Oldskeptic wrote:You should layoff asking JayJay to explain what atheist ideology is. He's explained it very simply and succinctly as a set of rational attitudes that make it difficult to believe in gods. I can get fully on board with that definition, but then I have to ask him what fault he can really find in that? By JayJay's definition of atheist ideology I suppose that theist ideology could be explained as a set of irrational attitudes that make it easy to believe in gods.

Did I say the atheist ideology is a set of RATIONAL belief? Good Grief. I didn’t mean to say that. I did say that an ideology becomes visible where its wrong- that would be where it isn’t rational.

Oldskeptic wrote:JayJay's complaint is that this set of rational attitudes leads to the undermining of belief in creation by something greater than ourselves. JayJay would rather have his set of irrational set of attitudes prevail over a set of rational attitudes. The point of his in this thread isn't that atheist ideology messed up the human origin story; It's that rational attitudes interfere with creationism.

That passage would be about right if you everywhere changed “rational” to “irrational” and “irrational” to “rational”.

But you've not defined this ideology, much less shown were it's wrong. Of course if wrongness is what makes an ideology and ideology your silly false beliefs make a pretty strong ideology.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So long as you to stigmatize my post as obsessed, unreason fantasy, a heap of shite and silly, I hope that some readers will appreciate that your account of my position isn’t to be trusted.

Unlike you, I don't have a proven history of dishonesty, nor am I trying to push a story of evolution which is blatantly trying to minimise or even ignore more-than-plausible factors.

Jayjay4547 wrote: What I have been arguing is that the short blunt canines of Australopithecus shows that they had abandoned defensive biting, which makes other higher primates dangerous to attack.

Well, you have concentrated on predator defence to the exclusion of any other defensive or offensive use.

And you had effectively ignored other factors which could also affect dental evolution.

You seem to be obsessively focussed on an oversimplified description while simultaneously berating actual biologists for failing to take into account the subtleties of interaction between organisms and the environment.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It would be immediately useful to hit a jackal on the head with a stone before it grabs your baby.

And a mother would seem to be best-placed to do that if she was already habitually using stones for things other than predator defence, since those other uses seem to give both the chance of skill development in safety as well as immediate reward for use.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But defending against a predator would be different; every available resource in the prey animal’s being is then drawn into the effort to avoid being eaten. Brain, nerves, muscles and skeleton are all working at their ultimate effectiveness. And how well they do their task is consequential- not only for that animal, but for its relatives in the troop.

Yet in your example, all she needs to do is give a blow sufficient to discourage the jackal. She doesn't necessarily need to be a mighty warrior training every day for defence, simply an animal which has some skill at using rocks.
And, indeed, if one is thinking of evolutionary timescales, which presumably one should be, for animals which habitually use tools for defence as well as other things, especially once some skill at throwing rocks, etc is developed, rather than your apparent fantasy of a well-oiled warrior in peak condition defending his tribe, aggressive interactions with potential predators may be relatively mundane events.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You require a “safe” environment for developing weapon using skills? That would be Lamarkian. Darwin’s contribution was that what drove natural changes was unsafeness: the unsurvival of the unfit.

Don't be so colossally and moronically hypocritical.
With your fantasising about your warrior-apes habitually training, even you accept that starting to learn how to use tools by first using them to defend against predators is unlikely to improve survival, and that other, safer means of skill development are necessary.
The difference between us is that I'm not obsessed with the idea of predator defence as being the only form of tool use worth considering.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

tolman wrote: In your world, before they could be any real use, tool-users had to have somewhat sophisticated forward planning skills to prompt them to train with and carry weapons in the expectation of some future benefit, while somehow not having the wit to realise (even over very long timescales) the other profitable uses to which those skills could be put.

Seems more like your world, to require “sophisticated forward planning skills” for an animal to knowingly carry weapons around.

In a world not obsessed with predator defence to the exclusion of anything else there are obvious mechanisms of skill development which have immediate positive feedback and which don't need an explicit or implicit consideration of possible future uses to motivate their pursuit.
Yet given that you felt the need to claim the organisms concerned must have regularly trained, obviously you do want to imagine that their only real use of weapons or weapon-like tools was predator defence, meaning they had to somehow be motivated to train regularly in at least implicit expectation of some distant future benefit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:A hominin for whom hand weapons had demonstrated their effectiveness, would need no forward planning to carry them around wherever it needed to go.

For effectiveness to be able to be demonstrated, not only would some skill have to already exist, but the animal would have to have already been carrying the weapon before using it.
And in your predator-obsessed story, there would still be a need to recognise the value of carrying a weapon now based on the potential use on some future occasion.

"Wow, I'm glad I had already trained with this weapon and was carrying it with me - I must make sure to carry on training with it because I know that makes me better, and carrying it in case a use crops up again." does seem relatively sophisticated reasoning.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So I don’t fantasize that predator defense was the sole of overwhelming reason for significant tool-use development.

If you weren't trying to pretend that predator defence had been the driving factor behind the development of weapon-using skills, you clearly wouldn't have needed to fantasize about ancestors regularly training with weapons in order to be competent in future interactions with predators.
Had you taken a more holistic approach, admitting that non-weapon-use can develop useful transferable skills, and admitting that weapon use for things other than predator defence could be ideal training for defending against predators, you might have looked more sane and less desperate.

Possibly you have been self-hamstrung by considering any consideration of offensive or defensive weapon use against other members of one's species as 'self creation', moronically considering that from an organism's point of view, members of its own species don't form part of its environment

Jayjay4547 wrote:I infer from the small blunt canines of Australopithecus that defensive weapon USE was the reason for their small blunt canines.

Yet you seem keen to ignore the effect that sexual dimorphism might have, seemingly because admitting that it plays a meaningful part in males of some species having large canines necessarily implies that social behaviour can be a meaningful factor in canine size.
Indeed, the development of meaningful skills at hurting predators means having skills which would be highly likely to also be employed whenever fighting relatives happened - it would take a seriously sophisticated culture to use rocks and sticks to attack trespassing predators yet prohibit their use in either intra or inter-tribal conflict.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

tolman wrote:Had ancestors used rocks in places remote from streambeds, how likely would such things be to be fossilised and then discovered later?

One place you can be reasonably sure that a given stone ISN'T many millions of years old is if it lies in a stream bed, where stones are ground up. The Lake Turkana tools weren’t found IN a stream bed but NEAR one, from which they were sourced. What enabled them to be precisely dated was that they were excavated from a particular level in layered bed, in the style of classic geology dating.

So, not 'remote from'.

You really should try and read what people write.
It could make you look less foolish.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not invested into “pseudoGodgaia/environment”t except as valid agent of creation as opposed to the trope of self-creation that you insist on, for example in your post below.

tolman wrote: A rational biological explanation for such a period of apparent stasis where the opportunities and raw materials seem likely to have stayed fairly constant is that some genetic changes had to arise, spread and come together in order for the organism to get any 'further'. That essentially seems to be natural selection working on chance variation, with 'advances' depending on the organism gaining capacity to allow advance to happen. (*bearing in mind the patchiness of discoveries)

So to your thinking some genetic change happened that could equally have happened a million years later or earlier or might by chance never have happened, and so the origin of humankind was a chance outcome.

For a given mutation to arise in the first place clearly is a matter of chance.
For it to provide a selective advantage clearly depends on the current situation, both in terms of the organism's environment and the organism's [current] genome. That is obviously still combined with an element of luck, since even the most genetically 'gifted' baby can still be bitten by a snake or die in a famine.
For the mutation to spread if it is currently fairly neutral (even if in hindsight it will be seen as a necessary factor in some future beneficial gene combination) is also significantly a matter of luck, both in terms of external factors and also factors like the mutation's proximity to some immediately useful gene.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That is a self-creation trope.

No it isn't, it's biology.

It's not remotely 'self creation' to point out that natural selection can only happen when there are differences for selection to work on, and that new differences arise within individuals as a result of essentially random processes.

You could try and pretend that some external magical being is causing specific changes to happen, but to do that in any way is to give up on science and turn to nonscience, woo and religion.

I don't for a minute suggest that genetic changes are 'imposed' by an organism or that they are the result of any kind of act of will, simply that changes arise in organisms and then undergo selection which is necessarily hugely dependent on the environment.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not discarding the role of genetic change, I just think that being able to name the site of some genetic change like FOXP2 doesn’t help that much with explanation of origins

In the simplest explanation, genetic changes initially just happen in an organism.
Once they have initially just happened, then interesting and complicated processes come into their own, but the nature of those processes involves working with raw material that has to be there before they start work.

Your desired kind of 'explanation of origins' seems to involve at the very least a portrayal of 'the environment' as being some anthropomorphised 'generous' and 'creative' pseudo-god entity where outcomes and timings of outcomes are predestined and inevitable.
That's not biology and not scientific, it's at best half-arsed pseudo-religious woo.

Complaining that science doesn't adequately accommodate your desires in that respect is essentially the same as someone claiming that science is following an atheist agenda by failing to include Thunder Gods in meteorology.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:You should layoff asking JayJay to explain what atheist ideology is. He's explained it very simply and succinctly as a set of rational attitudes that make it difficult to believe in gods. I can get fully on board with that definition, but then I have to ask him what fault he can really find in that? By JayJay's definition of atheist ideology I suppose that theist ideology could be explained as a set of irrational attitudes that make it easy to believe in gods.

Did I say the atheist ideology is a set of RATIONAL belief?

No, you said, "...atheist ideology is a set of attitudes that make it difficult for a rational person to see how there could be a god."

Good Grief. I didn’t mean to say that.

More like you regret saying it.

Oldskeptic wrote:JayJay's complaint is that this set of rational attitudes leads to the undermining of belief in creation by something greater than ourselves. JayJay would rather have his set of irrational set of attitudes prevail over a set of rational attitudes. The point of his in this thread isn't that atheist ideology messed up the human origin story; It's that rational attitudes interfere with creationism.

JayJay wrote:

That passage would be about right if you everywhere changed “rational” to “irrational” and “irrational” to “rational”.

But then it wouldn't match how you described atheist ideology.

tolman wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: I now think it would take a hundred students a hundred years to work out how atheist ideology has influenced the narrative of human evolution but the sun around which all these aspects turn is denial of creation. [I mean, denial that the human observer is embedded in a creative event, able to take an excited interest in what has happened to far in the past but grossly unable to predict what will be interesting about its future. ]

What a completely moronic thing to say.

You're effectively classing not merely biology as necessarily atheist even when many biologists are grown-up theists simply because it doesn't rely on divine magic, but by extension you are calling all of science 'atheist' if it simply constructs rational models of reality which don't rely on magic or deities.

I put back in square brackets my immediately following sentence, where I made clear that the notion of “creation” that is denied, doesn’t necessarily and to all observers, have anything to do with magic or deities. The human origin story worked up under the influence of atheist ideology is strikingly irrational- Notably, it ignores the DATA of the physiology of Australopithecus. You don’t believe me? Look through the authoritative Treves and Palmqvist article on hominin-predator relations, for ANY PLACE where it refers specifically to the body plan, skull or teeth of those hominins. Look here for easy reference.

A rational observer would first look in the fossil evidence, for guidance on what our ancestors did about their predators. Gosh what unusual canines for a large higher primate! What can we infer from that? Raymond Dart the discoverer of Australopithecus asked that question ninety years ago but his successors gradually schooled each other out of asking it.

Behind that schooling lies not just atheism but also cross talk from social anthropology; a relatively data-rich and sophisticated discipline. Physical anthropologists kept on coming up with origin stories that didn’t wash with those colleagues who dealt purely with human society. By the time we get to Treves and Palmqvist they come up with the ultimately anodyne offering:

We propose that the adaptive solution to the higher predation pressure of the end Miocene and Pliocene was a social adaptation that preceded any elaboration of material culture.

tolman wrote: And, of course, with the transparent self-centredness typical of a certain kind of believer, you're either ignoring all the believers who believe meaningfully different things (since they would also be 'denying' your idea of creation simply by not supporting it), or dishonestly pretending that incompatible beliefs are compatible, all for the sake of attacking atheists.

Who would be all these believers who believe meaningfully different things? You might mean theistic evolutionists like Conway Morris, Kenneth R Miller or going further back, Teilhard de Chardin. All knowledgeable intelligent and spiritually advanced- at least, more so than me. But also dwindling and backfooted. Atheists act as if they own the gestalt of evolution where theists are guests who don’t seem to have grocked what it is all about. I know that, as an ex-atheist myself. Anyway, as I see it they aren’t critical enough.

tolman wrote: As it is, it doesn't seem like you're even clear on the difference between 'atheist' and 'secular', something which a non-retarded twelve-year-old should be easily capable of learning if they didn't know it already.

My goodness where do you pick up that useless little stick? In a rational discourse, before accusing someone of being retarded to 12 year old level, one would marshal evidence for that- by finding where one’s opponent had used “secular” and “atheist” in confused ways. What you are demonstrating here is the fatal flaw in atheism of needing to sneer. It’s a status thing- an aspect of placing the [atheist] intellect above everything else in the world.

tolman wrote: And as already pointed out and largely if not entirely ignored by you, any scientific (let alone any biological) explanation for anything is god-free, and hence compatible with atheism. There is no 'atheistic' need to privilege any particular explanation over another since all are god-free and all have no need of (or place for) divine magic.

It is true that any particular biological explanation using the scientific method has no place for divine magic, because it works with that part of the world we can experiment with and own. But a human origin story told in terms of self-creation is structured that way so as to imply something about that part of the world we can’t experiment with and owns us.

Here’s an example of owning us. It’s possible to entertain the idea that the world would be better if humanity were to just die out, if we just left it to the elephants and the bats, all we are doing is turning the place into a trash heap. I’m not saying that’s true or that one thinks it all the time, but one can. And one couldn’t think that unless one knew that the world is psychologically bigger than the human is; it’s a sacrificial notion. You can’t “sacrifice” yourself to a tin can you find in the road, you sacrifice to something greater, in an affirmation of its worth, of what owns us.

Double post

Oldskeptic wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:You should layoff asking JayJay to explain what atheist ideology is. He's explained it very simply and succinctly as a set of rational attitudes that make it difficult to believe in gods. I can get fully on board with that definition, but then I have to ask him what fault he can really find in that? By JayJay's definition of atheist ideology I suppose that theist ideology could be explained as a set of irrational attitudes that make it easy to believe in gods.

Did I say the atheist ideology is a set of RATIONAL belief?

No, you said, "...atheist ideology is a set of attitudes that make it difficult for a rational person to see how there could be a god."

Good Grief. I didn’t mean to say that.

More like you regret saying it.

Oldskeptic wrote:JayJay's complaint is that this set of rational attitudes leads to the undermining of belief in creation by something greater than ourselves. JayJay would rather have his set of irrational set of attitudes prevail over a set of rational attitudes. The point of his in this thread isn't that atheist ideology messed up the human origin story; It's that rational attitudes interfere with creationism.

JayJay wrote:

That passage would be about right if you everywhere changed “rational” to “irrational” and “irrational” to “rational”.

But then it wouldn't match how you described atheist ideology.

Back to your best. I'll have to think about that.

Try finding honest responses to his post, instead of your usual duplicitous apologetic fabrications. Then you might attain an elementary level of competence in addressing said post.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

tolman wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: I now think it would take a hundred students a hundred years to work out how atheist ideology has influenced the narrative of human evolution but the sun around which all these aspects turn is denial of creation. [I mean, denial that the human observer is embedded in a creative event, able to take an excited interest in what has happened to far in the past but grossly unable to predict what will be interesting about its future. ]

What a completely moronic thing to say.

You're effectively classing not merely biology as necessarily atheist even when many biologists are grown-up theists simply because it doesn't rely on divine magic, but by extension you are calling all of science 'atheist' if it simply constructs rational models of reality which don't rely on magic or deities.

I put back in square brackets my immediately following sentence, where I made clear that the notion of “creation” that is denied, doesn’t necessarily and to all observers, have anything to do with magic or deities.

In your original post you made explicit reference to the Genesis fairy tale which atheist biologists were supposedly going out of their way to frame an 'opposite' narrative to.

Your hopeless definition of 'creative' (and your pathetic use of 'embedded') doesn't really make any sense, except maybe as part of a bait-and-switch plan as favoured by all kinds of creationists.
The issue with your framing of 'creative' is that it's determinedly pseudo-religious, making it essentially worthless for scientific consideration.

Evolutionary biologists accept that everything (humans included) is the result of vastly complex interactions going on for billions of years.
In that sense, they consider that humans are one of the [current] results of some complex general process including all life.
The only sense in which their biological world model doesn't recognise anything 'greater than themselves' is the sense that they don't pretend that 'evolution' has real sentience or intentionality.

And clearly, evolutionary biologists don't claim to know what will happen in the future.
It's pretty obviously you who wants to believe in inevitability in terms of both outcomes and timings.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The human origin story worked up under the influence of atheist ideology is strikingly irrational- Notably, it ignores the DATA of the physiology of Australopithecus.

As repeatedly pointed out, and repeatedly dismissed or ignored: unless you tried to shoehorn a god into it, not only is there nothing in your hypothesis which would alarm an atheist, but your hypothesis would be attractive to someone keen on the idea that our ancestors had long been influencing their own biological evolution by their intelligent actions.

If that latter is what you would call a 'self-creation narrative' then your hypothesis is such a narrative.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

tolman wrote: And as already pointed out and largely if not entirely ignored by you, any scientific (let alone any biological) explanation for anything is god-free, and hence compatible with atheism. There is no 'atheistic' need to privilege any particular explanation over another since all are god-free and all have no need of (or place for) divine magic.

It is true that any particular biological explanation using the scientific method has no place for divine magic, because it works with that part of the world we can experiment with and own.

No, it's because appeals to divine magic are essentially appeals to stop thinking about how things are and start pretending how one would wish them to be.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But a human origin story told in terms of self-creation is structured that way so as to imply something about that part of the world we can’t experiment with and owns us.

Here’s an example of owning us. It’s possible to entertain the idea that the world would be better if humanity were to just die out, if we just left it to the elephants and the bats, all we are doing is turning the place into a trash heap. I’m not saying that’s true or that one thinks it all the time, but one can. And one couldn’t think that unless one knew that the world is psychologically bigger than the human is; it’s a sacrificial notion. You can’t “sacrifice” yourself to a tin can you find in the road, you sacrifice to something greater, in an affirmation of its worth, of what owns us.

Bullshit.
All one needs to make some call on whether the world would be better with humans or without them is an ability to imagine two different worlds (however inaccurately) and make subjective calls on value.
It's entirely possible to conclude the world would be better without humans but to do nothing about that conclusion, so there's no overarching need to consider 'sacrifice'.

'Owning us' is a silly way of putting it. Just like 'psychologically bigger', it seems designed to frame things in order to suggest large intentional entities.
That's not biology, it's theology.

So I see Jayjay still hasn't stopped lying or dodging....

The badmouthing has reached such a crescendo that to protect myself I will go back to the rule of not responding to posts that say I am lying- or that use weasel words amounting to the same thing.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The badmouthing has reached such a crescendo that to protect myself I will go back to the rule of not responding to posts that say I am lying- or that use weasel words amounting to the same thing.

Accurately identifying deliberate false statements, especially when having been corrected many times, as lies, is not badmouthing Jayjay.
If you want people to stop pointing out that you're lying and acting dishonestly, stop doing so.
Not responding will only demonstrate that your either unwilling or unable to adress the fact that you're lying. It won't fool anyone.

Oh does this mean I won't have any more lies and bullshit in my in tray? I could do with a break from this, given that this is all I've had from JayJay in three fucking years, along with attempts to impugn my discoursive integrity that made everyone else in this thread wet themselves laughing.

Of course, the problem is that if enough of us point out the manifest lies and bullshit in his posts, we'll never be given a straight answer to the question he's been repeatedly dropped, namely just that is "atheist ideology", if it's something other than a duplicitous fiction he erects to avoid discussing substance. Though I suspect most here regard his "atheist ideology" trope as being precisely that, a duplicitous fiction he erects to avoid discussing substance, just as he whinges and bleats about post style in order to avoid discussing post content when it's inconvenient for his apologetics. As a corollary, I suspect most here aren't expecting a straight answer from him on the subject, so if he flounces off and refuses to talk to people who point out his litany of falsehoods, it won't be a great loss. It's not as if anyone here will miss the steaming hypocrisy of his discoursive approach, purporting to be in a position to lecture the rest of us on discoursive conduct, whilst manifestly exempting himself from the same rules in a manner that we've seen from dozens of other creationists.

In short, what we're seeing above, is a petulant whinge because we won't let him control the arena of discourse, and hand privileges on a plate to his apologetic fabrications. But then that's what creationists always set out to do right from the start, control the arena of discourse duplicitously, in order to steal discoursive privileges for their made up shit, whilst hand-waving away and summarily dismissing any DATA that destroys their made up shit.

Just accept it Cali:

Jayjay4547 wrote:The badmouthing has reached such a crescendo that to protect myself I will go back to the rule of not responding to posts that say I am lying- or that use weasel words amounting to the same thing.

So how should someone respond next time you serially misrepresent them (despite repeated attempts at correction) in your attempts to demonstrate the atheist ideology at work, as you did regarding me?

tolman wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:The badmouthing has reached such a crescendo that to protect myself I will go back to the rule of not responding to posts that say I am lying- or that use weasel words amounting to the same thing.

So how should someone respond next time you serially misrepresent them (despite repeated attempts at correction) in your attempts to demonstrate the atheist ideology at work, as you did regarding me?

He's already been schooled repeatedly on why his assertions on the subject are lies, but keeps peddling the same lies as if no one had ever given his assertions a hefty kick in the balls from the DATA. He manifestly thinks that his made up shit counts for more than real world data. But then this is the hallmark of creationists worldwide.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The badmouthing has reached such a crescendo that to protect myself I will go back to the rule of not responding to posts that say I am lying- or that use weasel words amounting to the same thing.

Oh come now. You don't need this sort of excuse. Look at page one of this thread, post 3, 1st response anyone made to. Oh yeah, 'twas from myself. Questioned what atheist ideology was? Ring any bells? Did you ever answer that?
Don't make lame excuses. You answer what you choose, whatever is convenient to whatever agenda it is you're pushing here and nothing else. At least be honest about it rather than claiming butthurt.

I've tried to figure out this self-creation thing JayJay keeps on about, but the best I can make out is that he imagines that if bigger brains came before things like, language, use of fire, and spears that homo became the master of its own creation.

The problem lies in the use of the word "creation". The only people in need of the word in regard to natural science are creationists; all others could easily do without it.

In JayJay's first sentence, two threads ago, beginning this ridiculous discussion he claimed a creation event:

The Australopiths were created when a bipedal ape abandoned defensive biting in favour of using sticks and stones.

No hand in hand evolution of upright stance, opposable thumbs, brain size, use of fire, and weapon use. For JayJay one instant there was australopithicus where before there had not been.

JayJay's single piece of evidence for his human origin/creation story is that australopiths didn't have sharp protruding canines, and from this he draws conclusions that he thinks are self evident. As Cali and others, including myself, have pointed out, If it were shown by evidence that australopiths used and fashioned weapons it would be an interesting and unexpected addition to our knowledge of ancient ancestors. What it would not be is an Earth shaking revelation of a creation event. With evidence it would be just another piece of information to try to fit into an enormous puzzle.

JayJay has a problem that many people have, especially creationists. It's the problem of discontinuous thinking. It's the idea that in nature and evolution there was a first anything. Ray comfort demonstrates very well how this works when he talks about the first dog not being able to find a mate unless there was a first female dog. Discontinuous thinking promotes a need for creation events by presupposing firsts when any generation to generation timeline would show that there are no points at which a first man, dog, australopith, or any other creature would be called the first.

What we have is an incomplete fossil record that punctuates the timeline and promotes discontinuity. We can find a fossil and say this is the first, but what of the parents, or grandparents, or even grandparents seven or a hundred generations before that fossil? With a continuous generational record there is actually no place to draw a line between species. What we have is a moveable arrow with stops limited to fossil finds.

JayJay would like for australopithicus to be a stop. A beginning of one thing and the end of another, but in reality that's not how it works.

Indeed, I told him way back on page one of this thread, that the mere fact that scientists consider our origins to be the result of testable natural processes, alone destroys his "narrative of self-creation" bullshit and lies he's been peddling. That's before we consider vast swathes of DATA, such as the fact that scientists specifically constructed an entire scientific discipline aimed at studying and analysing the very external factors influencing the genetic destiny of populations, including those of our hominid ancestors, that he duplicitously continues to assert scientists are purportedly "ignoring", when all they're ignoring is his irrelevant fantasies.

He's peddled these lies for three whole years, and no amount of DATA has swayed him from doing so. All of which points to him being the real pedlar of ideology here, not us.

JayJay, If you want people to stop calling you on your lies then stop calling things like this a bruise.



Stop claiming that things like this are joyful smiles of victory.



Stop claiming that chimpanzee canines did most of the damage here and not incisors.



Stop pretending that this jaw with those teeth could not be effective in inflicting nasty wounds and removing chunks of flesh.



If you object to people pointing out your lies and misrepresentations then I suggest you keep them to yourself.