by Calilasseia wrote: Well that prediction came true in record time, didn't it?Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t think for a moment that that paper was intended for publication
Well upon checking the provenance of the authors, it turns out that Alexander Panchin is actually an accredited scientist, at the Department of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics of Moscow State University. Yuri Panchin is likewise at the Department of Mathematics, of the Scientific-Research Institute for System Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Alexander Tuzhikov is a faculty member at the Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine. All of these authors have numerous other publications to their name. In the light of the past publication history of these authors, the question of whether or not this paper was a joke submission is now wide open. It's now starting to look, in the light of their previous work, as if they did intend this to be a serious submission. Which means that my previous "Sokal hypothesis" is no longer as well supported by the data as I originally thought.
Oh look. Yet another example of a change in viewpoint on the basis of available evidence. So much for your bullshit about "ideology" being at work here.
It was always a likely conclusion that this paper wasn’t intended for publication, what you found just makes it more obvious.
Calilasseia wrote: Plus, once again, the rejection of this paper, on the basis of its content being bereft of evidential support, refutes your entire "atheist ideology" bollocks wholesale, for reasons I've already presented.
No, it just shows that journals don’t accept rubbish articles even if they give encouragement to a popular ideology.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:it was a joke spoof using the language register of academic publications.
Unfortunately, the provenance of the authors now suggests that the above assertion is shaky. An example of some serious work that two of the authors collaborated on is this paper. Another paper, involving a different pairing of authors, is this one. So all three authors have a history of past serious contributions to science journals.
Then they have a good idea of how to construct a publishable article, making it improbable that they would seriously submit rubbish.
Calilasseia wrote: In short, science works first by being receptive to unusual ideas, but then subjecting those ideas to critical scrutiny. In direct opposition to your specious charges that science operates by upholding "ideological presuppositions". Your apologetics doesn't refute this basic fact at all.
Well it depends on the unusual idea. If it is that religion would decline if personal hygiene were improved then sure, some atheists will want to hear more.
Calilasseia wrote: If JayJay's bollocks about "atheist ideology" pervading and corrupting science was something other than bollocks, this paper would have been rushed into print
Atheist ideology doesn’t corrupt science that way, into allowing journals to publish highly defective articles. It corrupts one science, anthropology, by promoting origin narratives of self creation, as i argued in my post.
On reflection, it is possible that this article was seriously submitted, which would go to show the corrupting influence of 70 years of state atheism and science glorification, on Soviet science. If the authors thought they could submit any junk to a Western journal and get it accepted because it sneered at religion, I hope they were embarrassed.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Let me show you a real example of what ideological influence in a published article looks like.
Oh this is going to be good ...Jayjay4547 wrote:Here is the introduction from Treves A and Palmqvist P Reconstructing Hominin Interactions with Mammalian Carivores (6.0-1;8Ma)in GurskyS L and Nekaris K A I Eds Primate anti-Predation Strategies , Springer
http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/people/treves/First%20author/Treves_Palmqvist_2007.pdf
"When considering hominin anti-predator behavior, many scholars looked first to material culture, such as fire or weaponry (Kortlandt, 1980; Brain, 1981). However, the idea that deterrent fire or weaponry freed early hominins from threats posed by predators is unsatisfying for several reasons. First, the modern carnivores now roaming Africa are survivors of humanity’s repeated and systematic campaigns to eradicate problem animals, trade in skins, and so on. (McDougal, 1987; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 999), whereas Pliocene carnivores would not have had a history of conflict with armed hominins. Second, thousands of modern humans fell prey to leopards (Panthera pardus), lions (P. leo) and tigers (P. tigris) in the twentieth century despite their sophisticated weapons and fire (Turnbull- Kemp, 1967; McDougal, 1987; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 1999; Peterhans & Gnoske, 2001). Although, thorn branches, stone tools, fire brands, pointed sticks, or bones could potentially help to repel carnivores from their kills (Kortlandt, 1980; Bunn & Ezzo, 1993; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 1999), such weaponry seems wholly inadequate for personal defense when large carnivores achieve surprise, attack in a pack, or are accustomed to overcoming heavier prey defended by horns, hooves, or canines. Therefore, we assert that weaponry by itself does not nullify the risk posed by predators. Moreover, controlled use of fire and stone tool technology appear late in the archaeological record relative to the evolution of semi-terrestrial hominins in Pliocene Africa (Bellomo, 1994; Brain, 1994;Wolde-Gabriel et al., 1994; Brunet et al., 1997;Leakey et al., 1998; Haile-Selassie, 2001). Hominin anti-predator behavior remains a key puzzle of our human ancestry.
I/m cutting your arguments given before I even started discussing this quote.
I’m alleging an ideological influence, let me say where it is to be looked for.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Typically, that focus isn’t the outcome of a to-and-fro debate
Oh you think that scientists somehow decided that the observed data fitted presuppositions? Bullshit. I point you to those two video clips I provided above, one featuring a lion attacking hunters armed with fuck-off big guns, the other featuring a tiger attacking humans riding on the backs of elephants, and again deploying firearms. Now if you think a hominid with a smaller body mass than a typical modern day human, could face off those animals with sticks. then I suggest you need to get out more, and find out what actually happens in the world beyond your armchair. It was impressive enough for me to see Siberian Tigers at work in a zoo, let alone what they would be capable of in the wild. I'll remind you again, that in the case of this species, we're dealing with a nine foot long cat, with paws like excavator shovels, capable of turning both you and I into lunch with very little effort indeed. If you ever find yourself up against one, I recommend you have a fully loaded AK-47 to hand if you want to guarantee walking away with all your limbs intact.
You paint a striking word picture and I’m keen to remark about canned hunting and the use of beaters to trap a tiger into a paddy field and I’m also keen to discuss the implications of painting the savannah as a no-go area for australopiths. But all that has nothing to do with my point.
Calilasseia wrote: Once again, JayJay, it's all about large quantities of accumulated evidence, and nothing to do with your fictitious "ideology". You do realise those references cited in that passage you quoted provide at least some of that prior evidence? That's why those citations are there, to point readers at the prior work done to establish the validity of the statements preceding the citations. That you appear not to understand this speaks volumes.
Nope, curiously, their arguments for why scientists turned away from analysing “physical culture” isn’t supported by citations to past counter discussions, it’s no more grounded than our chat-room discussions.
The authors counter the arguments of Kortland and Brain not with citations to counter arguments but to an assumption as bald and question-begging as any on this forum:
“such weaponry seems wholly inadequate for personal defense when large carnivores achieve surprise, attack in a pack, or are accustomed to overcoming heavier prey defended by horns, hooves, or canines.”
No actually they follow their un-referenced assumption that weapons would be wholly inadequate, with “Therefore”: “Therefore, we assert that weaponry by itself does not nullify the risk posed by predators.”
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote: See this extract:
"When considering hominin anti-predator behavior, many scholars looked first to material culture, such as fire or weaponry (Kortlandt, 1980; Brain, 1981). However, the idea that deterrent fire or weaponry freed early hominins from threats posed by predators is unsatisfying for several reasons".
The Brain citation is to his “The Hunter or the Hunted?” that presents the case for the opposite of australopiths being freed from threats posed by predators.
Oh wait, that's what Brain did in that citation, analyse whether or not culture or weaponry might have had a significant impact upon predator attrition of the hominids in question. Not least because we have evidence stretching back many millennia, of humans seeking to deal with predator threats with weapons. It was therefore reasonable to ask first, if our distant ancestors developed the same approach, and second, when this approach was first developed by said distant ancestors.
Brain’s approach was perfectly proper, but the authors made out he had put the opposite argument argument to what he had. He never argued that fire or weaponry freed early hominins from threats posed by predators.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Much of his life’s work has been to show that they were predated. Earlier I linked to his famous Kranskop finding of a hominid skull with dents matching the canines of a leopard skull from the same location. It would be as implausible to claim that weapon use “freed” hominins from predation threats, as to claim that the fleet hooves of impala freed them from predation.
So wait, this author found evidence that hominids were indeed subject to big cat predation? Which surely supports the statement by Treves & Palmqvist, that fire or weapons as a hypothesised significant deterrent to such predators is unsatisfactory? A statement for which Treves and Palmqvist marshalled more evidence in the following sentences?
Only in the world of creationist apologetics could this entirely proper process be described as "ideology".
The authors cite Kortland and Brain as amongst the scientists who “first” looked at “physical culture” . According to your argument they should rather have cited Brain as on the other side. as showing the inadequacy of fire or weapons. Buyt they didn’t.
No, they cited Brain as claiming something he never did, that weapons brought immunity from predation.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Having set up a false premise: that in the old days, scientists had believed that hominins were not predated
This is a blatant misreading of the text. Treves and Palmqvist utter NO such statement. They simply state that past workers examined the hypothesis that fire or weaponry might have had a significant impact upon the phenomenon. Your above twisting of their words is yet another instance of the sort of apologetic duplicity we see here so often, a duplicity that points to the real ideology at work here.
No, their point was, having cited Kortland and Brain, then .” However, the idea that deterrent fire or weaponry freed early hominins from threats posed by predators is unsatisfying for several reasons”. This is their justification for a change of focus from “physical culture” to just “culture”
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:the authors then demolish the notion that that “weaponry by itself does … nullify the risk posed by predators.”
Actually, from your own quotation of the abstract, the sentence actually reads: "Therefore, we assert that weaponry by itself does not nullify the risk posed by predators". Why did you miss out that word highlighted in blue, JayJay, and replace it with an ellipsis? Only this feature is seen frequently in creationist quote mining. Moreover, it was a pointless omission, one that would lead immediately to suspicions of quote mining on the part of those of us familiar with the requisite tactics. A case of old ideological habits die hard, perchance?
I used ellipses to avoid a double negative. I wanted to identify the argument they demolished.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:What exactly could “weaponry by itself” mean? A weapon just lying there on the ground? A weapon applied without tactic? A weapon held by disorganized hominins in Brownian motion?
For fuck's sake, JayJay, do you need to be spoon-fed the fucking obvious here?
If I have a spear, that spear may well be very effective at bringing down something like an antelope, provided of course that I deploy it competently. On the other hand, even if I'm a fucking virtuoso with that spear, that spear is going to be fucking useless against an M1 Abrams main battle tank.
In order to provide proper evidential support for the notion that early hominid weapons were a significant factor, one needs to ask several pertinent questions in advance. Namely:
[1] Did those early hominids have weapons?
[2] If so, what weapons did they have?
[3] How were those weapons deployed?
[4] On the basis of the answers to [1] and [3] above, how successful were said weapons likely to be against a particular species?
But then, scientists realise early on in the game, that you can't just make shit up and pass it off as fact, the way creationists do. That's why they engage in research.
Again, you are off the topic. What i asked was, what does “weaponry by itself” mean.? For the authors it means weapionry plus something else. What you are talking about above, is analysis of weapon use- an interesting and under-researched topic.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:What the authors actually mean is, don’t let’s look at weaponry, let’s focus on social organization by analogy with the practices of other primates.
They don't say anything of the sort. They say that weaponry alone is insufficient, for solid reasons stated beforehand. They then point out that extant primate taxa, including many that do NOT deploy weapons, have anti-predator strategies that have been observed in the field, and that these may be informative with respect to early hominids. Not least because of our shared primate ancestry, and the fact that even modern humans exhibit a range of behaviours that are consistent with said ancestry.
The antipredation habits of other primates is relevant and the authors treat that authoritatively. What is really startling is the notion that, of the only primate to use hand-held objects in defense, that was irrelevant to their antipredation . Can’t you see that “weaponry alone” is basically meaningless?
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:
Note that the point being made, that Pliocene carnivore would not have had a history of conflict with armed hominins, is not supported by a citation.
Oh suddenly, you're nit-picking over citations when it's apologetically convenient? Except that, of course, this statement is supported by citations, when we move on to the part where the authors state that weapons appeared late in the hominid palaeontological record, which means that by definition, if there were no weapons present in earlier hominid populations, then the carnivores sharing the environment with those carnivores would not have that history of weapon-assisted conflict by definition. The second to last sentence informing us of this in your quote of the abstract is supported by supported by no less than SIX citations, viz:Moreover, controlled use of fire and stone tool technology appear late in the archaeological record relative to the evolution of semi-terrestrial hominins in Pliocene Africa (Bellomo, 1994; Brain, 1994;Wolde-Gabriel et al., 1994; Brunet et al., 1997; Leakey et al., 1998; Haile-Selassie, 2001).
Quite simply, if earlier hominids had no weapons, and the current palaeontological evidence suggests that they didn't, because said weapons would have turned up in the requisite digs, and haven't done so., then the statement is supported by evidence.
Your specious attempts to hand-wave this away, is exactly the sort of discoursive elision, that comes from treating scientific papers as nothing more than quote mine fodder.
Above, you pointed out that In order to provide proper evidential support for the notion that early hominid weapons were a significant factor, one would need to ask several pertinent questions in advance. Namely:[1] Did those early hominids have weapons?[2] If so, what weapons did they have?[3] How were those weapons deployed? So to rationally address this issue, one needs more than six authors agreeing on the date that weapons appeared in the archaeological record. One needs to look at the physiology of the animal, to see if it is compatible with defensive weapon use. One needs to look at the taphonomy: would the most likely early weapons have been preserved in the record? In another post I made the obvious point that the crudity of the Oldowan pebble tools, using the least suitable tools possible for flaking, suggests evolution from unflaked pebble tools. So the authors give a merest pretence of an analysis as if that solves the issue whether the early australopiths used weapons defensively.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s an assertion with two assumptions:Jayjay4547 wrote:first that the carnivores didn’t impose conflict on the hominins
Bollocks. No such assertion is erected. This is a blatant fabrication on your part. One exposed by the paragraph I quoted above, namely:Several hominin genera evolved to use savanna and woodland habitats across Pliocene Africa. This radiation into novel niches for apes occurred despite a daunting array of carnivores (Mammalia, Carnivora) between 6.0 and 1.8 Ma (Figure 17.1). Many of these carnivores would have preyed on hominins if given the opportunity. In this paper we ask what the behavioral adaptations were that permitted hominins to survive and spread, despite this potentially higher risk of predation in ancient Africa.
Indeed, further on, the authors present evidence that the situation for our early hominid ancestors was actually more perilous with respect to potential carnivore attrition, by citing evidence of the existence at that time of carnivores that have since become extinct, namely:Large carnivore diversity was greater in Africa’s past than it is today (Figure 17.1). Between 6 and 3.6 Ma there were five genera of large carnivores without
extant analogues (the long-legged ursid Agriotherium, the large coursing hyaenid Chasmaporthetes, and the saber-toothed felids Homotherium, Machairodus and Dinofelis). Then, from the mid-Pliocene (3.6 Ma), the archaic genera were joined by one large canid (Lycaon lycaonoides) (Martínez-Navarro & Rook, 2003), three new large felid genera (Acinonyx, Megantereon and Panthera), and four new genera of hyaenids (Crocuta, Pachycrocuta, Hyaena, and Parahyaena). At some sites, 8–10 species appear to have been coeval and broadly sympatric (Barry, 1987; Turner & Anton, 1997)(Figure 17.1). Niche separation under such conditions is not yet clear.
Then the authors state this:Coexistence of hominins and carnivores is insufficient by itself to conclude that hominins evolved effective anti-predator defenses against such paleopredators. Coexistence would have had little selective impact if (a) carnivores did not kill Pliocene hominins regularly, or (b) if such predation were random with respect to hominin traits. Thus, in the following sections we assess whether paleopredators killed hominins regularly, and if so, were there consistent patterns of hominin-carnivore interactions that might have produced directional selection among hominins.
This is what happens when you quote mine papers, JayJay. Your quote mines end up being exposed as such.
I’m not claiming the authors are consistent thoughout their article I’m claiming that in this early part of their argument where they focus the reader on what to look at and what to ignore, they rely on ropey arguments.. In the paragraph I was discussing, they do make the assertion I claim:: “Pliocene carnivores would not have had a history of conflict with armed hominins”.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:and secondly, that hominins didn’t react aggressively to predation on then.
Again, another fabrication on your part.
Once again, from the paper: [please see Cali’s post for long quotes from body of article]
Looks like this is another fabrication of yours that's been well and truly busted, JayJay.
Again, you point to arguments in the body of the paper that contradict a point made in the paragraph I’m discussing. I don’t have a problem with what Treves and Palqvist say in the body; it’s what they don’t say, justified by their introductory paragraph, that carries the ideological bias.
When they claimed there was no history of conflict, I was pointing out that conflict has two sides. It implies the predators had not fought the australopiths and and also, the australopiths had not fought the predators.
As the authors report in the body, larger primates generally conflict with their predators, it’s problematic to claim in their introduction that “Pliocene carnivores would not have had a history of conflict with armed hominins." How long would it have taken for Pliocene carnivores to have developed a history of conflict with armed hominins, if they once met them? A thousand years? A hundred thousand? It would have taken them no time at all, at the scale of paleontological time, to have acquired a history of conflict. The author’s point is bizarrely out of sympathy with the sophistication of their general approach.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:"Second, thousands of modern humans fell prey to leopards (Panthera pardus), lions (P. leo) and tigers (P. tigris) in the twentieth century despite their sophisticated weapons and fire (Turnbull- Kemp, 1967; McDougal, 1987; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 1999; Peterhans & Gnoske, 2001)".
Modern people do occasionally get eaten but generally, not those with sophisticated weapons in their hands. Wikipedia entry on Tiger attack has this quote by hunter Kenneth Anderson:
"It is extraordinary how very cautious every man-eater becomes by practice, whether a tiger or panther, and cowardly too. Invariably, it will only attack a solitary person, and that too, after prolonged and painstaking stalking, having assured itself that no other human being is in the immediate vicinity... These animals seem also to possess an astute sixth sense and be able to differentiate between an unarmed human being and an armed man deliberately pursuing them, for in most cases, only when cornered will they venture to attack the latter, while they go out of their way to stalk and attack the unarmed man.
Watch those two video clips I posted, JayJay. Which on their own are informative here. In both instances, the big cat in question attacked a human being who was part of an armed group.
So you cite two video clips as countering the considered opinion of a lifelong hunter. And those clips show trapped, desperate and probably wounded felids dying heroically, in contexts that arouse pity and indignation in the viewer. A game park near me has had its rates rebate withdrawn partly on the suspicion that it is involved in canned hunting.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:To continue with the Treves and Palmqvist paragraph:
"Although, thorn branches, stone tools, fire brands, pointed sticks, or bones could potentially help to repel carnivores from their kills (Kortlandt, 1980; Bunn & Ezzo, 1993; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 1999), such weaponry seems wholly inadequate for personal defense when large carnivores achieve surprise, attack in a pack, or are accustomed to overcoming heavier prey defended by horns, hooves, or canines."
These citations apparently refer to the notion that instead of hunting themselves, hominins waited for predators to do that and then drove the predators away. That strategy is widely used amongst mammals and birds, it is achieved by superior threat but it’s not obviously clear that a primate that can drive predators away could not also defend itself from attack. Chimps and baboons both react aggressively to attacks in “personal defense” but neither are known to try to drive predators from their prey.
Apparently you didn't read the two pages where this very question, namely that of moving in on a predator kill and helping oneself to the bounty, was discussed in detail.
Thanks for pointing out more inconsistencies between the main article and the introductory paragraph I’m analysing.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:So what I’m claiming is that this one paragraph makes a number of points that could be taken up in opposition and that aren’t supported by data.
Bollocks. See above. Oh, also try reading the whole paper, JayJay, in which such data as isotope differences are used to analyse diet, and arrive at relevant conlcusions.
See above.
In that introductory paragraph there isn’t much evidence supporting their not addressing the “physical culture” of the australopiths, as I argued at length. Having focused the reader’s attention they later undermine their own introduction as you pointed out.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:but what does it have to do with ideology? Part is aimed to depict human evolution through similarity with other primate activity, rather than through what might have been distinctive about human ancestry.
Would you expect descendants of a taxon to exhibit radical departures therefrom in a short space of time?
I’d expect that to depend on the nature of their “physical culture”. if that involved keeping their predators at bay and then hurting them, as opposed to grabbing and biting them then yes, expect pretty radical departures in a short space of time- “short” meaning, say 100 000 years.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote: If one focuses on distinction that feeds the notion of human uniqueness, which is fully expressed in the Genesis narrative.
Oh wait, this is mythology, JayJay, not science. Mythology that not only lacks even an atom of evidential support for many of its assertions, but contains several assertions known to be plain, flat, wrong. Which is why no one in science wastes time with it.
Well it’s strange that in that whole article, the author’s don’t deal with what might have been distinctive about the hominins, in their interaction with their predators. All they do is use other species behaviour as a guide to that of our ancestors.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Then it looks as though there is something special about humans. Even though defensive weapon use isn’t widely thought of as what makes us “human”.
Oh, you're surprised that we would think of ourselves as "special"? Every fucking mythology humans have invented exhibits this tendency.
Yes, I’m suggesting that one reason why hominins are not treated as special in the evolution origin narrative, is because in the Genesis narrative, humans are treated as special. I’m saying, it’s reactive.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:The more human evolution can be described through similarity with other primates rather than distinction, the more it is attributed to the “theory of evolution” rather than to a particular historical path, a bit like the relatively theory-free discipline of historical narrative.
Oh wait, we have hard evidence for evolution. We don't have any evidence for mythological assertions. Game fucking over, JayJay.
Plus, evolutionary processes not only provide us with a testable means of determining likely influences upon a particular historical outcome in the biosphere, but are being harnessed in the laboratory to produce useful products. Something that's never happened to your worthless mythology.
I don’t think Genesis is worthless mythology. Further than that your point is so vague or off the point of the paragraph I’m discussing that I can;’t comment.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:If one considered the australopith body plan as suggesting adaption into defensive weapon use for antipredation, that would encourage statements of agency by outside. For example, “Lions created the australopiths in the image they would least like to see in a terrestrial primate”. or “River stones made the australopiths”.
If you think the environment has zero effect upon its occupants, JayJay, you're in for one fucking huge shock.
Yes, i think the environment created our ancestors, in far more concrete and vivid ways than the Treves and Palmqvist article depicts. And the issue is topical, because the environment looks like acting on us more vividly in this century, than expected in Darwin’s time.
Calilasseia wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: If indeed it does turn out to be a duplicitous attempt to "Sokal" the journal by creationists, we'll all know who the real pedlars of "ideology" are, won't we boys and girls?
Possible, but more likely this confection was made by atheists for the purpose it was actually used for, to give a bunch of atheists an opportunity for delighted self-congratulation.
Bullshit. The mere fact that this weak paper was rejected alone refutes your final assertion in the above post.
You already dismissed this notion the Panchin article was written by creationists as a wooden horse- as I could have and did tell you. Then I tried to explain where actual polemical bias appears in a successfully published article, and what it looks like. The fact the Panchin paper was rejected just speaks to the silliness of some atheists or their ignorance of where real rigor exists in western science.
Calilasseia wrote: Got any more weak and specious apologetics of this sort for me to feed into the shredder, JayJay?
I do find your overbearing posts difficult to answer if only for their length and I also have trouble with your badmouthing attached to almost every paragraph. But the points in your post didn’t amount to shredding. It's curious this necessity you express, to completely demolish, obliterate any trace of opposition to established positions. Characteristic of an establishment mindset such as last seen in the Middle Ages. But now we might not have the time left to indulge such arrogance.
