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

#4621  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2019 1:24 pm

That made me laugh. :lol:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26617

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4622  Postby zoon » Dec 08, 2019 3:03 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:………..
As you say, a stick can’t be wielded in a tree. Considered together with the great tree-climbing ability of leopard and the unimpressive canines of male hominins, that suggests to me (a) if Australopithecines ever did roost in trees, they would have carried weapons up to nests that enabled them to use those weapons effectively. (b) If leopards attacked them while foraging on the ground, the hominins would have kept them at bay on the ground using weapons rather than climb a tree. (c) If leopards got into a tree where hominins were foraging, their only defence would have been to jump out of the tree onto the ground.

As you say, the ancestors of australopithecus had been coping with predation by climbing cats for a million years. But the males of those ancestors were more impressive biters e.g. Proconsul:

Image

For a perfect comparison I should replace the homo skull with Australopithecus, but this pic off the web will serve

Spearthrower claimed that Australopithecus couldn't even hold a weapon but Hublin et al(2015)found that early human ancestors used their hands like modern humans.

The species Ardipithecus ramidus lived about 4.4 million years ago, before Australopithecus afarensis. It had an upright stance, but unlike australopithecines, its big toe was still grasping. Ardipithecus ramidus was better adapted to climbing trees than australopithecines, and, like them, lived in open woodland, as described in a 2015 article by Prof Tim White and others here:
Scenarios about hominids arising in open savanna environments go back to Lamarck in 1809 (15). It was widely expected that pre-Australopithecus hominids would continue to be found associated with open African habitats. However, the uniquely high-resolution set of diverse contextual data surrounding the Ar. ramidus remains indicate that Ardipithecus preferred wooded habitats that were neither a closed tropical forest nor open grassland savanna.


The hands of Ardipithecus ramidus had a shorter thumb than more recent hominins, so it probably did not have a strong precision grip, as described in a different 2015 article here:
Fossil hominins fall within the modern human range, but Ar. ramidus exhibits a shorter thumb (within the gorilla-hylobatid range), implying limits to its precision grasping capabilities.


The teeth of Ardipithecus ramidus are much reduced by comparison with, for example, chimpanzees, as illustrated in Tim White’s 2015 article , section 16, linked here.

Is it your view that Ardipithecus ramidus must have used sharpened sticks to ward off leopards (or whichever predators were climbing trees at the time)?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3178

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4623  Postby Jayjay4547 » Dec 09, 2019 7:05 am

zoon wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:………..
As you say, a stick can’t be wielded in a tree. Considered together with the great tree-climbing ability of leopard and the unimpressive canines of male hominins, that suggests to me (a) if Australopithecines ever did roost in trees, they would have carried weapons up to nests that enabled them to use those weapons effectively. (b) If leopards attacked them while foraging on the ground, the hominins would have kept them at bay on the ground using weapons rather than climb a tree. (c) If leopards got into a tree where hominins were foraging, their only defence would have been to jump out of the tree onto the ground.

As you say, the ancestors of australopithecus had been coping with predation by climbing cats for a million years. But the males of those ancestors were more impressive biters e.g. Proconsul:

Image

For a perfect comparison I should replace the homo skull with Australopithecus, but this pic off the web will serve

Spearthrower claimed that Australopithecus couldn't even hold a weapon but Hublin et al(2015)found that early human ancestors used their hands like modern humans.

The species Ardipithecus ramidus lived about 4.4 million years ago, before Australopithecus afarensis. It had an upright stance, but unlike australopithecines, its big toe was still grasping. Ardipithecus ramidus was better adapted to climbing trees than australopithecines, and, like them, lived in open woodland, as described in a 2015 article by Prof Tim White and others here:
Scenarios about hominids arising in open savanna environments go back to Lamarck in 1809 (15). It was widely expected that pre-Australopithecus hominids would continue to be found associated with open African habitats. However, the uniquely high-resolution set of diverse contextual data surrounding the Ar. ramidus remains indicate that Ardipithecus preferred wooded habitats that were neither a closed tropical forest nor open grassland savanna.


The hands of Ardipithecus ramidus had a shorter thumb than more recent hominins, so it probably did not have a strong precision grip, as described in a different 2015 article here:
Fossil hominins fall within the modern human range, but Ar. ramidus exhibits a shorter thumb (within the gorilla-hylobatid range), implying limits to its precision grasping capabilities.


The teeth of Ardipithecus ramidus are much reduced by comparison with, for example, chimpanzees, as illustrated in Tim White’s 2015 article , section 16, linked here.

Is it your view that Ardipithecus ramidus must have used sharpened sticks to ward off leopards (or whichever predators were climbing trees at the time)?


Yes. In this passage White attribes the “feminization” of Ardri canines to “social behavior”:
Ar. ramidus shows dramatic male canine height reduction but no obvious signs of masticatory enhancement. It is therefore far more likely that reduction of male canine size and height, especially of the upper canine, signals a fundamental change in social behavior. Moreover, bipedality and male canine feminization appear to have been evolutionarily coupled.

I’m arguing that small canines would have made a troop vulnerable to predation and restricted access to resources during the day, unless that function was provided by using hand weapons. And that White is following a convention started by Darwin, of telling a human origin story where there are no other players than the ancestors.

But he might have been right to couple male canine feminization with bipedality: in the view that Ardri, when walking, would have had to be carrying hand weapons and been adroit at handling them.

The significance of Ardri” having “limited precision grasping capabilities” can be challenged by noticing that other hominoids are quite capable of holding sticks strongly. Consider this 1960’s Adriaan Kortlandt film of chimps attacking a stuffed leopard which has a motorised head and was dragged across a scene already seeded with sticks.



I don’t draw the same conclusion Kortlandt did, which was that chimps are just a million years behind human evolution. I just want to draw attention that the chimps can hold a stick strongly.

In this clip a chimp in a zoo picks up a stick (at 58s) and vigorously lambastes another with it.



In this clip a chimp grabs a man’s hands in his own and vigorously swings him around (1m31s).


One might argue that while a chimp can hold a stick strongly, their hands aren’t adapted to make a tool. A counter argument is that animals can make things they aren’t perfectly adapted for. A sun bird can build an intricately shaped nest using only its long curved beak. A weaver bird can build just as good a nest using its short blunt beak. If you or I tried to make as good a nest as either we might struggle, even with our opposable thumbs and “precision grip”.

The significance of being optimally adapted might be greater when it comes to a fighting predator avoidance. If a stick used as stopper happens to be a rotten branch it won’t be as effective as a straight sharpened stick and that weakness might cost the troop dearly. If the wielder has as weak an understanding of how to hold a stick as Kortlandt’s chimps had, the result could again be dire. When up against a leopard that knows very well how to use its claws and its teeth and has calculated that it will be able to make a kill.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1168
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4624  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 09, 2019 7:17 am

So in other words, you've just acknowledged and accepted the criticism of your argument all along: canine reduction was occurring long before afarensis, and there's no indication of hand weapon usage among any of these animals meaning that the paradigm you've constructed doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Great, so where next?
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4625  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 09, 2019 7:19 am

I don’t draw the same conclusion Kortlandt did, which was that chimps are just a million years behind human evolution. I just want to draw attention that the chimps can hold a stick strongly.


Whereas your attempt to legitimize this indicates the exact opposite. :)
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4626  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 09, 2019 7:27 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:In this clip a chimp grabs a man’s hands in his own and vigorously swings him around (1m31s).



What's particularly beautiful in the cosmic irony of Creationists sense is that I originally showed this video years ago when JJ was claiming that chimpanzees employ their canines as lethal weapons against predators.

This is the very video where JJ continued to insist he was right that chimpanzees lunge maws gaping at threats, even though no such behavior occurs, by pointing to the single frame right on the cusp between 0:57 and 0:58 and asserting that this is where the chimp bit the man.

This is a perfect example of how JJ refuses ever to acknowledge errors, and even though he's now employing this video in direct contradiction to one of his earlier arguments (babushkas) he will no doubt be insistent he's right now, and if pushed, would also insist his prior argument was also right.

There's no reasonable discussion to be had with someone for whom their own opinion is gospel.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4627  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 09, 2019 7:29 am

A counter argument is that animals can make things they aren’t perfectly adapted for.


The significance of being optimally adapted might be greater when it comes to a fighting predator avoidance.


And of course, those with actual knowledge would be sitting laughing at the notion of being 'perfectly adapted' or 'optimally adapted' for anything.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4628  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 09, 2019 7:37 am

I’m arguing that small canines would have made a troop vulnerable to predation and restricted access to resources during the day, unless that function was provided by using hand weapons.


And the contrary is shown by the vast majority of primates which lack canines that could even momentarily act as a deterrent against a predator yet also do not employ hand weapons.

Thus the need you appeal to is not justified as has been shown dozens of times across hundreds of pages. You have not established that this is a necessity in operation outside of your imagination. It's a faulty paradigm.

There's an empirical gulf between an argument that says that X trait or behavior would be superior IF an organism possessed it, and that organism actually possessing X trait or behavior. IF afarensis could fly, then they'd be able to escape land-bound predators (true); therefore afarensis could fly (false). Deduction doesn't dictate reality. As evidence does not show that ancient hominids possessed either deterrent canines or hand weapons, then the coherent deduction is that there must be something missing in that argumentative paradigm. Ignoring problems with an idea is not how knowledge progresses.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4629  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 09, 2019 7:45 am

The question appears not to have been answered.

Has the afarensis babushka been retired in favour of africanus?

Or are we now going to extend the argument of necessity of hand weapons back millions of years deep into the Miocene when canine reduction in apes began?

Collective breath is being held.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4630  Postby Jayjay4547 » Dec 10, 2019 5:16 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:In this clip a chimp grabs a man’s hands in his own and vigorously swings him around (1m31s).



What's particularly beautiful in the cosmic irony of Creationists sense is that I originally showed this video years ago when JJ was claiming that chimpanzees employ their canines as lethal weapons against predators.

This is the very video where JJ continued to insist he was right that chimpanzees lunge maws gaping at threats, even though no such behavior occurs, by pointing to the single frame right on the cusp between 0:57 and 0:58 and asserting that this is where the chimp bit the man.

This is a perfect example of how JJ refuses ever to acknowledge errors, and even though he's now employing this video in direct contradiction to one of his earlier arguments (babushkas) he will no doubt be insistent he's right now, and if pushed, would also insist his prior argument was also right.


The voice-over in the monkey island clip said “the chimps mauled his face, nearly ripped off his ear and mangled his hands"…which all could only have happened in a brief period when the man (John Maclaughlin(sp?)) was crouching on the ground trying a submissive posture. I didn’t want to discuss that now, LikeI said, I just wanted to demonstrate that the chimp was able to hold a man’s hands strongly.

There is plenty of evidence that chimps do use their canines to maim and sometimes kill. See Watts et al (2006)
and also, at least 3 horrific attacks by chimps on people.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1168
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4631  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 10, 2019 5:31 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The voice-over in the monkey island clip said “the chimps mauled his face, nearly ripped off his ear and mangled his hands"


Yes JJ - I know that. I know that because I was the one who originally cited this video - among other videos of chimp attacks - to show that your earlier babushka argument about chimps lunging with their canines at victims was just not true.

You similarly tried to leverage the word 'maul' at the time, and as we established, the word 'maul' offers your argument no solace whatsoever - it's the same issue you repeatedly have where you blinker yourself and pretend that things which contradict your claims actually support your claims.

The word maul doesn't mean 'bite', it means 'violently attack'. Obviously, we can see this - that's what the video is about... and we can see how the chimpanzee is violently attacking its victim. What we can't see is the chimpanzee lunging its gaping maw at its victim.

But we did all this already over the course of 20 or so pages where you refused to acknowledge anything other than the gospel according to JJ, and as I just predicted:


Spearthrower wrote:This is a perfect example of how JJ refuses ever to acknowledge errors, and even though he's now employing this video in direct contradiction to one of his earlier arguments (babushkas) he will no doubt be insistent he's right now, and if pushed, would also insist his prior argument was also right.


It didn't even take much pushing, did it? You're using the same video to contend 2 contrary things.

When you refuse to acknowledge your errors, JJ - it doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes people distrustful of your motivation for arguments and given enough examples, it makes you a figure of fun.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... which all could only have happened in a brief period when the man (John Maclaughlin(sp?)) was crouching on the ground trying a submissive posture.


Actually, it happened throughout the extended period of being pummeled, bashed, tugged and generally laid into by the chimpanzee.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I didn’t want to discuss that now, LikeI said, I just wanted to demonstrate that the chimp was able to hold a man’s hands strongly.


Because anyone ever contended that a chimpanzee could not hold a man's hand strongly? :grin:

Chimps climb trees primarily with their hands, JJ - no one's arguing that chimps are unable to grip with their hands. You are, as usual, ignoring the arguments made which you can't contend, strawmanning a weakest possible version that no one has argued, then pretending you're scoring some points.

I also will point out here that the last time you misrepresented me and I showed numerous quotations of how you had misrepresented me... you ignored it rather than either acknowledging it and retracting your statement, or offering some explanation as to why you had so thoroughly misrepresented me. This answers the protest you made a couple of pages back about how people are obliged to provide examples when they call you out for lying. I gave more than adequate examples, and you've ignored it. Why then are people obliged to exemplify their accusation if the outcome is the same: you ignoring it.



Jayjay4547 wrote:There is plenty of evidence that chimps do use their canines to maim and sometimes kill.


You're repeating all the ground we've already covered.

Of course chimps use their teeth to eat, just like all other animals in the world.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
and also, at least 3 horrific attacks by chimps on people.


Yes, and how many horrific attacks by humans on people? And all those attacks where modern H sapiens bites a chunk out of their victim... *waved away instantly*.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Dec 10, 2019 5:40 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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4632  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 10, 2019 5:39 am

Thommo wrote:
Fallible wrote:You have disqualified yourself from participation in reasoned discourse; you have disqualified yourself from the right to demand explanations, evidence or anything else, due to your behaviour. Just in this post alone you cannot help yourself, and have begun fabricating my supposed position. I no longer have time or patience for that kind of tedious busy work. Your invitation for me to participate in your turgid fapathon is therefore declined.


I will be entirely unsurprised if Jayjay now criticises your unwillingness to provide specific citations, despite having just got done doing the exact same thing himself.



And just a page later, we get to see yet another example (there are so many) of what happens when someone does actually take the time to show that JJ is not telling the truth:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2722958

Response?

Silence.

But that silence will only last a couple of pages when JJ will reiterate the same falsehood; the post in question thereby having fallen back some way and therefore out of sight. At that point, responding with a link back again will once again produce silence, or at the very best JJ will have had time to think how to spin it so that he was right all along and Spearthrower was throwing out a smoke-screen, or somehow otherwise to fault, then silence.

JJ doesn't seem to recognize that one of those special aspects of H sapiens is there extensive ability to recognize patterns in the most abstract of places, such as discursive behavior in the written word.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4633  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 10, 2019 5:48 am

JJ... stop for a moment. Stop trying to score some points and use your brain.

I wrote this earlier - you of course ignored it.

Imagine the grip you'd need for:

squeezing a small seed to pop its kernel
holding a needle to push it through against resistance
poking a twig into a hole
using a knife to cut through leather
holding out a stone the size of your hand
smashing a bowling ball down onto the ground
throwing or thrusting a javelin


Right there, sitting in your armchair, act these out. If you were holding a needle and pushing it through, say, a piece of animal hide... how would you shape your hand. What muscles would you be using? Now try another one. Note that your hand shape is different, that the muscles you're using are different ones.

Thus there can be no gross simplification of 'grip' - you can't just say, oh chimpanzees can grip a tree, therefore they can wield a hammer because that's beyond simplification - it's a kind of semantic argument that essentializes a word to its most simple level without acknowledging the massive variation contained therein.

Thus my summary to that point:

These are just a few grips with very different anatomical uses, and while humans can do all of them, other primates can be better, worse, or incapable of doing them.

This is relevant to this thread and claims made herein in many ways, but it is of course mostly relevant to how afarensis may have been able to manipulate objects and calls back to many rebuttals I've made about JJ's insistence on afarensis doing X or Y when they lack the anatomy used in the modern human hand to perform that kind of grip.


I'm not arguing against afarensis wielding spears because I don't want it to be true... I am arguing against it because it just cannot be true due to anatomical limitations. You can call it a smokescreen all you like - it's really just cognitive bias to protect yourself from an idea you can't defeat with reason - I know anatomy, you don't know anatomy... learn something JJ - it costs you nothing.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4634  Postby Mr. Skeptic » Dec 11, 2019 1:20 am

Why the fuck are we wasting time on JJ? Feels like stevebee 2.0.
Mr. Skeptic
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 105

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4635  Postby Jayjay4547 » Dec 11, 2019 5:37 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The voice-over in the monkey island clip said “the chimps mauled his face, nearly ripped off his ear and mangled his hands"


Yes JJ - I know that. I know that because I was the one who originally cited this video - among other videos of chimp attacks - to show that your earlier babushka argument about chimps lunging with their canines at victims was just not true.

You similarly tried to leverage the word 'maul' at the time, and as we established, the word 'maul' offers your argument no solace whatsoever - it's the same issue you repeatedly have where you blinker yourself and pretend that things which contradict your claims actually support your claims.

The word maul doesn't mean 'bite', it means 'violently attack'. Obviously, we can see this - that's what the video is about... and we can see how the chimpanzee is violently attacking its victim. What we can't see is the chimpanzee lunging its gaping maw at its victim.


I didn’t want to go over all this again, just wanting to show that a chimp can grip something (in this case, a man’s hands) without having a hand exactly like a human. But, since you bring it up:

For a chimp to have “mauled” the man’s face, there needed to be physical contact between some part of the chimp and the man’s face. That’s a basic consideration. It’s clear in the video when the interactions have become a crisis for the man, which is during a few seconds when a chimp has a grip on him on the ground and the chimp’s head is close to the man’s .

You repeatedly mischaracterise what I argue as a chimp “lunging its gaping maw at its victim”. The way I do visualise a chimp biting say the face of an enemy, is that it pulls the enemy towards its mouth and bites into it. Then it pulls its head away, tearing out a slash in the victim or a chunk of flesh. If it is biting something smaller say a hand, it may simply nip off a finger.

I get that from accounts of chimp attacks on Nash and Davis, see this pic (with comparison of the damage done by a human biting)

ChimpVictimsNashDavis.jpg
ChimpVictimsNashDavis.jpg (28.28 KiB) Viewed 81 times

and from the meticulous observations made by
Watts et al (2006)

From Table 2: Head and face
"Multiple bites to lips, eyes, ears, mandible Multiple bites to brow ridges, ears; deep, 5 cm puncture/slash along mandibulaymphysis; shallower vertical slash in mandible
L ear torn off, R ear torn for half of length; multiple punctures and
slashes on brow and top of head; lower lip torn Ear torn, nasal septum torn, large gash from R nostril to upper lip,
5 cm gash on lower gum, multiple bites on head and brow ridge 4 cm gash under mandible Neck 1 dorsal puncture Wide, 5 cm horizontal stash on ventral side/Multiple bites on back of neck Severed trachea".


Spearthrower wrote: But we did all this already over the course of 20 or so pages where you refused to acknowledge anything other than the gospel according to JJ, and as I just predicted:

Spearthrower wrote:This is a perfect example of how JJ refuses ever to acknowledge errors, and even though he's now employing this video in direct contradiction to one of his earlier arguments (babushkas) he will no doubt be insistent he's right now, and if pushed, would also insist his prior argument was also right.


It didn't even take much pushing, did it? You're using the same video to contend 2 contrary things.

When you refuse to acknowledge your errors, JJ - it doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes people distrustful of your motivation for arguments and given enough examples, it makes you a figure of fun.


For myself, I’m amazed that you can watch a video of an attack by a chimp, hear the account of the damage done,and not realise that the chimp bit the man. And you think it’s me who is “refusing to acknowledge” what the video shows.
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:... which all could only have happened in a brief period when the man (John Maclaughlin(sp?)) was crouching on the ground trying a submissive posture.


Actually, it happened throughout the extended period of being pummeled, bashed, tugged and generally laid into by the chimpanzee.

It seems to me that the man tried social responses to an escalating situation, like submission and grooming but once this face started being bitten by a particular attacker, he got up, still gripped by his attacker, was swung around violently but managed to get into the water and off the island, where his attacker did not follow.
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: I didn’t want to discuss that now, Like I said, I just wanted to demonstrate that the chimp was able to hold a man’s hands strongly.

Because anyone ever contended that a chimpanzee could not hold a man's hand strongly? :grin: /Chimps climb trees primarily with their hands, JJ - no one's arguing that chimps are unable to grip with their hands. You are, as usual, ignoring the arguments made which you can't contend, strawmanning a weakest possible version that no one has argued, then pretending you're scoring some points.


The issue i was discussing this time was whether a primate with hands unlike ours, can hold a weapon. You claimed that australopithecines couldn’t do that. The video showed a chimp gripping a man’s hand where the man is trying to pull away in a similar direction to how a hammer tries to pull away from the hand, not the way a brachiating ape might swing from a branch.

Spearthrower wrote: I also will point out here that the last time you misrepresented me and I showed numerous quotations of how you had misrepresented me... you ignored it rather than either acknowledging it and retracting your statement, or offering some explanation as to why you had so thoroughly misrepresented me. This answers the protest you made a couple of pages back about how people are obliged to provide examples when they call you out for lying. I gave more than adequate examples, and you've ignored it. Why then are people obliged to exemplify their accusation if the outcome is the same: you ignoring it.


You usually respond very quickly to my posts with a slew of your own, to which I don’t always respond, especially when I’ve been interestingly engaged by a poster like zoon. And especially considering your hysterically bullying tone, calling me a compulsive liar and a lying little runt.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There is plenty of evidence that chimps do use their canines to maim and sometimes kill.


You're repeating all the ground we've already covered./Of course chimps use their teeth to eat, just like all other animals in the world.


You are playing games with words. The chimp in the video wasn’t interested in “eating” the man. It was intent on causing damage, as in the attacks on Nash, Davis and more recently, Andrew Oberle. And the conspecific attacks Watts recounted. There really is a contrast between the way a chimp attacks an enemy and how a human does, that is significant for analysing how our ancestors related with their predators.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
and also, at least 3 horrific attacks by chimps on people.


Yes, and how many horrific attacks by humans on people? And all those attacks where modern H sapiens bites a chunk out of their victim... *waved away instantly*.


Interesting how people see things differently. I see you, throughout this exchange on chimp habits, as being utterly obtuse.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1168
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4636  Postby Jayjay4547 » Dec 11, 2019 5:46 am

Mr. Skeptic wrote:Why the fuck are we wasting time on JJ? Feels like stevebee 2.0.

Hi Mr Skeptic. I've got a way to go to match stevebee's tenacity. But anyway, I see your worldview is "We must fight the inner ape, in order to survive". Funny, I see the human danger more in terms of human group delusions.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1168
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4637  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 11, 2019 6:20 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I didn’t want to go over all this again,...


You 'don't want to' yet you bring it back up and then double down yet again.

Yes, please do provide exemplification of precisely what I predicted - your refusal to acknowledge any error ever is precisely why we're here hundreds of pages later even with everyone having witnessed your inability to support even your thesis statement, let alone your endless assertions which are readily contradicted with facts.


Jayjay4547 wrote: just wanting to show that a chimp can grip something (in this case, a man’s hands) without having a hand exactly like a human.


And as I said in the post you're supposedly replying to - when did anyone ever suggest that a chimp can't grip something in its hands? :what:

Do feel free to ignore all the detailed rebuttal though - you just make my case stronger by repeatedly ignoring it.



Jayjay4547 wrote: But, since you bring it up:

For a chimp to have “mauled” the man’s face, there needed to be physical contact between some part of the chimp and the man’s face.


Yes, we can all see that physical contact in the video.



Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s a basic consideration. It’s clear in the video when the interactions have become a crisis for the man, which is during a few seconds when a chimp has a grip on him on the ground and the chimp’s head is close to the man’s .


You assert. Whereas, watching the same video myself, I am unable to tell the exact proximity between the man's head and the chimp's head, only that the supposed interaction you're appealing to lasts for 1 frame of a video, or approximately 0.27 seconds as I have pointed out a dozen times over the course of your repetition.



Jayjay4547 wrote:You repeatedly mischaracterise what I argue as a chimp “lunging its gaping maw at its victim”.


Bullshit; that was exactly your earlier babushka - but of course, I am free to word it in a way that you don't like, and I choose to do so to mock your repetitive nonsense.



Jayjay4547 wrote:The way I do visualise a chimp biting say the face of an enemy, is that it pulls the enemy towards its mouth and bites into it.


Wow! Hold the press! You mean you visualize the chimp biting it by being in sufficient proximity to it to use its teeth? What next JJ? Are you going to declaim on how water is wet?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Then it pulls its head away, tearing out a slash in the victim or a chunk of flesh. If it is biting something smaller say a hand, it may simply nip off a finger.


Actually, this is what I told you. Thanks for acknowledging that even while you incessantly deny that your arguments have been shown wrong, some of my attempts to educate you get past your cognitive bias regardless of your stout attempts to not learn a damn thing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I get that from accounts of chimp attacks on Nash and Davis, see this pic (with comparison of the damage done by a human biting)


*yawn"

Done all this; you're repeating the same claims that have already been addressed in spades. You might think that repeating the same thing leads to different results, but I am not so daft as to think repeating things I already wrote is going to effect any different response from you. Already addressed despite you ignoring it.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: But we did all this already over the course of 20 or so pages where you refused to acknowledge anything other than the gospel according to JJ, and as I just predicted:

Spearthrower wrote:This is a perfect example of how JJ refuses ever to acknowledge errors, and even though he's now employing this video in direct contradiction to one of his earlier arguments (babushkas) he will no doubt be insistent he's right now, and if pushed, would also insist his prior argument was also right.


It didn't even take much pushing, did it? You're using the same video to contend 2 contrary things.

When you refuse to acknowledge your errors, JJ - it doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes people distrustful of your motivation for arguments and given enough examples, it makes you a figure of fun.



For myself, I’m amazed that you can watch a video of an attack by a chimp, hear the account of the damage done,and not realise that the chimp bit the man.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

You clown.

I can watch a video where a chimpanzee clearly does not bite its victim and then "realise" that the chimp didn't bite the victim based on that direct observation... whereas, you decide in advance, purely on the fact that you have asserted gospel truth, that in any given situation you must be right axiomatically, and therefore even when direct observation doesn't support your assertions, your assertion remains true regardless of the evidence.

Thanks for once again reiterating all the points I've just made about your M.O., why we're here, how you're never going to change or engage in any form of reasonable discourse.

It's nice of you to willingly refresh everyone on your discoursive incompetence, though.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And you think it’s me who is “refusing to acknowledge” what the video shows.


Um yes. :lol:

I think anyone watching the video will agree that there's no indication whatsoever of the chimpanzee biting the man.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
It seems to me that the man tried social responses to an escalating situation, like submission and grooming but once this face started being bitten by a particular attacker, he got up, still gripped by his attacker, was swung around violently but managed to get into the water and off the island, where his attacker did not follow.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

It seems to you that the thing that clearly unarguably happened did in fact happen, then the thing that clearly unarguably didn't happen did actually happen.

It's pure crackpottery JJ.

You also misread the events. The man wasn't responding to an escalating situation initially; he was engaging in communication with the chimpanzees with body language, but then one chimpanzee got irate anyway - amusingly, the narrator even explains this for you.

But that's a small aside to the hilarity of you doubling down, yet again, on the alleged face biting which isn't remotely apparent and would've needed to occur in the 0.27 seconds where it's unclear in the video where the chimp's face is with regards to proximity to the man's face, so really you're just asserting a declaration of faith in your own gospel which you have presupposed must be true.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: I didn’t want to discuss that now, Like I said, I just wanted to demonstrate that the chimp was able to hold a man’s hands strongly.

Because anyone ever contended that a chimpanzee could not hold a man's hand strongly? :grin: /Chimps climb trees primarily with their hands, JJ - no one's arguing that chimps are unable to grip with their hands. You are, as usual, ignoring the arguments made which you can't contend, strawmanning a weakest possible version that no one has argued, then pretending you're scoring some points.


The issue i was discussing this time was whether a primate with hands unlike ours, can hold a weapon. You claimed that australopithecines couldn’t do that. The video showed a chimp gripping a man’s hand where the man is trying to pull away in a similar direction to how a hammer tries to pull away from the hand, not the way a brachiating ape might swing from a branch.


That's a nonsensical response. Being able to grip *something* does not equate to being able to employ a spear.

You can see that because I've explicitly told you that many, many times, so your response looks like you're just evading as usual to protect your poorly conceived idea.

I addressed all of this in the post you're supposedly responding to, and that post was itself citing posts I'd previously made. So you're not just ignoring one iteration, you're ignoring multiple iterations.

You might think this serves as a distraction - I don't know. But no one else is going to fail to notice this.

Alternatively, it might be cognitive bias - your Morton's Demon filtering out information, but you must be getting a queasy feeling every time you have to wave over all the substance and repeat claims which have already been shown superficial and lacking in relevance?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: I also will point out here that the last time you misrepresented me and I showed numerous quotations of how you had misrepresented me... you ignored it rather than either acknowledging it and retracting your statement, or offering some explanation as to why you had so thoroughly misrepresented me. This answers the protest you made a couple of pages back about how people are obliged to provide examples when they call you out for lying. I gave more than adequate examples, and you've ignored it. Why then are people obliged to exemplify their accusation if the outcome is the same: you ignoring it.


You usually respond very quickly to my posts with a slew of your own, to which I don’t always respond, especially when I’ve been interestingly engaged by a poster like zoon. And especially considering your hysterically bullying tone, calling me a compulsive liar and a lying little runt.


AWWW DIDDDDDUMS!

Play that pathos card JJ - play it HARD!

It may be that someone will fail to notice that you just managed to respond to that without actually responding to ANYTHING AT ALL! :lol:

But yeah, I am such a meanie for calling you out for compulsive lying. I mean, you could stop lying, but that's unreasonable of me to expect, isn't it? No, the only civilized thing to do is to keep pretending that you're not lying - we can just be embarrassed on your behalf silently.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

You're repeating all the ground we've already covered./Of course chimps use their teeth to eat, just like all other animals in the world.


You are playing games with words.


Where's the jaw-drop emoticon?

That's a little bit rich / absurdly hypocritical coming from you! :lol:

Not only are you building a post entirely on gross simplification of the word 'grip', but you also just make up words whenever you feel like it to sneer at people (smudgism) or just use words however you feel like even when your rendition makes them nonsensical (symbiosis).


Jayjay4547 wrote: The chimp in the video wasn’t interested in “eating” the man. It was intent on causing damage, as in the attacks on Nash, Davis and more recently, Andrew Oberle.


And the chimp in the video didn't use its teeth, ergo your argument is wrong.

As we've already talked about with other chimp victims, you've never established that the biting occurred initially, or whether it occurred after the chimpanzee had already used its greater strength to beat its victims into submission, ergo you're trying to sneak past an argument that's already been challenged. So whine some more about "playing games".


Jayjay4547 wrote: And the conspecific attacks Watts recounted. There really is a contrast between the way a chimp attacks an enemy and how a human does, that is significant for analysing how our ancestors related with their predators.


Assertions are just making an ass out of you, JJ. This isn't how we make progress, this is how you highlight why you're still here on a failed thread 5 years later obsessively railing against people for not swallowing your evidence-free claims.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
and also, at least 3 horrific attacks by chimps on people.


Yes, and how many horrific attacks by humans on people? And all those attacks where modern H sapiens bites a chunk out of their victim... *waved away instantly*.


Interesting how people see things differently. I see you, throughout this exchange on chimp habits, as being utterly obtuse.


No doubt that's the perspective offered from your armchair, just like you fail to see how much heavier predators are not threatened by small canines which terrify you.

Of course, the difference is that I actually studied comparative primate morphology and behavior at a legitimate educational institution and spent many dozens of hours observing chimpanzee behavior, whereas you are - as always - guided towards conclusions based on presuppositions rather than evidence.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4638  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 11, 2019 6:21 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Mr. Skeptic wrote:Why the fuck are we wasting time on JJ? Feels like stevebee 2.0.

Hi Mr Skeptic. I've got a way to go to match stevebee's tenacity. But anyway, I see your worldview is "We must fight the inner ape, in order to survive". Funny, I see the human danger more in terms of human group delusions.



It's not tenacity: it's pig-headedness.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4639  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 11, 2019 6:22 am

Still right there on the very page JJ's response fails to respond to any of the posts already showing up his claim.

How very perfect.


Spearthrower wrote:JJ... stop for a moment. Stop trying to score some points and use your brain.

I wrote this earlier - you of course ignored it.

Imagine the grip you'd need for:

squeezing a small seed to pop its kernel
holding a needle to push it through against resistance
poking a twig into a hole
using a knife to cut through leather
holding out a stone the size of your hand
smashing a bowling ball down onto the ground
throwing or thrusting a javelin


Right there, sitting in your armchair, act these out. If you were holding a needle and pushing it through, say, a piece of animal hide... how would you shape your hand. What muscles would you be using? Now try another one. Note that your hand shape is different, that the muscles you're using are different ones.

Thus there can be no gross simplification of 'grip' - you can't just say, oh chimpanzees can grip a tree, therefore they can wield a hammer because that's beyond simplification - it's a kind of semantic argument that essentializes a word to its most simple level without acknowledging the massive variation contained therein.

Thus my summary to that point:

These are just a few grips with very different anatomical uses, and while humans can do all of them, other primates can be better, worse, or incapable of doing them.

This is relevant to this thread and claims made herein in many ways, but it is of course mostly relevant to how afarensis may have been able to manipulate objects and calls back to many rebuttals I've made about JJ's insistence on afarensis doing X or Y when they lack the anatomy used in the modern human hand to perform that kind of grip.


I'm not arguing against afarensis wielding spears because I don't want it to be true... I am arguing against it because it just cannot be true due to anatomical limitations. You can call it a smokescreen all you like - it's really just cognitive bias to protect yourself from an idea you can't defeat with reason - I know anatomy, you don't know anatomy... learn something JJ - it costs you nothing.
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: 25810
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4640  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 11, 2019 6:38 am

How do you think you're doing, JJ?

I wonder whether your metcognition is somehow encouraging you to keep stepping on rakes regardless of how many times that means you smack yourself in the face.
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: 25810
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