have been just as 'bare-handed' as a baboon.

So as hard as you might work to obfuscate this, it's not confusing anyone else.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4376  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 7:51 am

You fulminate and threaten me for having accurately identified the necessary reconstruction you would have liked left vague. You relied on the word “mob” without getting practical about what that would involve if Au. didn’t use hand weapons: that is, using their bare hands.


More lying.

Dozens and dozens of pages back I talked about mobbing. You ignored it. You do that whenever there's some information you don't want to discuss but which contradicts your claims.

Logically, someone who denies and ignores a point isn't 'accurately identifying the necessary reconstruction'.

Worse for your self-aggrandizing, in between these events, you attempted to pour scorn on the very idea of mobbing, as if it's going to work against predators!

There was nothing vague about anything I've written; over and over again, I've demolished the make-believe wibble you've asserted as fact, and you've pretended over and over that it wasn't demolished... this is evidence in that last post where you once again cite afarensis' canine length when we ALL know that I've cited over a dozen papers from credible scientific journals showing that you're wrong. Have you acknowledged that information and adapted your claims? Have you bollocks - you've actually ignored all the citations outright. You are attempting to pretend they don't exist while still repeating your claim that has been shown wrong. In other words, just as you're now doing with mobbing.

Baboons mob with bear hands; in fact, as far as I am aware, essentially all cases of mobbing regardless of animal type, occurs with bear hands. But I love watching you squirm around trying to make yourself the noble arbiter of reality.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4377  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 7:57 am

As I have pointed out a few times, in the same post where you accuse me of quote mining Cheney, ...


It's not 'accuse' JJ.

You DID quote mine Cheney.

Do you want to officially dispute that?

We can ask the moderators to review it if you like?


I cited her that when a cornered leopard attacked a man in the encircling mob, one of the 20 baboons that leaped on the leopard was a mother with an infant. Could you respond to that?


What exactly do you want me to respond to there? You obviously have some idea in mind.

My response - without knowing what it is you want me to talk about - is to say that it's not a male, ergo the male's canines aren't relevant to mobbing as you can see by the fact that a female is engaged in the practice, i.e. it's a direct observation disproving your claim.

And just clarify first that you aren't pretending that this is connected with your quote-mine, right? Because it's not even in the same paragraph as the quote-mined text you cited. I don't trust you to be honest about anything. The quote-mine was not connected to the above quote.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4378  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 8:10 am

It would be logical for a leopard that is being mobbed by a mixed bunch of baboons, to be most concerned about the males in that bunch, because, as Cheney said, they are much better equipped than females to fight them. Let alone, infants. Certainly to me , an adult male baboon is distinctly more scary than a female.


Leopards don't practice 'logic' JJ.

Your attempts to use the psychology of leopards to support your unsupported assertions is amusing, but irrelevant.

A male baboon IS better equipped to fight a leopard, but is still not sufficiently equipped to fight a leopard in most circumstances. The leopard is far better equipped than any baboon.

But that's irrelevant, because mobbing isn't about fighting a leopard, nor is it about biting a leopard, nor is it a gladiatorial contest. It's about numbers. I've made this point at least half a dozen times, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Again, you are using information that contradicts your claims to support your claims. If females and juveniles are poorly equipped to fight a leopard, but they're engaged in mobbing, them mobbing isn't fighting. Further, if fighting was a valid strategy for baboons to employ against leopards, then why the need for mobbing?

The fact is, as I have written to you many, many times, encounters between leopards and baboons are typically over quickly as the leopard ambushes an isolated baboon and kills it quickly.

In the remainder of encounters, there are many possible outcomes - probably more than I can hope to list. The leopard may simply walk away. The baboons might hustle off up into the trees and escape. The leopard may single out a baboon up an isolated tree and follow it up, either to then catch and kill it, or for the baboon to find a way to escape. Other baboons might spot the leopard and attempt to drive it away by mobbing it, that is, collecting together to distract and confuse the leopard and basically annoy it until it leaves. In the latter, it is very risky as the leopard can still cause significant harm to a baboon even if it fails to kill the monkey, and untreated wounds on baboons can lead to death. Even with that being true, baboons may still do it because they are not being logical, they are being emotional animals which are terrified and angry; as Cheney pointed out, there was one particular female which seemed to hold a special antipathy for leopards and would instigate attacks on leopards... a female, you know, one of those baboons lacking male canines.

All of this comes back to the same point I have made many times. In any typical prey-predator interaction, it's the prey animal which has the most to lose: a predator will lose its meal and the energy it spends attempting to hunt, whereas the prey animal could lose its life. Mobbing is effective on many levels, first as with all herding & schooling behavior, any individual that partakes minimizes the comparative risk to itself because there are many more targets; secondly, mobbing will only tend to occur when there's some particular reason to stand their ground, like the presence of juveniles which cannot escape, or when it's the 'home' territory of a territorial animal - otherwise, fleeing is always superior as it minimizes any possibility of harm to an individual.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4379  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 8:13 am

Cowlinshaw (1994) abstract below. I have to paste in the whole abstract to avoid a reflex accusation of quote mining, but see my emphasis.


Do not fucking lie, JJ.

There is no "reflex accusation of quote mining" other than the reaction to your blatant quote mining before.


Jayjay4547 wrote: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”


Spearthrower wrote:
Cheney without quote-mine wrote: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.



When you're caught lying, you are not a victim, you are the one engaging in the morally questionable behavior.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4380  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 20, 2019 8:49 am

So you cite the entire paragraph in order not to be accused of the quote-mining you deceptively engaged in before, and this is vital because it shows a wider context that you cannot simply elide out.

It also shows how you sieve information to suit your arguments, not noticing the bits which contradict you:

This study investigates patterns of predation in Papio baboon populations across Africa. Using anecdotal reports collated from the primate and predator literature, the following analyses are conducted. First, the primary predators of baboons are identified. These are shown to be the terrestrial carnivores; in order of importance leopards, lions and hyena. Second, patterns of large felid predation on baboons are investigated in detail. In terms of prey selection, leopards are more likely to take (1) adults than juveniles and (2) males than females. While lion attacks are strictly diurnal, leopards will attack during both the day and night. However, both predators are usually limited to conducting attacks when and/or where visibility is limited. Leopards were about twice as successful as lions at hunting baboons. Nocturnal leopard hunts were more successful than diurnal hunts when twilight cases were excluded; in relation to this, leopard attacks at sleeping sites were more likely to end in prey capture than attacks at waterholes. Finally, patterns of baboon retaliation against predators revealed that males are more likely to retaliate than females and that such behaviour effectively deters predators. Males are particularly aggressive towards leopards, where in 4/11 cases the leopard was killed. These results may help to resolve a number of outstanding controversies regarding the nature of predation risk in baboons, indicating that diurnal predation is a substantial threat, that males are effective at deterring several predator species, particularly leopards, and that predators will successfully attack and capture males.


So what have you ignored in order to latch onto a point that you perceive as supporting your argument.

1) The Study: the study clearly says it is about 1 species of baboon and is comprised of anecdotes. I am not making a big point here, but it is vital that people understand the context of the study, especially because these events are 'reported' in other literature.

2) The primary predator of baboons is leopards: this shows that the leopard successfully predates on baboons. In fact, they're more successful than lions.

3) Among the reports, leopard predation favours adult male baboons, as in, more male baboons are killed than females or juveniles.

4) The report says that males are more likely to retaliate. The report also says that male baboons are disproportionately killed. Ergo, the retaliation of males results in them being killed.

5) The report says that retaliation can be an effective deterrent, that males are more likely to retaliate, but it doesn't say that it is male retaliation which is the deterrent.

So, we have 11 reported cases about 1 species of baboon.

What we see from this is that the majority of times in which a leopard is confronted by a male baboon, the male baboon is killed and eaten.

However, the reports say that 4 out of those 11 times, the leopard was killed - it doesn't actually say that the male baboon killed the leopard, though. However, this is not something that can be extrapolated as there are far more baboons than there are leopards, and if there was a 40% chance of the leopard dying from hunting its prey, then it would rapidly go extinct.

The report also says that leopard kills of baboons are disproportionately adult males and that leopards are the primary predators of baboons and that they are the most successful predators of baboons. Clearly, these statements *could* be taken as being in contradiction given the 4/11, but only at a naive reading.

Rather, we have to recall that these are compiled 'anecdotal reports' from literature. Why are they reported in the literature and in what context are they being reported? As with any reported event, there is a tendency towards a bias - to report events which are unusual, surprising, or interesting. If you watch 1000 events of a lion killing a gazelle, it would quickly become pointless to 'report' on the outcome except for quantitative data. However, if you one day witnesses a gazelle kill a lion, it would be absolutely worth reporting as it is unusual and would interest your readership. What it wouldn't say is that 'gazelle kills lion' is a typical outcome, even if over the course of millions of observations made by researchers all over the continent, that you could find a dozen such instances.

Similarly, when a leopard attacks a baboon, it does not result in the death of the leopard 40% of the time. What the report says is that in 40% of the 11 reported cases considered here, the result was the death of the leopard.

So overall, what do we have? We have a picture of leopards routinely preying on baboons, and which particular cohort of baboons get frequently killed and eaten? Adult male baboons. So even though baboons retaliate against leopards and this can provide a deterrent (as with Cheney's observation of numerous individuals mobbing a leopard), it does not support the idea that a male baboon's canines act as a deterrent to leopards, or that a male baboon engages in gladiatorial combat with a leopard, or that this would result in a desirable outcome for the baboon given that the males which more frequently attempt to retaliate against leopards are disproportionately killed comparative to those females and juveniles which run away.

Nor does it offer the slightest bit of support to any of the claims made about afarensis.
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: 25226
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests