Jayjay4547 wrote:...

That's what you have done: built up a story close knit pride, water hole, hectare, shit, laughed play long, taunted, subliminal message, without a scratch.

I know. You did similarly by claiming that you know what the lioness needed

The only constructive word I used was she "needed" to wait for backup. That is, I assumed the predator and prey were both acting logically.

No you didn't, you pretended to know what the lioness needed.

In these clips:

Brave monkey fights lion.jpg

At 10s the baboon jerks back, surprised by the lioness who is out of sight from the camera but is coming around the bush.

Yep. (Fits nicely into my story so far.)

At 11s the lion appears looking directly at the baboon.

"Appears" may or may not be the case.

At 12s the baboon is lunging towards the lion, who is recoiling.

Yep. (Fits nicely into my story about feigned fear in the lioness.)

At 16s the lion is side on to the baboon and looking at her chaser, but later on she continues running away.

Basically that baboon was in a hopeless position but at every stage it seems to have been doing the logical best in the situation. When other lions appear it retreated under a bush where it could present a front.

Whilst the lioness maintained her inner dialogue about her feigned fear and the upcoming inevitable retribution, probably.

You say you have spent years watching the behaviour of felids. Have you ever seen a lion running away from prey without it being in danger from that prey?

Yes, several times in this video, for example.

If this conversation carries on, someone is going to mention that this lioness seemed to be a juvenile, so it might as well be me.

Are you trying to say that the lioness might as well be you because it is juvenile, or something other?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
You say you have spent years watching the behaviour of felids. Have you ever seen a lion running away from prey without it being in danger from that prey?

I know you're more of a dog person, JJ, but you surely can't be unaware of the fact that all cats like to play with their victims before they kill them? It's part of the way they evolved to hunt, and it works just fine for them!

Are you not in the least bit embarrassed that your all powerful god can't give you anything better to argue with than this? His followers used to have the whole of creation, and now you're reduced to arguing about fossil teeth and opsins on the internet

Jayjay4547 wrote:

That's what you have done: built up a story close knit pride, water hole, hectare, shit, laughed play long, taunted, subliminal message, without a scratch. The only constructive word I used was she "needed" to wait for backup. That is, I assumed the predator and prey were both acting logically. In these clips:

And yet yours is just as made-up as Newolder's regardless of word count, because the thing you can't see in a video is the very thing you're postulating. It's what you always do when you share videos - add stuff that's factually not there.

We don't project emotional states onto animals unless we have very good reason to, JJ.

In this case, it would be absurd to project the idea that the lion needed to wait for other lions to kill a baboon when we observe lions killing baboons all the time.

You're just engaging in your typical motivated reasoning, and it is simply not going to be accepted, so move on.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Basically that baboon was in a hopeless position but at every stage it seems to have been doing the logical best in the situation.

So now the baboon is using logic?

Jayjay4547 wrote: When other lions appear it retreated under a bush where it could present a front.

Fuck me JJ you are seriously delusional.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You say you have spent years watching the behaviour of felids. Have you ever seen a lion running away from prey without it being in danger from that prey?

Yes. I've seen lots of interesting incidences. I've seen a tiger 'run away' from a macaque. It wasn't 'running away' like you think though, it wasn't hungry, it was a juvenile, and it was just playing.

Jayjay4547 wrote:If this conversation carries on, someone is going to mention that this lioness seemed to be a juvenile, so it might as well be me.

Experience does play a part in any predator prey encounter, JJ.

But what you are failing to note, as in you will remain blind to regardless, is that while the lion may have been juvenile or not, the baboon ended up dead.

So even though the video provides zero evidence of the alleged 'defensive biting' and even though it's perhaps the only species large enough to give a lion pause, the result is exactly what I have told you dozens of times and you have denied.

This is not an evolutionary strategy that confers a benefit.

fluttermoth wrote:Are you not in the least bit embarrassed that your all powerful god can't give you anything better to argue with than this? His followers used to have the whole of creation, and now you're reduced to arguing about fossil teeth and opsins on the internet

It's them JJ babushkas.

I wonder if it's even possible to be a Creationist without considering everything one says to be of equal force and validity as those allegedly made by the Creator of the universe.

Whatever the case, JJ inevitably asserts his way into places he's ill-equipped to tread.

newolder wrote:...

You say you have spent years watching the behaviour of felids. Have you ever seen a lion running away from prey without it being in danger from that prey?

Yes, several times in this video, for example.

There's also another well-watched youtube of a gibbon playing with a couple of tiger cubs but I wouldn't rate its survival chances if it tried the same danger play just a few months later...

Wow! Look Newolder! You can see the frame where the gibbon lunges with its fangs bared at the tiger cubs, driving them away in fear of their lives.

And by 'see', I obviously mean in your mind's eye.


*damn that's adorable.

Heh. Monkeys being twats to cats is its own youtube sub-genre. Here's a short one that includes mouth on mouth action too!

newolder wrote:Heh. Monkeys being twats to cats is its own youtube sub-genre. Here's a short one that includes mouth on mouth action too!

Ha I love it. I do some work with an animal sanctuary down South, they take in rescued animals that have been used as work or entertainment animals - lots of elephants and monkeys mostly. The few animals which are allowed out of their pens absolutely love teasing the resident cats and dogs. To a tree-swinging primate, land animals must look so clumsy and 2 dimensional!

There's a pair of gibbons there who have this amazing dance routine. They get super excited when they have visitors and riot around their pen, before simultaneously arriving back right in front of the visitor, and as they land their arms go round each other's shoulders. They'll do this repeatedly, and the timing they manage never fails to amuse.

That sounds excellent and I'd probably never (want to) leave such a sanctuary if ever I found myself there...

This recent foray into animal tooth comparison brought us cats and monkeys with similar dentition and body size (until the tigers grow up, obviously). I had imagined the teeth of river dwelling crocodiles/alligators/caiman would be more of a deterrent to mid-sized cats but no, there are tubes of jaguar and leopard leaping into rivers to catch their prey too. I was surprised initially, but warm blood seems to carry a great advantage...

e.g.


ETA Correct spelling of caiman.

newolder wrote:That sounds excellent and I'd probably never (want to) leave such a sanctuary if ever I found myself there...

I have seriously considered staying many times - it'd mean taking around 70% pay cut and living in the jungle though, neither of which particularly appeal to me!

The first time I went there, I spent the entire day bathing and grooming elephants. There's one elephant there, called 'Good Luck' in Thai, who still remembers that and comes to say hi to me whenever I visit. So cute.

newolder wrote:This recent foray into animal tooth comparison brought us cats and monkeys with similar dentition and body size (until the tigers grow up, obviously). I had imagined the teeth of river dwelling crocodiles/alligators/cayman would be more of a deterrent to mid-sized cats but no, there are tubes of jaguar and leopard leaping into rivers to catch their prey too. I was surprised initially, but warm blood seems to carry a great advantage...

Hunger does funny things to people and non-human people.

newolder wrote:*snip*

Even watching just that first clip in the context of JJ's idea that primate dentition wards off predators is seriously guffaw-inducing. That jaguar not only doesn't give a chuff about the carnivore's teeth and massive bite strength, but is so dismissive of them it even leaps into the croc's preferred habitat for catching its prey, a place the leopard has conceded most of its advantages.

As I've pointed out many times to JJ - his fantasy lasts right up until the moment reality decisively intervenes.

Spearthrower wrote:

newolder wrote:*snip*

Even watching just that first clip in the context of JJ's idea that primate dentition wards off predators is seriously guffaw-inducing. That jaguar not only doesn't give a chuff about the carnivore's teeth and massive bite strength, but is so dismissive of them it even leaps into the croc's preferred habitat for catching its prey, a place the leopard has conceded most of its advantages.

Yes, that's what made my jaw drop too. The river reptile's much vaunted "roll of death" is ultimately ineffective too against such an assailant.

As I've pointed out many times to JJ - his fantasy lasts right up until the moment reality decisively intervenes.

newolder wrote:Yes, that's what made my jaw drop too. The river reptile's much vaunted "roll of death" is ultimately ineffective too against such an assailant.

That was indeed surprising, in fact the jaguar seemed to be instigating those rolls.

Anyway, classic example of an ambush predator - the jaguar doesn't want to fight the caiman (?) in gladiatorial combat as per JJ's ongoing fiction, but get its teeth sunk into the crocodilian's jugular.

Just to complete some sort of circle back to domestic cats here, this last tube shows a felis catus domesticus facing off two of those pesky reptiles in some kind of 'sanctuary', somewhere...

Cito di Pense wrote:[

And don't neglect to mention that symbiotic relationship with objects...

But don't neglect to mention that symbiotic relationship with objects.

You should also look a bit further into that symbiotic relationship with objects.

Somebody with a symbiotic relationship to tools could do better than you have.

Four times you responded to my points by just sneering at what you must imagine your friends consider an obviously outlandish notion, Were it not for atheist ideology, you would have been perfectly familiar with this hugely particular features of our species; that we are in a symbiosis-LIKE relation with objects, and would have been familiar with its logos-ruled creative origin.

If I try to explain the basics of our symbiotic relations, please don’t accuse me of preaching or lecturing or putting on an authoritative air. I only need to explain what you should have seen yonks ago were it not for that ideology.

A human being without man-made objects is like a hermit crab without a shell; his first priority is to get hold of man-made objects to allow him of survive. The most object-deprived “homeless man” is looking for warm clothing, and cardboard for a shelter. Unless the homeless are moved on by an authority, they will build up a little environment of man-made objects. What can make a homeless man dangerous is that one of these objects might be a knife; that possibility gives the homeless man some protection from harassment and the ability to remain in that environment.

These man-made objects are endlessly produced, according to set patterns: the 2 litre coke bottle, cellphone, sedan, airliner. These are endlessly copied with variation and human beings select amongst the variety, those man-made objects that work best in the world. A claw hammer whose handle breaks off easily will not be reproduced.

We are the only species with this existential need to interface with the world via things we have made. Elephants, dolphins, penguins just bring themselves. When a chimp uses a straw to fish termites out of a mound we get all excited about this apparent evolutionary precursor but Hold On; there have been chimps and their ancestors, with hands, as long as hominins. And Homo floresiensis, with a chimp-sized brain, had what one poster called an “advanced material culture”.

The symbiotic partnership between objects and human beings has recently seen the objects develop much faster than the humans and the dramatic arts play with our uneasiness about that; e.g “Westworld” and “I am Mother”. There are the clearest signs that in the distant past, it was the biological side of the partnership that adapted more quickly. Australopithecus is the key genus displaying that adaption. The lack of intimidating canines in their males, as distinct from the pattern in other primates, shows that instead of biting, they used hand weapons, the same as a homeless man might use a knife: to ensure that he is left alone.

A weapon is used defensively right at the instant where survival is in question; whether the prey will live to breed or be eaten to help the predator to breed. That is when every faculty and ability of the prey is working at its limit of capability. If the prey is using a weapon, that is when it ability to use it, and to have the best weapon, are most consequential. And so, that is when the ancestors of A. australopithecus became welded into the symbiotic-like relationship we have today, and which has been so hugely successful as to have filled the world with people and rubbish, as Wall-E dramatised.

Atheist ideology comes in like this: the origin narrative it wants is deeply acausal because that is the needed opposite of the Abrahamic origin narrative in which Man was explicitly created by something greater. So in terms of the atheist origin story, humanity just evolved because evolution provides a way whereby animals get better; what could be more “natural”? No particular mechanism should be involved.

Hahahahahahaha

Oh my

Hahahahahahaha


Deep breaths


Hahahahahchortle

Jayjay4547 wrote:his first priority is to get hold of man-made objects to allow him of survive.

You seem to treat it as significant that humans create meaning out of the difference between surviving and not-surviving. There's a whole inner-babushka in there for us to explore with you, JJ, but explore it on your own, first, so you can simulate knowing what you're talking about. What you seem unwilling to talk more about is how, whether, and why it was ever important (to whom?) that humans survive. What proto-humans developed were social organizations. You see this in other social primates that we can observe today. Your nonsense about tools is there to prop up your masturbation fantasy about what you call the creative biome.

Other animals, we suppose, do not make big allowances for survival. They either survive, or they don't, doing whatever they do. The part of evolutionary theory you're trying to sweep under the carpet is that the only thing a critter needs to do is survive long enough to raise offspring. That is rather problematic for modern humans, who can spend as much as thirty years raising offspring until the offspring are able to go out on their own. Finding objects to 'allow survival' is not really a priority of human children, JJ. Go back into that babushka and see what you can come up with.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The symbiotic partnership between objects and human beings has recently seen the objects develop much faster than the humans and the dramatic arts play with our uneasiness about that; e.g “Westworld” and “I am Mother”. There are the clearest signs that in the distant past, it was the biological side of the partnership that adapted more quickly. Australopithecus is the key genus displaying that adaption. The lack of intimidating canines in their males, as distinct from the pattern in other primates, shows that instead of biting, they used hand weapons, the same as a homeless man might use a knife: to ensure that he is left alone.

This is going all the way down the booby-hatch, JJ. Maybe there are some meds you could take to moderate your delusional behavior, even if it cannot be ultimately controlled.

I want to spend a little more time sneering at JJ's latest dump on the table of discourse later, but for now I think it's great that we have a perfect example of JJ's M.O. sitting right here.

The Babushka Argument.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology comes in like this: the origin narrative it wants is deeply acausal because that is the needed opposite of the Abrahamic origin narrative in which Man was explicitly created by something greater. So in terms of the atheist origin story, humanity just evolved because evolution provides a way whereby animals get better; what could be more “natural”? No particular mechanism should be involved.

As I've noted before, whenever JJ's pushed on a point and can no longer even maintain the facade of it having traction, he erects another argument which is only loosely connected, but is used supposedly to exemplify why he was right before with his failed argument.

This is partly due to JJ's refusal ever to acknowledge his errors, but the rhetorical strategy runs a little deeper than that.

As with Babushka dolls (Matryoshka doll), one argument simply hides another argument, and with JJ they're hidden arguments all the way down; one failed broken little dolly inside another failed broken little dolly. But when JJ's really rattled, he reveals one of the bigger babushkas as he has above.

All the talk about primate canines, defensive strikey/stoppy strategies, australopithecine anatomy, leopard-gorilla gladiatorial combat... they're all basically unimportant to JJ - he doesn't care that he's talking shit and is proven wrong time and time again with reference to real world observation and evidence which is why he simply ignores all such rebuttals and continues asserting them ad nauseum. The truth value of them is of no interest whatsoever to JJ; they're all in service to the Greater Babushka - the real argument JJ wants to make but knows simply won't float here and will too obviously expose his motivation as bigotry against the heathen.

Like all internet Creationists, he's far too deceitful to engage honestly or with integrity, and like all internet Creationists his egotistical arrogance means that every word he pronounces must be taken as gospel by the insufficiently-theistic untermensch because it's all in service, as he sees it, of proselytizing the One True Religion narrative at the enemy.

Of course, the above isn't quite the ultimate Babushka he cherishes so dearly, and of course, it's just as comprised of self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry as the smaller versions, but it's great to see him evidence this tactic so clearly.

JJ tries hard to employ the Motte and Bailey tactic I outlined here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 56009.html

The problem of course being that his abject ignorance combined with his near perfect arrogance ensures that the mottes JJ tries to hold are no stronger than the desirable bailey ground he'd love to be able to strut around in. He's trying hard to get some sturdy foundations down from which to branch out, but he has yet to work out that the motte actually has to be a factually defensible argument, not just another weak bit of open ground that's easily over-run by even the most gentle of forays.

Thus we get scenarios of leopards challenging gorilla to duels at dawn, hoplite australopithecines slaying hydras, 100 gram primates putting the heebie jeebies into 200 kg predators with their grins... because, whether JJ's clocked it or not, as laughably inept as they are, they're actually BETTER arguments than he has for the Great Babushka in the Sky he wishes he could convince us of.

Jayjay4547 wrote:humanity just evolved because evolution provides a way whereby animals get better

Remember when I said 35 times that you simply do not understand what evolution entails?

Well JJ, you simply do not understand what evolution entails!

This isn't the scala naturae chap... ain't no climbing to platonically perfect heaven here. You should've stuck with Pokemon.

Evolution is a caucus race, JJ. You gotta keep running as hard as you can just to stay where you are.

But there's no point explaining to you: you're too full of your own ironically ignorant self-worth ever to learn about a topic you're manifestly clueless about.

Fenrir wrote:
Hahahahahchortle

There is simply no briefer way of conveying the delusion here than Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. For all his circumlocutory flourishes, JJ is a typical know-nothing-believes-he-knows-everything Creationist.