"New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

"Backwardly wired retina an optimal structure"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#501  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 06, 2014 6:33 am

Calilasseia wrote:Still waiting to see JayJay either:

[1] Provide something other than yet more unsupported assertions and thinly veiled ad hominems with respect to his "atheist ideology" bullshit he keeps peddling as if it constituted fact, in answer to Thomas Eshuis' repeated questions about this.

I’d hoped that your two short points would help us to get down to brass tacks but now I look at this sentence I honestly don’t know what question by Thomas Eshuis you are talking about. You seem to be just asserting that I use thinly veiled ad hominems and that my claims about atheist ideology are bullshit. Just write down Thomas’s question and I’ll try to answer it. You shouldn’t have trouble finding it, if Thomas has repeated it.
Calilasseia wrote:
[2] Tell us why, despite the vast supporting evidence to the contrary, not treating unsupported assertions as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", despite having been schooled on this so often even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now.

Parrots are known to learn a phrase instantly if it’s spoken during a traumatic incident for the bird (see Konrad Lorenz’s King Solomon’s Ring) So it’s strange you should use parroting as an example of difficult learning. But parrots do parrot things and this supposed question you ask is a parroting: you have asked or claimed it many times often with emphasis as if I’m blind:
Calilasseia wrote:...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS ***NOT*** A FUCKING "IDEOLOGY", IT'S THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF.


I don’t think you are interested in a reply, your point is just to parrot overbearingly but anyway here is another one.

Whom am I to understand is “not treating unsupported evidence as fact”. I suppose you mean “science” with yourself as exemplar. But I’m not claiming that as an ideology. I understand an ideology as a way of looking at the world that helps to support some shared belief; in this case, the belief that there is no god. I understand that atheist ideology to have grown partly because of the sustained opposition to atheism by theists. And that the expression of atheist ideology in the way evolution is understood and presented has arisen from the evo-creo debate. It’s a dialectic.

You might object that there isn’t really an evo-creo “debate”, it’s too one sided; that could be where your “vast supporting evidence” comes in. But I’m proposing that atheism is more reactive than atheists like to believe.

I think that you are implicitly claiming that science builds knowledge by considering evidence and I’d agree except that
the narrative constructed might use evidence but it foregrounds some and backgrounds others as less significant, or it may ignore evidence.

If ideology does play a role in the way evolution is understood and presented the place it can be expected to be seen most clearly is in the human origin narrative because that confronts the Genesis narrative.
Most recently I took as evidence of ideological bias, the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s book chapter on Reconstructing Hominin Interactions with Mammalian Carnivores
http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/p ... t_2007.pdf
I argued
Jayjay4547 wrote: here
that those highly professional authors framed their snapshot of hominin ecology in a very particular way
You replied
Calilasseia wrote:here

That discussion effectively ended with my reply
Jayjay4547 wrote: here
where I pointed out that some of your objections came from quoting bits from later in the article where Treves and Palmqvist, undermined their own introductory paragraph.

We could start up again. The real heart of the issue is in this sentence:

“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.”

The word “canines” appears only once again in that article, where the authors repeat how implausible it is to suppose that the hominins could take prey from the predators that had made a kill. Those authors neglect evidence: the australopith’s lack of fangs; the only primate genus with that characteristic. They had no trouble considering the possession of fangs by predators as significant. Their whole article could have been written without knowledge of the australopiths in the first place, it could have used the same discussion with Piltdown Man as exemplar hominin.

The hominin lack of fangs becomes important if you ask the question: How did those little creatures physically avoid predation? Although Treves and Palmqvist’s whole article is about predation they don’t ask about the mechanics, even implicitly. Their last sentence is “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”. by “material culture” they mean the use of sticks and stones for defence, as an alternative to biting.

Atheist ideology comes into Treves and Palmqvist’s snapshot at a high level. One way of starting is to point out that their narrative doesn’t involve necessity: What the *^%@ did the australopiths actually do when a pack of hyenas appeared? React with a social adaptation? What does that involve, as something more effective than what baboons do, who are highly socially organised, about the same size and who do have fangs?

To factor in necessity is to place the hominins inside a forcing system. Everyone knows in principle that populations evolve as embedded in relationships with other living things as well as the physical environment. But in this actual narrative, the actual text, necessity plays no part. it’s as if humans evolved on an acting stage where thanks to their social organisation they weren’t forced by other creatures to actually get physical. The narrative shows them as non-embedded.

If the hominins were to be pictured as embedded that would draw attention to the biome as a matrix much larger than the population of hominins, or even as the agent squeezing the hominins in the same way as potter squeezes his creation on a wheel. At this point the opposite story to that of Treves and Palmqvist would start to ring ideological alarm bells. The industry informing Treves, Palmqvist and also posters here, can hear those bells from a great distance and that’s why the narrative is directed away from necessity and embeddedness.

I’m aware that this argument is thin and that I don’t understand it deeply myself but there certainly is something that needs explanation in the way the human origin narrative is told by scientists and their camp followers, and that explanation is likely to be interesting and important.

Edited out an irrelevant note about narratives.
Last edited by Jayjay4547 on Aug 06, 2014 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

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

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#502  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 06, 2014 6:47 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Still waiting to see JayJay either:

[1] Provide something other than yet more unsupported assertions and thinly veiled ad hominems with respect to his "atheist ideology" bullshit he keeps peddling as if it constituted fact, in answer to Thomas Eshuis' repeated questions about this.

I’d hoped that your two short points would help us to get down to brass tacks but now I look at this sentence I honestly don’t know what question by Thomas Eshuis you are talking about.

Exactly what he says in the bit you just quoted.
You have yet to define what this supposed atheist ideology is and have not provided any evidence for it's existence either.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You seem to be just asserting that I use thinly veiled ad hominems and that my claims about atheist ideology are bullshit.

Nope, he's restating the fact that your accusations of atheist ideology themselves consitute thinly veiled ad-hominems.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Just write down Thomas’s question and I’ll try to answer it. You shouldn’t have trouble finding it, if Thomas has repeated it.

Or, you know, you could've found and answered it by now, seeing as how I've asked it multiple times now in direct replies to your posts.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#503  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 06, 2014 6:51 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I understand an ideology as a way of looking at the world that helps to support some shared belief; in this case, the belief that there is no god.


Atheism is litterally what is says:
a = without
theism = belief (in the existence of) god(s).
It is the absence of a belief, not the presence of one.
It makes no belief or truth claims other than that the person professing the be an atheist does not have theistic beliefs.
If anything get this elementary fact and that due to this fact, atheist ideology is a contradiction in terms.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#504  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 06, 2014 6:55 am

Jayjay4547 wrote: But parrots do parrot things and this supposed question you ask is a parroting: you have asked or claimed it many times often with emphasis as if I’m blind:

Because you refuse to adress it with the slightest shred of intellectual honesty.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#505  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 07, 2014 1:20 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Still waiting to see JayJay either:

[1] Provide something other than yet more unsupported assertions and thinly veiled ad hominems with respect to his "atheist ideology" bullshit he keeps peddling as if it constituted fact, in answer to Thomas Eshuis' repeated questions about this.


I’d hoped that your two short points would help us to get down to brass tacks but now I look at this sentence I honestly don’t know what question by Thomas Eshuis you are talking about.


Quite simply, Thomas Eshuis is asking you to tell us, what are the purported foundational axioms of the "atheist ideology" you keep asserting exists. Now if I can work out what he's asking simply by reading his posts, why can't you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:You seem to be just asserting that I use thinly veiled ad hominems and that my claims about atheist ideology are bullshit.


Oh, so you never bothered reading the REASONS I've provided, at length, why I regard your "atheist ideology" fabrication AS a fabrication? Reasons I've presented repeatedly to you?

Reasons such as:

[1] All genuine ideologies are based upon one or more unsupported assertions, treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world;

[2] Since atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions, thus in short, consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions", and presents no assertions of its own, it constitutes the antithesis of an ideology.

I've presented this to you repeatedly, JayJay, along with the fact that scientists testing hypotheses let the data determine the outcome. This latter fact flatly refutes your duplicitous assertion that those scientists are purportedly allowing an "ideological bias" to affect the results, and renders your assertion to this effect an ad hominem attack upon their integrity. Which means that I'm not merely "asserting" that your're engaging in ad hominems and fabrication, but I'm providing substantive reasons supporting that charge. Which not only renders your above assertion about my discoursive conduct utterly false, but points to YOU being the one peddling an ideology here, and engaging in duplicitous apologetics whenever the data happens not to conform thereto.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Just write down Thomas’s question and I’ll try to answer it. You shouldn’t have trouble finding it, if Thomas has repeated it.


See above.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:[2] Tell us why, despite the vast supporting evidence to the contrary, not treating unsupported assertions as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", despite having been schooled on this so often even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now.


Parrots are known to learn a phrase instantly if it’s spoken during a traumatic incident for the bird (see Konrad Lorenz’s King Solomon’s Ring)


Irrelevant. Plus, having had experience teaching various members of the Psittacidae to talk, I'm aware that providing the bird in question with social interactions concordant with its evolutionary history is far more likely to yield results than abuse.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So it’s strange you should use parroting as an example of difficult learning.


Oh, the fun part is, JayJay, parrots are frequently more intelligent than people think, along with numerous other bird species. This paper is usefully informative in this respect, along with this paper. But then, those of us who paid attention in science classes abandoned the scala natura fallacy some time ago.

Plus, since I've repeatedly stated that what I'm presenting here are elementary concepts, JayJay, that you think these constitute "difficult" learning, speaks volumes about the effects of creationist indoctrination on the brain.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But parrots do parrot things


They also exhibit the ability to engage in more sophisticated learning. As anyone who has actually studied these organisms will tell you.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and this supposed question you ask is a parroting: you have asked or claimed it many times often with emphasis as if I’m blind:

Calilasseia wrote:...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS ***NOT*** A FUCKING "IDEOLOGY", IT'S THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF.


I don’t think you are interested in a reply


Bollocks. Quite simply, JayJay, I want to know where you developed the strange idea that not treating the assertions of your favourite mythology as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", when all the evidence says otherwise. I want to know the details of the conceptual framework leading to this bizarre conclusion, precisely because it's so bizarre and counter to the real world data. Consequently, I want to know, as Thomas Eshuis does, what "assertions" you think are foundational to atheism, despite having been repeatedly educated with respect to the fact that there are none. Indeed, it's precisely because we're so used to duplicitous apologetics by supernaturalists, involving the erection of fabrications about atheism and the presentation thereof as purportedly constituting fact, that those of us interested in honest discourse have spent time analysing the questions, and producing evidentially supported answers thereto. It's precisely because we're used to supernaturalists posturing as knowing more about what we think, than we do ourselves, that we've spent time countering this rampant discoursive mendacity. You might want to factor this into your deliberations here, and avoid resurrecting the same mendacity in your answers.

Of course, I and others here already have an answer to the reason why supernaturalists repeatedly erect this tiresome trope you're peddling here, but unlike supernaturalists, we're not arrogant enough to simply presume that said answer applies, without bothering to ask if there exists evidence to this effect. As a corollary, this is why we want YOU to start providing some answers here, JayJay. We want YOU to tell us, in your own words, what assertions you think are foundational to atheism, and why. Note the emphasis on your own words, JayJay, because we want to see evidence that you've actually applied some genuine thought to the matter, instead of simply absorbing the doctrinal assertions of others in this regard, and treaing said doctrinal assertions uncritically as fact. This has much to do with the evidence provided by numerous other supernaturalists, that uncritical acceptance of doctrinal assertions forms the foundation of their approach to this matter. If you've actually thought about this, you'll be able to present those thoughts in your own words, as the rest of us do here. Let's see if you're up to the task, shall we?

Jayjay4547 wrote:your point is just to parrot overbearingly


Oh, talk about pot, kettle, black here. Your assertions about "atheist ideology" were immediately countered with the explanation I have given, when you first erected that assertion, yet, despite this, you've continued to parrot your own assertions on this subject, and present them as pruportedly constituting fact, despite that systematic countering. So don't try and pull this fast one, JayJay, because the repeated presentation of that systematic countering was in response to YOUR repeated parroting of your assertions. But I'm familiar with the manner in which supernaturalists routinely project their own discoursive malfeasance onto others.

Jayjay4547 wrote:but anyway here is another one.

Whom am I to understand is “not treating unsupported evidence assertions as fact”.


Please, do exert some effort in quoting me correctly here, JayJay. I've fixed if for you above. There's no such thing as "unsupported evidence", this is an oxymoron. There is simply evidence. It is assertions that are unsupported, or otherwise. That I have to school you on this elementary concept also speaks volumes here.

As for the question of who is engaging in the above process, namely not treating unsupported assertions as fact, the simple answer, is anyone who asks questions about those assertions, and devises possible tests for those assertions. Once again, the mere fact that you have to ask this, is itself wonderfully informative.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I suppose you mean “science” with yourself as exemplar.


I don't possess the arrogance required for such posturing, JayJay, I leave that to supernaturalists. Instead, what I exhort people to do, is examine the evidence in support of the requisite postulates.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But I’m not claiming that as an ideology. I understand an ideology as a way of looking at the world that helps to support some shared belief;


And that's precisely the point[, JayJay, namely, it's all about belief. Which consists of treating unsupported assertions as fact. We dispense with this process altogether. Quite simply, we ask ourselves, "what evidence exists to support this assertion?", and if there is none, we treat the assertion as discardable. On the other hand, if there does exist evidence to support the assertion in question, that assertion ceases to be a mere assertion, and instead becomes an evidentially supported postulate. As a direct corollary, JayJay, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant as far as we are concerned, and as a further corollary, the very word "ideology" does not apply.

Jayjay4547 wrote:in this case, the belief that there is no god.


And this is where you, like every other supernaturalist peddling this trope, gets it all woefully and horribly wrong, JayJay. Because, wait for it, not treating the existence assertion peddled by supernaturalists as fact, does NOT mean automatically treating the converse assertion as fact. That you fail to recognise this elementary concept, again speak volumes. Because the actual position that I and others applying rigour to the matter here adopt, JayJay, is NOT that unsupported assertions are false, but that they possess the status "truth value unknown". And THIS, JayJay, is the REAL reason we ask for evidence for assertions, because ALL assertions, when first presented, possess that status, namely, truth value unknown. That is the whole purpose of asking for evidence, JayJay, to remedy that deficit, and establish a known truth value to the assertion. And this is, of course, the reason that supernaturalists hate this process, because this process opens up the possibility of alighting upon evidence rendering their assertions false, a possibility that is anathema to them.

On the other hand, JayJay, the moment evidence materialises pointing to the existence of a god type entity, I and many others here will, in accordance with good discoursive and scientific practice, accept that evidence. All too often, we see evidence that supernaturalists are wholly unwilling to reciprocate in the reverse situation. That's another of the reasons we regard your "atheist ideology" fabrication AS a fabrication, because we are willing to let evidence change our views, something that never happens in the world of genuine ideologies.

In short, JayJay, our view is this. There is no evidence to support supernaturalist assertions about magic entities, therefore we may safely operate as if said entities do not exist, pending the arrival of evidence to the contrary.

Another way of viewing this, JayJay, is as follows. Since a mere assertion has the status "truth value unknown", it follows as a corollary, that in the absence of evidence pointing one way or the other, since it does not matter what truth value is assigned thereto in the absence of said evidence, the assertion may simply be discarded for the duration. Only once we are in a position to test that assertion, and arrive at a known and evidentially established answer for the truth value of that assertion, does the situation change.

This, JayJay, is possibly the most elementary exposition of the foundations of discourse one can present to you. That you need this to be done, again is woefully informative.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I understand that atheist ideology to have grown partly because of the sustained opposition to atheism by theists.


And once again, you fall into the entirely predictable category error trap, the same trap I've just covered in detail above. When questioning the assertions underpinning an actual, existing ideology, JayJay, one does not need to adopt another ideology to do so. Indeed, it follows as a corollary of doing so, that first, one opens up the possibility of all ideologies being wrong, and as another corollary, that consistency demands one abandon the very concept of ideology itself in order to maintain rigour. Indeed, the elementary principles of proper discourse I have just presented above, force anyone adopting them to take this position, if they do so properly and consistently.

That you manifestly don't understand this, JayJay, namely that our remit isn't just your favourite set of unsupported assertions, but all unsupported assertions that are presented to us, regardless of source, and the consistent application of proper rules of discourse thereto, is wonderfully informative with respect to your persistent insistence upon treating our discoursive methods as an "ideology".

Jayjay4547 wrote:And that the expression of atheist ideology in the way evolution is understood and presented has arisen from the evo-creo debate.


Once again, fatal error.

Because, JayJay, there's something to be factored into the equation here, that allows us to determine the truth-value of the requisite assertions. It's called real world data. For example, if a creationist asserts (as some I've seen have done) that speciation is impossible, but scientists not only demonstrate that a real world instance of speciation took place, but replicate that instance in the laboratory, then it's game over for that creationist's assertion. What part of the words "real world data" do you not understand, JayJay?

Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s a dialectic.


No it isn't. It's a matter of what the data says is happening. Learn this elementary concept once and for all, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You might object that there isn’t really an evo-creo “debate”, it’s too one sided; that could be where your “vast supporting evidence” comes in.


Oh wait, what have I just said about real world data, JayJay?

It doesn't matter how exquisite your assertions are, JayJay, or how much you love them, if the real world data says that your assertions are false, it's game over.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But I’m proposing that atheism is more reactive than atheists like to believe.


Bullshit. Pointing out fallacies and deliberate misrepresentations is entirely proper. Stop misrepresenting this as "ideology", JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I think that you are implicitly claiming that science builds knowledge by considering evidence and I’d agree except that
the narrative constructed might use evidence but it foregrounds some and backgrounds others as less significant, or it may ignore evidence.


Wibble.

Did you take yourself seriously when you typed the above drivel?

One word, JayJay. Relevance. I know some astrologers think otherwise, but the motion of a star 1,000 light years away isn't going to have any effect on Earth based biochemistry. The incoming radiation from a supernova explosion may have some input here, but that's a separate question.

Oh wait, that's why we have separate scientific disciplines encompassing different classes of phenomena. It's called organising our thoughts, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:If ideology does play a role in the way evolution is understood


Which it doesn't, except in the world of creationism.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and presented the place it can be expected to be seen most clearly is in the human origin narrative because that confronts the Genesis narrative.


Oh but wait, the Genesis narrative is itself A COLLECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL ASSERTIONS!!!.

Oh but wait again, if the REAL WORLD DATA says that those assertions are WRONG, then it's fucking tough for anyone who happens to have an emotional attachment to those assertions. Those assertions are wrong, and go in the bin. Game. Fucking. Over.

And that is the REAL reason, JayJay, why you're peddling this "atheist ideology" trope - because you can't stand the thought that the REAL WORLD DATA renders YOUR favourite ideological assertions null and void, and to protect YOUR precious ideology from crumbling under the assault of the data, you misrepresent the proper analysis of that data as an "ideology". It's duplicitous bullshit and lies from start to finish.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Most recently I took as evidence of ideological bias apologetic source material for the fabrication of an accusation of bias


Fixed it for you.

Jayjay4547 wrote:the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s book chapter on Reconstructing Hominin Interactions with Mammalian Carnivores
http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/p ... t_2007.pdf


And your assertions on this matter have been fucking carpet bombed, Jayjay. Once again, THE DATA SAYS YOU ARE WRONG. Suck on it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I argued
Jayjay4547 wrote: here
that those highly professional authors framed their snapshot of hominin ecology in a very particular way


No, you blindly assered this, JayJay, and your blind assertions were destroyed by examining the REAL WORLD DATA.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You replied
Calilasseia wrote:here


Oh wait, what did I refer to in that post? Oh that's right, THE REAL WORLD DATA, including rather a lot of it presented by the authors you traduced with your mendacious accusation of "ideological bias".

Jayjay4547 wrote:That discussion effectively ended with my reply
Jayjay4547 wrote: here


No it didn't, JayJay, this is another of your fantasy fabrications. The REAL WORLD DATA said you were wrong, and no amount of apologetic fabrication on your part alters this.

Jayjay4547 wrote:where I pointed out that some of your objections came from quoting bits from later in the article where Treves and Palmqvist, undermined their own introductory paragraph.


They didn't. This is another fabrication of yours. I dismantled your farcical failure to understand what those authors were telling you step by step.

Jayjay4547 wrote:We could start up again. The real heart of the issue is in this sentence:

“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.”


Oh wait, JayJay, we have evidence that this is the case. Fucking supertanker loads of evidence. The natural history television documentaries produced by humans over the past 60 years are littered with this evidence. Ever watched any of them?

Jayjay4547 wrote:The word “canines” appears only once again in that article, where the authors repeat how implausible it is to suppose that the hominins could take prey from the predators that had made a kill.


Oh wait, JayJay, what do those other predators have? Canines. And much bigger ones.

:picard:

Jayjay4547 wrote:Those authors neglect evidence:


Bollocks.

Jayjay4547 wrote: the australopith’s lack of fangs;


They still have canines, JayJay. You know, those pointy teeth between the incisors and premolars?

But, oh wait, the predators they were likely to encounter had MUCH BIGGER CANINES.

Jayjay4547 wrote:the only primate genus with that characteristic.


Wrong. From the Boneroom website, we have:

Douc Langur - small canines

Aye-Aye - NO CANINES AT ALL

Jayjay4547 wrote:They had no trouble considering the possession of fangs by predators as significant.


Oh wait, that's because we have LARGE AMOUNTS OF REAL WORLD DATA TO THIS EFFECT, JayJay. Go and watch some of those television documentaries featuring big cats at work.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Their whole article could have been written without knowledge of the australopiths in the first place


Bollocks. What part of "big cats have large canines because said large canines equip them well for the task of killing other animals" do you not understand, JayJay?

Jayjay4547 wrote:it could have used the same discussion with Piltdown Man as exemplar hominin.


Bollocks. Go and watch some television documentaries, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The hominin lack of fangs becomes important if you ask the question: How did those little creatures physically avoid predation?


Try "the same way other similarly equipped creatures avoid predation". Go and look at some in action, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Although Treves and Palmqvist’s whole article is about predation they don’t ask about the mechanics, even implicitly.


This is a flat out lie, JayJay. Even from the introduction of the paper, the authors write the following:

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.


Those sections the authors refer to bear the following titles:

Habitat Selection
Hunting Tactics
Prey Selection
Fossil Anatomy, Isotope Frequencies, and Composition of Bone Assemblages
Competition Between Carnivores and Hominins
Anti-Predator Behavior and Hominin Reconstruction
In the Absence of Predators
After Predator Encounter
Trade-Offs Between Anti-Predator Aggregation and Vigilance
Social Organization Reconstructed for Hominins

Did you even read the fucking paper, JayJay?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Their last sentence is “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”. by “material culture” they mean the use of sticks and stones for defence, as an alternative to biting.


Oh wait, what was that piece of evidence leading to this conclusion? Oh. that's right, the absence of any evidence that these organisms fashioned weapons. Which contrasts with evidence that later Hominins did indeed construct weapons, courtesy of the requisite materials being found alongside their remains.

Once again, JayJay, what part of the words "REAL WORLD DATA" do you not understand?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology


Is manifestly a fiction on your part, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:comes into Treves and Palmqvist’s snapshot at a high level.


Bollocks. What part of the words "REAL WORLD DATA" do you not understand?

Jayjay4547 wrote:One way of starting is to point out that their narrative doesn’t involve necessity: What the *^%@ did the australopiths actually do when a pack of hyenas appeared?


Did you actually read the fucking paper, JayJay? You know, as in all twenty seven pages of it, as opposed to cherry picking odd sentences to suit your apologetics?

Jayjay4547 wrote:React with a social adaptation? What does that involve, as something more effective than what baboons do, who are highly socially organised, about the same size and who do have fangs?


Yawn. Go and pick up some basic textbooks on primate ecology, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:To factor in necessity is to place the hominins inside a forcing system. Everyone knows in principle that populations evolve as embedded in relationships with other living things as well as the physical environment.


Which, if you bothered to read all twenty seven pages of that paper, the authors discuss in minute detail.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But in this actual narrative, the actual text, necessity plays no part.


Bollocks. Go and read the whole fucking paper, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:it’s as if humans evolved on an acting stage where thanks to their social organisation they weren’t forced by other creatures to actually get physical.


I worked out that this assertion of yours was hooey just from the introduction, let alone the rest of the paper.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The narrative shows them as non-embedded.


Bollocks.

Just the titles of the sections of the paper tell us that your assertion is bollocks, JayJay, let alone the actual contents thereof.

Jayjay4547 wrote:If the hominins were to be pictured as embedded that would draw attention to the biome as a matrix much larger than the population of hominins, or even as the agent squeezing the hominins in the same way as potter squeezes his creation on a wheel.


Heard of the word "ecology", have you JayJay?

This paragraph is instructive here:

Treves & Palmqvist, 2007 wrote:In the next section of this chapter we review African large carnivore ecology and hunting behavior in extant taxa and that reconstructed for Plio-Pleistocene forms (“paleopredators” hereafter). Following this, we review the anti-predator behavior of hominins by analogy with monkeys and apes; this analogy is parsimonious because of the observed cross-taxonomic consistency of their behavioral responses to predators. Vigilance behavior in relation to social organization is particularly informative. Finally, we integrate the two reviews to reconstruct the range of antipredator behaviors open to hominins.


Looks like you've been caught out peddling porkies again, JayJay. Because, oh wait, the authors explicitly state that they take into account interactions between the requisite species.

Which renders your above assertions about them not doing so a manifest lie, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:At this point the opposite story to that of Treves and Palmqvist would start to ring ideological alarm bells.


Bullshit.

Since it's already been established that you've posted manifest lies about their work, JayJay, we need no longer take your assertions about this seriously.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The industry informing Treves, Palmqvist and also posters here, can hear those bells from a great distance and that’s why the narrative is directed away from necessity and embeddedness.


Bollocks. Another fantasy fabrication on your part. Oh wait, we were learning about ecology when you were still in your fucking nappies. You do know what the word "ecology" means, don't you? Oh wait, that's right, the study of the relationships between multiple species in a given environmental setting.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m aware that this argument is thin


It's worse than thin, JayJay, it's transparent lies from start to finish.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and that I don’t understand it deeply myself but there certainly is something that needs explanation in the way the human origin narrative is told by scientists and their camp followers


We HAVE an explanation, JayJay, it's called REAL WORLD DATA. Fucking learn this.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and that explanation is likely to be interesting and important.


The REAL WORLD DATA ic certainly far more interesting than your fabrications, JayJay.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22570
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#506  Postby patient zero » Aug 07, 2014 3:30 am

Calilasseia wrote:And that is the REAL reason, JayJay, why you're peddling this "atheist ideology" trope - because you can't stand the thought that the REAL WORLD DATA renders YOUR favourite ideological assertions null and void, and to protect YOUR precious ideology from crumbling under the assault of the data, you misrepresent the proper analysis of that data as an "ideology". It's duplicitous bullshit and lies from start to finish.

Whenever jayjay sputters on about "atheist ideology" I'm going to take that phrase as a synonym for "Real World Data".
Calilasseia wrote:...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
patient zero
 
Posts: 493
Age: 52
Male

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#507  Postby josephchoi » Aug 07, 2014 5:02 am

Since when is "no, i'm not gonna buy your bullshit without some hard evidence" equal to being ideological? lol
Donuts don't wear alligator shoes!
User avatar
josephchoi
 
Posts: 1094
Age: 32
Male

Country: Ca...na... d- Canada.
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#508  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Aug 07, 2014 5:46 am

josephchoi wrote:Since when is "no, i'm not gonna buy your bullshit without some hard evidence" equal to being ideological? lol

It is all a conspiracy by nasty atheists who dare question the divine right of bunnies with pancakes on their heads to create a theocracy where science and reason are crushed underfoot and we all end up in dark caves baying at the moon until hell freezes over. :dopey:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 69

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#509  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 08, 2014 7:47 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Still waiting to see JayJay either:

[1] Provide something other than yet more unsupported assertions and thinly veiled ad hominems with respect to his "atheist ideology" bullshit he keeps peddling as if it constituted fact, in answer to Thomas Eshuis' repeated questions about this.


I’d hoped that your two short points would help us to get down to brass tacks but now I look at this sentence I honestly don’t know what question by Thomas Eshuis you are talking about.


Quite simply, Thomas Eshuis is asking you to tell us, what are the purported foundational axioms of the "atheist ideology" you keep asserting exists. Now if I can work out what he's asking simply by reading his posts, why can't you?

Thomas’s recent posts have been about trying to prove that Hitler was a Christian.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:You seem to be just asserting that I use thinly veiled ad hominems and that my claims about atheist ideology are bullshit.


Oh, so you never bothered reading the REASONS I've provided, at length, why I regard your "atheist ideology" fabrication AS a fabrication? Reasons I've presented repeatedly to you?

Which point are you on about now? It should still be your first point where as I said you weren’t actually posing a question.
Calilasseia wrote: Reasons such as:

[1] All genuine ideologies are based upon one or more unsupported assertions, treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world;

Well then notion that there is no god is an unsupported assertion, especially considering that there can be a wide range of interpretations of what the word “god”means. For example, I like John Macmurray’s view of God asthe generalisation of the Other. I also like :the pole of that part of the world that we can’t experiment with”.
Calilasseia wrote: [2] Since atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions, thus in short, consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions", and presents no assertions of its own, it constitutes the antithesis of an ideology.


You like that phrase “rigorous formulation” but I find it unhelpful. I see atheists as a cultural stream, with a history. So I think of you and a lot of other posters here as “ex-Christian” atheists – quite different from say the Jains who are sometimes considered atheists but come from a different cultural stream.
Calilasseia wrote: I've presented this to you repeatedly, JayJay, along with the fact that scientists testing hypotheses let the data determine the outcome. This latter fact flatly refutes your duplicitous assertion that those scientists are purportedly allowing an "ideological bias" to affect the results, and renders your assertion to this effect an ad hominem attack upon their integrity. Which means that I'm not merely "asserting" that your're engaging in ad hominems and fabrication, but I'm providing substantive reasons supporting that charge. Which not only renders your above assertion about my discoursive conduct utterly false, but points to YOU being the one peddling an ideology here, and engaging in duplicitous apologetics whenever the data happens not to conform thereto.

You are banging on there a bit Cali. I’m merely claiming that when they create an origin narrative for humankind, scientists are just as prone to being influenced by ideology as historians are.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:[2] Tell us why, despite the vast supporting evidence to the contrary, not treating unsupported assertions as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", despite having been schooled on this so often even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now.


Parrots are known to learn a phrase instantly if it’s spoken during a traumatic incident for the bird (see Konrad Lorenz’s King Solomon’s Ring)


Irrelevant. Plus, having had experience teaching various members of the Psittacidae to talk, I'm aware that providing the bird in question with social interactions concordant with its evolutionary history is far more likely to yield results than abuse.

I suppose that means you agree parrots are actually quick to learn..
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:So it’s strange you should use parroting as an example of difficult learning.


Oh, the fun part is, JayJay, parrots are frequently more intelligent than people think, along with numerous other bird species. This paper is usefully informative in this respect, along with this paper. But then, those of us who paid attention in science classes abandoned the scala natura fallacy some time ago.

Plus, since I've repeatedly stated that what I'm presenting here are elementary concepts, JayJay, that you think these constitute "difficult" learning, speaks volumes about the effects of creationist indoctrination on the brain.


Well you said “even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now” which only makes sense if you claimed parrots are difficult to teach. You have lost sight of your point.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But parrots do parrot things


They also exhibit the ability to engage in more sophisticated learning. As anyone who has actually studied these organisms will tell you.

I wasn’t the one who said “even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now”. Parrots do repeat phrases, like you have been doing.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:and this supposed question you ask is a parroting: you have asked or claimed it many times often with emphasis as if I’m blind:

Calilasseia wrote:...

NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT IS ***NOT*** A FUCKING "IDEOLOGY", IT'S THE VERY ANTITHESIS THEREOF.


I don’t think you are interested in a reply


Bollocks. Quite simply, JayJay, I want to know where you developed the strange idea that not treating the assertions of your favourite mythology as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", when all the evidence says otherwise. I want to know the details of the conceptual framework leading to this bizarre conclusion, precisely because it's so bizarre and counter to the real world data. Consequently, I want to know, as Thomas Eshuis does, what "assertions" you think are foundational to atheism, despite having been repeatedly educated with respect to the fact that there are none. Indeed, it's precisely because we're so used to duplicitous apologetics by supernaturalists, involving the erection of fabrications about atheism and the presentation thereof as purportedly constituting fact, that those of us interested in honest discourse have spent time analysing the questions, and producing evidentially supported answers thereto. It's precisely because we're used to supernaturalists posturing as knowing more about what we think, than we do ourselves, that we've spent time countering this rampant discoursive mendacity. You might want to factor this into your deliberations here, and avoid resurrecting the same mendacity in your answers.

Of course, I and others here already have an answer to the reason why supernaturalists repeatedly erect this tiresome trope you're peddling here, but unlike supernaturalists, we're not arrogant enough to simply presume that said answer applies, without bothering to ask if there exists evidence to this effect. As a corollary, this is why we want YOU to start providing some answers here, JayJay. We want YOU to tell us, in your own words, what assertions you think are foundational to atheism, and why. Note the emphasis on your own words, JayJay, because we want to see evidence that you've actually applied some genuine thought to the matter, instead of simply absorbing the doctrinal assertions of others in this regard, and treaing said doctrinal assertions uncritically as fact. This has much to do with the evidence provided by numerous other supernaturalists, that uncritical acceptance of doctrinal assertions forms the foundation of their approach to this matter. If you've actually thought about this, you'll be able to present those thoughts in your own words, as the rest of us do here. Let's see if you're up to the task, shall we?


After not getting anywhere with a particular phrase, the rational approach would be to see if there is anything wrong with its form. And there is, your parroted phrase begs the question whether scientists, in creating origin narratives, do actually proceed by “NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT”

Calilasseia wrote:...
Jayjay4547 wrote:your point is just to parrot overbearingly


Oh, talk about pot, kettle, black here. Your assertions about "atheist ideology" were immediately countered with the explanation I have given, when you first erected that assertion, yet, despite this, you've continued to parrot your own assertions on this subject, and present them as pruportedly constituting fact, despite that systematic countering. So don't try and pull this fast one, JayJay, because the repeated presentation of that systematic countering was in response to YOUR repeated parroting of your assertions. But I'm familiar with the manner in which supernaturalists routinely project their own discoursive malfeasance onto others.


I don’t think I’ve ever put my suggestion that the presentation of human evolution has been influenced by atheist ideology, in caps, or large size print, or red colour. I don’t demand its acceptance, but I’m prepared to try to explain and defend it. On the other hand your big red sentence is phrased as a demand, and an overbearing one.

Calilasseia wrote:...
Jayjay4547 wrote:but anyway here is another one.

Whom am I to understand is “not treating unsupported evidence assertions as fact”.


Please, do exert some effort in quoting me correctly here, JayJay. I've fixed if for you above. There's no such thing as "unsupported evidence", this is an oxymoron. There is simply evidence. It is assertions that are unsupported, or otherwise. That I have to school you on this elementary concept also speaks volumes here.

Just a slip, sure, it should be “unsupported assertions”

Calilasseia wrote:
As for the question of who is engaging in the above process, namely not treating unsupported assertions as fact, the simple answer, is anyone who asks questions about those assertions, and devises possible tests for those assertions. Once again, the mere fact that you have to ask this, is itself wonderfully informative.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I suppose you mean “science” with yourself as exemplar.


I don't possess the arrogance required for such posturing, JayJay, I leave that to supernaturalists. Instead, what I exhort people to do, is examine the evidence in support of the requisite postulates.


Seeing that you are defending the notion that it’s hopeless to look for “atheist ideology” influencing origin narratives made by scientists, you are indeed making out that scientists proceed by “not treating unsupported evidence assertions as fact”

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But I’m not claiming that as an ideology. I understand an ideology as a way of looking at the world that helps to support some shared belief;


And that's precisely the point[, JayJay, namely, it's all about belief. Which consists of treating unsupported assertions as fact. We dispense with this process altogether. Quite simply, we ask ourselves, "what evidence exists to support this assertion?", and if there is none, we treat the assertion as discardable. On the other hand, if there does exist evidence to support the assertion in question, that assertion ceases to be a mere assertion, and instead becomes an evidentially supported postulate. As a direct corollary, JayJay, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant as far as we are concerned, and as a further corollary, the very word "ideology" does not apply.

I was trying to say, science isn’t an ideology, atheism is an ideology. An ideology is a way of looking at the world that helps to support some shared belief.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:in this case, the belief that there is no god.


And this is where you, like every other supernaturalist peddling this trope, gets it all woefully and horribly wrong, JayJay. Because, wait for it, not treating the existence assertion peddled by supernaturalists as fact, does NOT mean automatically treating the converse assertion as fact. That you fail to recognise this elementary concept, again speak volumes. Because the actual position that I and others applying rigour to the matter here adopt, JayJay, is NOT that unsupported assertions are false, but that they possess the status "truth value unknown". And THIS, JayJay, is the REAL reason we ask for evidence for assertions, because ALL assertions, when first presented, possess that status, namely, truth value unknown. That is the whole purpose of asking for evidence, JayJay, to remedy that deficit, and establish a known truth value to the assertion. And this is, of course, the reason that supernaturalists hate this process, because this process opens up the possibility of alighting upon evidence rendering their assertions false, a possibility that is anathema to them.

On the other hand, JayJay, the moment evidence materialises pointing to the existence of a god type entity, I and many others here will, in accordance with good discoursive and scientific practice, accept that evidence. All too often, we see evidence that supernaturalists are wholly unwilling to reciprocate in the reverse situation. That's another of the reasons we regard your "atheist ideology" fabrication AS a fabrication, because we are willing to let evidence change our views, something that never happens in the world of genuine ideologies.

In short, JayJay, our view is this. There is no evidence to support supernaturalist assertions about magic entities, therefore we may safely operate as if said entities do not exist, pending the arrival of evidence to the contrary.

Another way of viewing this, JayJay, is as follows. Since a mere assertion has the status "truth value unknown", it follows as a corollary, that in the absence of evidence pointing one way or the other, since it does not matter what truth value is assigned thereto in the absence of said evidence, the assertion may simply be discarded for the duration. Only once we are in a position to test that assertion, and arrive at a known and evidentially established answer for the truth value of that assertion, does the situation change.

This, JayJay, is possibly the most elementary exposition of the foundations of discourse one can present to you. That you need this to be done, again is woefully informative.


I’m not really interesting here in on what grounds you take it as a working assumption, that there is no god. I’m interested in the influence that has on the human origin narrative. The influence is to make it seem that nothing bigger than our ancestors acted as forcing agent. To make it seem as much as possible, that they created themselves.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I understand that atheist ideology to have grown partly because of the sustained opposition to atheism by theists.


And once again, you fall into the entirely predictable category error trap, the same trap I've just covered in detail above. When questioning the assertions underpinning an actual, existing ideology, JayJay, one does not need to adopt another ideology to do so. Indeed, it follows as a corollary of doing so, that first, one opens up the possibility of all ideologies being wrong, and as another corollary, that consistency demands one abandon the very concept of ideology itself in order to maintain rigour. Indeed, the elementary principles of proper discourse I have just presented above, force anyone adopting them to take this position, if they do so properly and consistently.

That you manifestly don't understand this, JayJay, namely that our remit isn't just your favourite set of unsupported assertions, but all unsupported assertions that are presented to us, regardless of source, and the consistent application of proper rules of discourse thereto, is wonderfully informative with respect to your persistent insistence upon treating our discoursive methods as an "ideology"

ideologies parasitize the mind, you don’t know they are doing it.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:And that the expression of atheist ideology in the way evolution is understood and presented has arisen from the evo-creo debate.


Once again, fatal error.

Because, JayJay, there's something to be factored into the equation here, that allows us to determine the truth-value of the requisite assertions. It's called real world data. For example, if a creationist asserts (as some I've seen have done) that speciation is impossible, but scientists not only demonstrate that a real world instance of speciation took place, but replicate that instance in the laboratory, then it's game over for that creationist's assertion. What part of the words "real world data" do you not understand, JayJay?


I’m all for “real world data” – for example, that the australopiths, uniquely amongst primates, didn’t have fangs. The issue then becomes, how important is that data?

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s a dialectic.


No it isn't. It's a matter of what the data says is happening. Learn this elementary concept once and for all, JayJay.


Well that’s what you say, but I think the evo-creo debate has had major impact on the way the theory is understood and presented.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:You might object that there isn’t really an evo-creo “debate”, it’s too one sided; that could be where your “vast supporting evidence” comes in.


Oh wait, what have I just said about real world data, JayJay?

It doesn't matter how exquisite your assertions are, JayJay, or how much you love them, if the real world data says that your assertions are false, it's game over.

I agree.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But I’m proposing that atheism is more reactive than atheists like to believe.


Bullshit. Pointing out fallacies and deliberate misrepresentations is entirely proper. Stop misrepresenting this as "ideology", JayJay.


You are certainly coming over as reactive. Your whole position could be summed in one word, “NO!”. There’s no exploration in it, just denial.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I think that you are implicitly claiming that science builds knowledge by considering evidence and I’d agree except that
the narrative constructed might use evidence but it foregrounds some and backgrounds others as less significant, or it may ignore evidence.


Wibble.

Did you take yourself seriously when you typed the above drivel?

One word, JayJay. Relevance. I know some astrologers think otherwise, but the motion of a star 1,000 light years away isn't going to have any effect on Earth based biochemistry. The incoming radiation from a supernova explosion may have some input here, but that's a separate question.

Oh wait, that's why we have separate scientific disciplines encompassing different classes of phenomena. It's called organising our thoughts, JayJay.

What I said wasn’t drivel, but I should have clarified that the foregrounding and backgrounding of data is relatively unproblematic in the hard sciences but when it comes to building origin narratives about a creative system such as biological or human history, then it becomes critical.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:If ideology does play a role in the way evolution is understood


Which it doesn't, except in the world of creationism.

let me finish the proposition Cali, you just muddy the discussion by cutting my sentences in half.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:and presented the place it can be expected to be seen most clearly is in the human origin narrative because that confronts the Genesis narrative.


Oh but wait, the Genesis narrative is itself A COLLECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL ASSERTIONS!!!.

Oh but wait again, if the REAL WORLD DATA says that those assertions are WRONG, then it's fucking tough for anyone who happens to have an emotional attachment to those assertions. Those assertions are wrong, and go in the bin. Game. Fucking. Over.

And that is the REAL reason, JayJay, why you're peddling this "atheist ideology" trope - because you can't stand the thought that the REAL WORLD DATA renders YOUR favourite ideological assertions null and void, and to protect YOUR precious ideology from crumbling under the assault of the data, you misrepresent the proper analysis of that data as an "ideology". It's duplicitous bullshit and lies from start to finish.

Part of your reactive position is to endlessly accuse me of lying and bullshit. But I’m actually making the sensible point that if there is any place where ideology might influence the established scientific narrative, it is the human origin narrative. Look at the bright side for your position: if there isn’t any influence on the human origin narrative, then it’s unlikely to be found anywhere else.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Most recently I took as evidence of ideological bias apologetic source material for the fabrication of an accusation of bias


Fixed it for you.

I’ll be obliged if you wouldn’t change my words.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s book chapter on Reconstructing Hominin Interactions with Mammalian Carnivores
http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/p ... t_2007.pdf


And your assertions on this matter have been fucking carpet bombed, Jayjay. Once again, THE DATA SAYS YOU ARE WRONG. Suck on it.


I don’t believe so. You actually withdrew from that discussion to indulge in one of your generalised spluttering rants. I’m snipping here a history of to-and-fro that has become pointless.

Calilasseia wrote:
quote="Jayjay4547";p="2057665"]We could start up again. The real heart of the issue is in this sentence:

“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.”


Oh wait, JayJay, we have evidence that this is the case. Fucking supertanker loads of evidence. The natural history television documentaries produced by humans over the past 60 years are littered with this evidence. Ever watched any of them?][/quote]
For goodness sake, let me make some point then respond to that.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The word “canines” appears only once again in that article, where the authors repeat how implausible it is to suppose that the hominins could take prey from the predators that had made a kill.


Oh wait, JayJay, what do those other predators have? Canines. And much bigger ones.

:picard:

Indeed. Fangy canines are part of the physical interaction between primates and their predators. So when one genus doesn’t have fangs that’s evidence to be considered.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Those authors neglect evidence:


Bollocks.

The authors do neglect the evidence of lack of fangs in the australopiths.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: the australopith’s lack of fangs;


They still have canines, JayJay. You know, those pointy teeth between the incisors and premolars?

We and our ancestors going back to australopiths, didn’t have fangs.
But, oh wait, the predators they were likely to encounter had MUCH BIGGER CANINES.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:the only primate genus with that characteristic.


Wrong. From the Boneroom website, we have:

Douc Langur - small canines

Aye-Aye - NO CANINES AT ALL.


What is your substantive point? With incisors like that, they would perform the functions of canines as well. Ever been bitten by a lab rat? I was as a child, can still see the blood in my mind’s eye.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They had no trouble considering the possession of fangs by predators as significant.


Oh wait, that's because we have LARGE AMOUNTS OF REAL WORLD DATA TO THIS EFFECT, JayJay. Go and watch some of those television documentaries featuring big cats at work.


I didn’t claim that canines are there for decoration, quite the opposite. They are an important part of the interface between the animal and the world.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Their whole article could have been written without knowledge of the australopiths in the first place


Bollocks. What part of "big cats have large canines because said large canines equip them well for the task of killing other animals" do you not understand, JayJay?[/quote]

I understand that very well. And that, to avoid being killed by predators, it’s most relevant for a primate to have fangs of its own, used with the powerful primate hands and arms to hold on to the predator and tear gashes out of it.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:it could have used the same discussion with Piltdown Man as exemplar hominin.


Bollocks. Go and watch some television documentaries, JayJay.


That’s a pointless response. Rather explain what Treves and Palmqvist wrote, that applied only because of the distinctive physiology of the hominins.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The hominin lack of fangs becomes important if you ask the question: How did those little creatures physically avoid predation?


Try "the same way other similarly equipped creatures avoid predation". Go and look at some in action, JayJay.

Who is similarly equipped? Primates bite. Try grabbing a wild monkey.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Although Treves and Palmqvist’s whole article is about predation they don’t ask about the mechanics, even implicitly.


This is a flat out lie, JayJay. Even from the introduction of the paper, the authors write the following:

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.

Again you wrongly accuse me of lying. I’ve pasted in the conclusions reached for each of the headings you brought up:
Calilasseia wrote:
Those sections the authors refer to bear the following titles:
Habitat Selection:

”In sum, hominins could not have escaped predation by using different habitats than large carnivores nor could they have done so by using them at different times of day, although such tactics may well have lessened their exposure to paleopredators. Hunting Tactics\In sum, coursing paleopredators would have placed a premium on refuge use by hominins when in open country, while the more numerous opportunistic and stalking predator genera (Figure 17.1, Table 17.1) using more forested or bush
habitats would demand vigilance by hominins”.

Calilasseia wrote:
Prey Selection

Because adult baboons such as Parapapio jonesi (mass 30–40 kg: Brain, 1981; Delson et al., 2000) fell prey to paleopredators it would not be parsimonious to suggest that adult hominins were immune, resistant, or avoided by large carnivores thanks to their size.


Calilasseia wrote:
Fossil Anatomy, Isotope Frequencies, and Composition of Bone Assemblages

These finds are strong indication that hominins were regularly hunted.
Calilasseia wrote:
Competition Between Carnivores and Hominins

At the moment, confrontational scavenging of the sort envisioned above appears an unlikely route to regular meat acquisition, hence we side more with authors who envision hominins as primary predators or as scavengers of unattended fresh carcasses who fled when challenged, rather than confrontational scavengers (Brantingham, 1998; Dominguez-Rodrigo & Pickering, 2003).

Calilasseia wrote:
Anti-Predator Behavior and Hominin Reconstruction

The primary tactics of stage one are inconspicuousness, avoidance of dangerous locations, and vigilance oriented to early detection of a predator. The second stage begins when predators are encountered. The
366 A. Treves and P. Palmqvist corresponding anti-predator behaviors will reflect the immediacy of the threat, although the exact steps and sequence will vary with the type of predator, type of primate prey, cost-benefit ratio of prey responses, and with the physical context (Ydenberg & Dill, 1986; Lima, 1993; Treves, 2002). The primary tactics in stage two are monitoring of predators, escape, deterrence, and hiding among other targets (selfish herd).

Calilasseia wrote:
In the Absence of Predators

Therefore, hominins using Pliocene African savanna-woodlands might have invested more in visual vigilance than those in closed, forested habitats. We discuss vigilance further below as it is intricately tied to social organization.

Calilasseia wrote:
After Predator Encounter

Therefore, we doubt that hominins counterattacked carnivores in packs or lion-sized carnivores in the Pliocene.

Calilasseia wrote:
Trade-Offs Between Anti-Predator Aggregation and Vigilance

In sum, the net protection afforded by large groups fluctuates in a delicate balance of costs and benefits that are contingent on many local factors. This makes it difficult to conclude that hominins would have formed large groups in response to the putative higher risk of predation in the Pliocene.

Calilasseia wrote:
Social Organization Reconstructed for Hominins

Given the larger body mass of hominins (see above) and this higher-quality diet, which presumably included variable amounts of animal proteins, average foraging group sizes exceeding 20 seem highly unlikely. However, we cannot reject this possibility yet.

Calilasseia wrote:
Did you even read the fucking paper, JayJay?

With attention and interest. There’s nothing I can see in the above that was about physical contact between predator and hominin prey. How did the actual bits of the hominin interact with bits of their predators? Bearing in mind how very different the bits of other primates s were that did come into contact with bits of the predators. They grabbed and bit; the hominins may have grabbed, they were no etter at than other primates, and they could not have bitten the way other primates can.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Their last sentence is “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”. by “material culture” they mean the use of sticks and stones for defence, as an alternative to biting.


Oh wait, what was that piece of evidence leading to this conclusion? Oh. that's right, the absence of any evidence that these organisms fashioned weapons. Which contrasts with evidence that later Hominins did indeed construct weapons, courtesy of the requisite materials being found alongside their remains.

We agree then at least, on what they meant by “material culture”. Stone tools are found in many places not accompanied by hominin fossils. it’s not always clear what species was responsible for what tools. You can ignore the evidence of the lack of hominin fangs if you like, that’s exactly what Treves and Palmqvist do, but that’s an interestingly strange thing to do. When evidence is obviously ignored, then we should ask Why.
Calilasseia wrote:
Once again, JayJay, what part of the words "REAL WORLD DATA" do you not understand?


I love real worlds data, like data that the hominins didn’t have fangs.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology


Is manifestly a fiction on your part, JayJay.

I don’t think so.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:comes into Treves and Palmqvist’s snapshot at a high level.


Bollocks. What part of the words "REAL WORLD DATA" do you not understand?

I love real worlds data, like data that the hominins didn’t have fangs.

I love real worlds data, like data that the hominins didn’t have fangs.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:One way of starting is to point out that their narrative doesn’t involve necessity: What the *^%@ did the australopiths actually do when a pack of hyenas appeared?


Did you actually read the fucking paper, JayJay? You know, as in all twenty seven pages of it, as opposed to cherry picking odd sentences to suit your apologetics?

Stop asking me that. You don’t own the paper, other people can read it and draw their own conclusions from it. As to “cherry picking”, the last sentence of a well constructed article is very often significant, as this one was.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:To factor in necessity is to place the hominins inside a forcing system. Everyone knows in principle that populations evolve as embedded in relationships with other living things as well as the physical environment.


Which, if you bothered to read all twenty seven pages of that paper, the authors discuss in minute detail.

Not the necessity of what the hominins could do, when they encountered a predator under circumstances that would lead other primates to use their fangs, which the hominins didn’t have.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:If the hominins were to be pictured as embedded that would draw attention to the biome as a matrix much larger than the population of hominins, or even as the agent squeezing the hominins in the same way as potter squeezes his creation on a wheel.


Heard of the word "ecology", have you JayJay?

This paragraph is instructive here:

Treves & Palmqvist, 2007 wrote:In the next section of this chapter we review African large carnivore ecology and hunting behavior in extant taxa and that reconstructed for Plio-Pleistocene forms (“paleopredators” hereafter). Following this, we review the anti-predator behavior of hominins by analogy with monkeys and apes; this analogy is parsimonious because of the observed cross-taxonomic consistency of their behavioral responses to predators. Vigilance behavior in relation to social organization is particularly informative. Finally, we integrate the two reviews to reconstruct the range of antipredator behaviors open to hominins.


Looks like you've been caught out peddling porkies again, JayJay. Because, oh wait, the authors explicitly state that they take into account interactions between the requisite species.

Which renders your above assertions about them not doing so a manifest lie, JayJay.


That parroted accusation of lying again, it’s nonsense. There’s no problem with supposing that, like other primates, the hominins used vigilance. One could even claim- which I don’t think Treves and Palmqvist do- that being bipedal would make vigilance more effective. What is missing is the high implications of the intimacy of flesh meeting bone – and stone meeting skull. And a stone being carried around with the prospect of smashing a skull.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:At this point the opposite story to that of Treves and Palmqvist would start to ring ideological alarm bells.


Bullshit.

Since it's already been established that you've posted manifest lies about their work, JayJay, we need no longer take your assertions about this seriously.

I haven’t posted lies, as indeed I’ve demonstrated above.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The industry informing Treves, Palmqvist and also posters here, can hear those bells from a great distance and that’s why the narrative is directed away from necessity and embeddedness.


Bollocks. Another fantasy fabrication on your part. Oh wait, we were learning about ecology when you were still in your fucking nappies. You do know what the word "ecology" means, don't you? Oh wait, that's right, the study of the relationships between multiple species in a given environmental setting.

Yes, I know what ecology means. Ecology is maybe of critical support now. But the stodgy narrative of human evolution isn’t helping to support its importance.
These alarm bells ring more clearly on this forum , where posters including yourself have been absolutely determined not to consider what a hominin would have done, under circumstances where other primates would have bitten. You allowed yourself to go into raptures about the size of a Siberian tiger’s paws. Theropod went on about spire-tipped bullets. None of you have actually seen the necessity of asking the direct question: what did those creatures actually do, under circumstances when other primates would have bitten.
But it’s necessary to look for this effect in professional papers, to support the argument that atheist ideology has fucked up the narrative of human evolution.
I hope to be travelling for a few days, I’ll try to respond to any posts when I’m back on line.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

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

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#510  Postby Animavore » Aug 08, 2014 8:12 am

I'm not even sure what point Jayjay is even trying to make any more. Somewhere in all the bickering it seems to have been lost. I don't even know what the hell hominid teeth have to do with anything with regards creation vs evolution. And this particular comment has me lost...

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I’m not really interesting here in on what grounds you take it as a working assumption, that there is no god. I’m interested in the influence that has on the human origin narrative. The influence is to make it seem that nothing bigger than our ancestors acted as forcing agent. To make it seem as much as possible, that they created themselves.


Image

In evolutionary terms creatures don't create themselves - they're not even 'created' - they change gradually due to selection pressures from the environment. This is the exact oppoiste to what Jayjay thinks ["nothing bigger..act(s) as a forcing agent...they create themselves"].

I think Jayjay, after you come back from your trip, you really need to start afresh, really think about what you're trying to say, and take time to form some sort of argument, in as simple terms as possible, rather than continue with this "yes it is/no it isn't" game. You've let whatever point you may ever of had get lost in a pile of confusion.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 45104
Age: 45
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#511  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 08, 2014 8:29 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Still waiting to see JayJay either:

[1] Provide something other than yet more unsupported assertions and thinly veiled ad hominems with respect to his "atheist ideology" bullshit he keeps peddling as if it constituted fact, in answer to Thomas Eshuis' repeated questions about this.


I’d hoped that your two short points would help us to get down to brass tacks but now I look at this sentence I honestly don’t know what question by Thomas Eshuis you are talking about.


Quite simply, Thomas Eshuis is asking you to tell us, what are the purported foundational axioms of the "atheist ideology" you keep asserting exists. Now if I can work out what he's asking simply by reading his posts, why can't you?

Thomas’s recent posts have ve been about trying to proveing that Hitler was a Christian.

FIFY.
Stop dodging Jayjay. :naughty:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:You seem to be just asserting that I use thinly veiled ad hominems and that my claims about atheist ideology are bullshit.


Oh, so you never bothered reading the REASONS I've provided, at length, why I regard your "atheist ideology" fabrication AS a fabrication? Reasons I've presented repeatedly to you?

Which point are you on about now?

The point he explicitely states in the bit you quoted. Are you being deliberately obtuse or what?
Jayjay4547 wrote: It should still be your first point where as I said you weren’t actually posing a question.

It is the point he explicitely states in the bit you quoted.
Stop dodging.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: Reasons such as:
[1] All genuine ideologies are based upon one or more unsupported assertions, treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world;

Well then notion that there is no god is an unsupported assertion, especially considering that there can be a wide range of interpretations of what the word “god”means. For example, I like John Macmurray’s view of God asthe generalisation of the Other. I also like :the pole of that part of the world that we can’t experiment with”.
Calilasseia wrote: [2] Since atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions, thus in short, consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions", and presents no assertions of its own, it constitutes the antithesis of an ideology.


You like that phrase “rigorous formulation” but I find it unhelpful.

So what? Unless you can point out how it is unhelpful this is just more blind dismissal on you part.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I see atheists as a cultural stream,

Demonstrating you don't know what culture is.
Jayjay4547 wrote:with a history.

Virtually everything has a history, that doesn't make it a culture or an ideology.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So I think of you and a lot of other posters here as “ex-Christian” atheists

I'm not an ex-Christian or ex-anything atheist. I've been an atheist all my life.

Jayjay4547 wrote:– quite different from say the Jains who are sometimes considered atheists but come from a different cultural stream.

Again, get this elementary fact: atheism is the absence of belief in deities.
Regardless of whatever else you believe or whatever cultural group you belong to.
It's not a culture nor an ideology.
You still haven't explained what this supposed atheist ideology is nor presented evidence for it's existence.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: I've presented this to you repeatedly, JayJay, along with the fact that scientists testing hypotheses let the data determine the outcome. This latter fact flatly refutes your duplicitous assertion that those scientists are purportedly allowing an "ideological bias" to affect the results, and renders your assertion to this effect an ad hominem attack upon their integrity. Which means that I'm not merely "asserting" that your're engaging in ad hominems and fabrication, but I'm providing substantive reasons supporting that charge. Which not only renders your above assertion about my discoursive conduct utterly false, but points to YOU being the one peddling an ideology here, and engaging in duplicitous apologetics whenever the data happens not to conform thereto.

You are banging on there a bit Cali.

You're using passive agressive bullshit again Jayjay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m merely claiming that when they create an origin narrative for humankind, scientists are just as prone to being influenced by ideology as historians are.

And neither let ideology dictate their work or it would be quickly debunked for the assertionist crap that it is.
You know why? Becaus science has this process of peer-review.
Your ideology is spiel is bollocks Jayjay and anyone who has the slightest notion how science and the academic world work, knows that.
And you still haven't explained what this supposed atheist ideology is nor presented evidence for it's existence.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
These alarm bells ring more clearly on this forum

:roll:
You can cut the melodramatic crap Jayjay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: None of you have actually seen the necessity of asking the direct question: what did those creatures actually do, under circumstances when other primates would have bitten.
But it’s necessary to look for this effect in professional papers, to support the argument that atheist ideology has fucked up the narrative of human evolution.

You still haven't fucking defnined, much less presented evidence for this supposed atheist ideology.
All you're doing by mindlessly regurgitating it, is demonstrating it's a vacuous ad-hominem, a desperate attempt to attack evolution because you cannot dispute the facts.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 34
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#512  Postby patient zero » Aug 09, 2014 4:33 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You still haven't fucking defnined, much less presented evidence for this supposed atheist ideology.
All you're doing by mindlessly regurgitating it, is demonstrating it's a vacuous ad-hominem, a desperate attempt to attack evolution because you cannot dispute the facts.

I think Jayjay finally accepting after all these years that he cannot dispute the facts is why he's been reduced to sputtering an equivalent to a 'nuh-uh' to every bit of evidence shown to him and also pretending not to know what a straightforward question to him is being asked. :lol:
Calilasseia wrote:...WHY DO PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS FOR CREATIONISM HAVE TO LIE FOR THEIR DOCTRINE?
patient zero
 
Posts: 493
Age: 52
Male

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#513  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 09, 2014 6:33 am

It's petunias time again I see ... and because of the ground to be covered, this is a two parter. Welcome to Part 1.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Quite simply, Thomas Eshuis is asking you to tell us, what are the purported foundational axioms of the "atheist ideology" you keep asserting exists. Now if I can work out what he's asking simply by reading his posts, why can't you?


Thomas’s recent posts have been about trying to prove that Hitler was a Christian.


Oh, you mean posts like this one, JayJay, a post that is more recent than his posts on Hitler and Mein Kampf? Shall I highlight the relevant parts thereof you manifestly didn't bother reading? Here's that post in full, which specifically addresses the question you're trying to pretend above that Thomas Eshuis didn't state explicitly to you, with the relevant parts highlighted in glorious technicolor, just to make it easier for you to spot, since you manifestly need assistance with respect to this:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Still waiting to see JayJay either:

[1] Provide something other than yet more unsupported assertions and thinly veiled ad hominems with respect to his "atheist ideology" bullshit he keeps peddling as if it constituted fact, in answer to Thomas Eshuis' repeated questions about this.


I’d hoped that your two short points would help us to get down to brass tacks but now I look at this sentence I honestly don’t know what question by Thomas Eshuis you are talking about.


Exactly what he says in the bit you just quoted.

You have yet to define what this supposed atheist ideology is and have not provided any evidence for it's existence either.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You seem to be just asserting that I use thinly veiled ad hominems and that my claims about atheist ideology are bullshit.


Nope, he's restating the fact that your accusations of atheist ideology themselves consitute thinly veiled ad-hominems.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Just write down Thomas’s question and I’ll try to answer it. You shouldn’t have trouble finding it, if Thomas has repeated it.


Or, you know, you could've found and answered it by now, seeing as how I've asked it multiple times now in direct replies to your posts.


So please, JayJay, stop trying to pull the fast one that you haven't been asked the relevant questions, because you manifestly have. Your attempt to erect smokescreens to obscure this, by referring to other posts covering different subject matter, is possibly one of the most infantile pieces of evasion on display here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:You seem to be just asserting that I use thinly veiled ad hominems and that my claims about atheist ideology are bullshit.


Oh, so you never bothered reading the REASONS I've provided, at length, why I regard your "atheist ideology" fabrication AS a fabrication? Reasons I've presented repeatedly to you?


Which point are you on about now?


For fuck's sake, JayJay, do you need spoon feeding at this infantile level?

I have STATED EXPLICITLY the reasons why your "atheist ideology" fabrication IS a fabrication, including one reason that in a previous post, YOU YOURSELF HIGHLIGHTED IN BRIGHT RED BOLD FACED TEXT.

I've presented to you, point by point, the underlying facts and corollary deductions arising therefrom. If you're simply not capable of understanding this, JayJay, then you're in no position to lecture us about the nature of atheism.

Jayjay4547 wrote: It should still be your first point where as I said you weren’t actually posing a question.


Oh wait, what have I done repeatedly in my posts here, in a manner that even you cannot have escaped noticing? Oh, that's right, I've stated explicitly the REASONS why your "atheist ideology" fabrication IS a fabrication, point by point, broken down into simple steps, so that even a supernaturalist can understand this.

And lo and behold, what are you doing in the immediately following sentences? Oh, that's right, YOU'RE QUOTING THE VERY POINT BY POINT BREAKDOWN I'VE PROVIDED!

Do you really expect this level of abject fail on your part to be treated as something other than laughter fodder?

Meanwhile, moving on ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: Reasons such as:

[1] All genuine ideologies are based upon one or more unsupported assertions, treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world;


Well then notion that there is no god is an unsupported assertion


Slight problem here, JayJay. That problem being, quite simply, that whenever we have zero evidence for the existence of an asserted entity, we may safely operate as if that entity does not exist, until the evidence for the existence thereof arrives. Just as 16th century humans operated quite safely as if electrons didn't exist, but later humans changed that position once the evidence for these entities became available. This is how it's done, JayJay.

Quite simply, as I explained later on in the requisite post, we don't need to treat the converse assertion as true, in order to discard the original assertion. That you manifestly don't understand this elementary concept, again speaks volumes here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:especially considering that there can be a wide range of interpretations of what the word “god”means.


So what? It doesn't matter, JayJay. Quite simply, if entity X is asserted to exist, and no evidence is present supporting that existence assertion, we may safely discard that assertion, and safely operate as if that entity does not exist, until the evidence arrives. Only THEN do we need to change the manner in which we operate. As always, the onus is on those presenting the assertion to support it. The rest of us don't need to do anything other than discard that assertion, in the absence of said support, on the basis that said assertion continues to possess the status "truth value unknown". Discarding an assertion, JayJay, does NOT mean treating the converse assertion as true, it simply means we don't bother with that assertion, on the basis that doing so has no impact upon our acquisition of knowledge. That you fail to understand this distinction is again woefully informative.

Jayjay4547 wrote:For example, I like John Macmurray’s view of God asthe generalisation of the Other.


Who cares? Once again, the entire existence assertion possesses the status "truth value unknown", and none of the millennia of supernaturalist hot air has changed this. The mere fact that none of that vast quantity of supernaturalist hot air has changed this, should itself be telling you something important about the probability of that assertion being realised.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I also like :the pole of that part of the world that we can’t experiment with”.


Oh wait, if we can't experiment with it, we can't test it. If the requisite assertions are untestable, JayJay, they're useless as a source of substantive knowledge, because if we cannot test those assertions, they will retain the status "truth value unknown" forever. And as a corollary, be forever discardable.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: [2] Since atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions, thus in short, consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions", and presents no assertions of its own, it constitutes the antithesis of an ideology.


You like that phrase “rigorous formulation” but I find it unhelpful.


Tough shit. There's a REASON I use that phrase, JayJay, arising from my background in mathematics. In short, a rigorous formulation is one that meets certain minimum standards of consistency, when considered from a formal standpoint. Such a formulation is consistent with rules of inference or deduction that have been demonstrated to be sound, consistent with observable facts, and in the mathematical case, consistent with any axioms introduced. I know supernaturalists find this "unhelpful", because this automatically rules out made up shit, but some of us prefer substantive knowledge to made up shit, JayJay. That's what rigour is all about, the robust determination of substantive knowledge, and its separation from fantasy. I and others here don't give a shit if you find this "unhelpful", what matters is that centuries of academic scholarship has demonstrated that the process works.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I see atheists as a cultural stream


You see a lot of things that aren't there, JayJay, the evidence for this being present in your posts in abundance.

Jayjay4547 wrote:with a history.


Oh wait, everything that exists has a fucking history, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So I think of you and a lot of other posters here as “ex-Christian” atheists –


And here we see that favourite supernaturalist pastime, of assuming things without fact checking, in operation once more.

Oh wait, in your other trainwreck thread, JayJay, I provided a substantial exposition of the influences on my own childhood, in the form of having Arthur Mee's The Children's Encyclopaedia amongst the reading material in my home. Do you remember reading this post, JayJay? The post in question is here. Here's what I wrote in that post on the subject:

Me in the other thread wrote:

I live in a society that has an Established Church. Yet I'm an atheist. Why? Because I don't regard fantasies about mythological entities as constituting established fact. No amount of "social conditioning" was responsible for me alighting upon the idea that religion is made up shit, I worked this out pretty much for myself by the time I was about 7 years of age, courtesy of having spent long hours poring over The Children's Encyclopaedia. A work which, incidentally, was written and later edited by Arthur Mee, a man who clearly thought he had a mission to turn out good little nodding dogs who barked to order at the mention of God, King And CountryTM. Why did he fail in my case? Because he made the fatal mistake of putting the science sections of his encyclopaedia right slap bang alongside the sections on the bible, allowing a direct comparison of veracity to be made by anyone who exerted the effort. In the science sections, the emphasis throughout was "here are the results of scientific endeavour, and here are some experiments you can try to find out for yourself that these people were right". On the other hand, the sections devoted to the bible consisted of "this is what mythology asserts, therefore it's right". What a hollow contrast. Especially when some of those mythological assertions were clearly and manifestly at variance with the empirically validated science contained in the science sections. Moreover, it became apparent upon comparing the two sections, that the science sections were telling me about entities and phenomena far beyond the limited imaginings of the sad, backward little Middle Esastern nomads who wrote mythology. Even at 7 years of age, the deficiencies of mythology were manifestly apparent. I didn't need "social conditioning" to arrive at this view, I merely had to spend time in my bedroom devoting myself diligently to learning. Indeed, "social conditioning" became another of those irrational things other people subscribed to as a result of this learning.


I expounded more on this subject in this post.

So, despite my having presented evidence that I'm not an "ex-Christian", and that my atheism arose from being able to make a substantive comparison between evidence-based knowledge and assertion-based doctrines from an early age, through reading an encycloapedia handily allowing said comparison to be made with ease, you choose to erect an assertion about myself and others here without checking any relevant facts that have been presented to you. But then I and others here are used to the manner in which supernaturalists presume to know us and our thoughts better than we do ourselves, with the hubris that comes with thinking one has a hot line to The TruthTM, just because one treats a mythology's assertions as The TruthTM.

It's this sort of discoursive conduct on your part, JayJay, assuming that your fabrications dictate how reality behaves, without once asking yourself if the REAL WORLD DATA agrees with this, that leads many here to treat your posts with well-deserved scorn and derision. Because you habitually make shit up, pretend that your made up shit constitutes reality, and blithely ignore any REAL WORLD DATA that says your made up shit IS made up shit. This is why your posts are regarded by many here as low grade chew toy fodder, failing to achieve the level of competence required to constitute proper discourse. Once and for all, JayJay, learn the elementary lesson that made up shit does not equal fact, no matter how much it gives you a hard-on to think so.

Jayjay4547 wrote:quite different from say the Jains who are sometimes considered atheists but come from a different cultural stream.


But once again, JayJay, you've been caught out making shit up and pretending that your made up shit equals fact. Which is why no one takes you seriously here, and only engages with your posts for the tedious but necessary business of demonstrating that you're posting made up shit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote: I've presented this to you repeatedly, JayJay, along with the fact that scientists testing hypotheses let the data determine the outcome. This latter fact flatly refutes your duplicitous assertion that those scientists are purportedly allowing an "ideological bias" to affect the results, and renders your assertion to this effect an ad hominem attack upon their integrity. Which means that I'm not merely "asserting" that your're engaging in ad hominems and fabrication, but I'm providing substantive reasons supporting that charge. Which not only renders your above assertion about my discoursive conduct utterly false, but points to YOU being the one peddling an ideology here, and engaging in duplicitous apologetics whenever the data happens not to conform thereto.


You are banging on there a bit Cali.


Oh look, everyone, it's the Amateur Freudian AnalysisTM evasion, another thinly veiled ad hominem erected to avoid addressing the substance presented, by insinuating that the substance being presented is the product of some sort of "deficiency". A standard and noxiously dupicitous supernaturalist tactic we've seen so often here, we can recognise it in our sleep. Another reason your posts are treated with scorn and derision, JayJay, because you routinely resort to this sort of mendacity in order to dodge inconvenient facts.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m merely claiming that when they create an origin narrative for humankind, scientists are just as prone to being influenced by ideology as historians are.


And as I've explained to you repeatedly, this assertion is bollocks. Because, wait for it, if the assertions underpinning any purported "ideology" you're introducing here happen to be wrong, then once again, this will become apparent the moment those assertions are contradicted by the REAL WORLD DATA.

You see, JayJay, that's the value of REAL WORLD DATA. It allows us, if we exert the requisite effort, to falsify wrong assertions. Which is what scientists do every day in their work. Assertions that do NOT agree with the REAL WORLD DATA are DISCARDED. And if someone makes a mistake in this vein, other scientists will happily correct that error. Because, wait for it, this is how Nobel Prizes are frequently won. See: Barry Marshall and Stanley Prusiner.

As a corollary of the above, your "ideology" bollocks IS bollocks, JayJay, because, once again, if anyone's ideas are in conflict with the REAL WORLD DATA, this becomes apparent sooner or later. In short, JayJay, it doesn't matter how much you assert that the sky is pink with green spots, if millions of actual measurements return the result that it's blue.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:[2] Tell us why, despite the vast supporting evidence to the contrary, not treating unsupported assertions as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", despite having been schooled on this so often even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now.


Parrots are known to learn a phrase instantly if it’s spoken during a traumatic incident for the bird (see Konrad Lorenz’s King Solomon’s Ring)


Irrelevant. Plus, having had experience teaching various members of the Psittacidae to talk, I'm aware that providing the bird in question with social interactions concordant with its evolutionary history is far more likely to yield results than abuse.

I suppose that means you agree parrots are actually quick to learn..


Entertaining this irrelevant diversion for a moment, what I "agree" with, JayJay, is what the REAL WORLD DATA tells me.

Going to learn this elementary lesson sometime?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:So it’s strange you should use parroting as an example of difficult learning.


Oh, the fun part is, JayJay, parrots are frequently more intelligent than people think, along with numerous other bird species. This paper is usefully informative in this respect, along with this paper. But then, those of us who paid attention in science classes abandoned the scala natura fallacy some time ago.

Plus, since I've repeatedly stated that what I'm presenting here are elementary concepts, JayJay, that you think these constitute "difficult" learning, speaks volumes about the effects of creationist indoctrination on the brain.


Well you said “even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now”


Once again, entertaining this irrelevant diversion, everyone else here understands that this is an allusion to the fact that parrots require repeated coaching. They don't learn to mimic human words from just one utterance thereof. Or did this elementary observable fact once again escape your attention?

Jayjay4547 wrote:which only makes sense if you claimed parrots are difficult to teach.


Wrong. See above.

The reason I used the phrase "even a fucking parrot", jayJay, is because after repeated coaching, a parrot learns from this. You manifestly don't.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You have lost sight of your point.


No, once again, you have failed to understand even elementary concepts imparted to you. Which is why the parrot comparison is again apposite, because it highlights the yawning chasm that exists between your posts and competence.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But parrots do parrot things


They also exhibit the ability to engage in more sophisticated learning. As anyone who has actually studied these organisms will tell you.


I wasn’t the one who said “even a fucking parrot would have learned this by now”. Parrots do repeat phrases


Once again, JayJay ... after repeat coaching. You know, one of those observable facts that the rest of us here regard as more valuable than made up shit?

Jayjay4547 wrote:like you have been doing.


Only because you have been repeating your made up shit. Once again, your attempt to pull the obvious fast one fails here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t think you are interested in a reply


Bollocks. Quite simply, JayJay, I want to know where you developed the strange idea that not treating the assertions of your favourite mythology as fact purportedly constitutes an "ideology", when all the evidence says otherwise. I want to know the details of the conceptual framework leading to this bizarre conclusion, precisely because it's so bizarre and counter to the real world data. Consequently, I want to know, as Thomas Eshuis does, what "assertions" you think are foundational to atheism, despite having been repeatedly educated with respect to the fact that there are none. Indeed, it's precisely because we're so used to duplicitous apologetics by supernaturalists, involving the erection of fabrications about atheism and the presentation thereof as purportedly constituting fact, that those of us interested in honest discourse have spent time analysing the questions, and producing evidentially supported answers thereto. It's precisely because we're used to supernaturalists posturing as knowing more about what we think, than we do ourselves, that we've spent time countering this rampant discoursive mendacity. You might want to factor this into your deliberations here, and avoid resurrecting the same mendacity in your answers.

Of course, I and others here already have an answer to the reason why supernaturalists repeatedly erect this tiresome trope you're peddling here, but unlike supernaturalists, we're not arrogant enough to simply presume that said answer applies, without bothering to ask if there exists evidence to this effect. As a corollary, this is why we want YOU to start providing some answers here, JayJay. We want YOU to tell us, in your own words, what assertions you think are foundational to atheism, and why. Note the emphasis on your own words, JayJay, because we want to see evidence that you've actually applied some genuine thought to the matter, instead of simply absorbing the doctrinal assertions of others in this regard, and treaing said doctrinal assertions uncritically as fact. This has much to do with the evidence provided by numerous other supernaturalists, that uncritical acceptance of doctrinal assertions forms the foundation of their approach to this matter. If you've actually thought about this, you'll be able to present those thoughts in your own words, as the rest of us do here. Let's see if you're up to the task, shall we?


After not getting anywhere with a particular phrase, the rational approach would be to see if there is anything wrong with its form.


Excuse me, JayJay, I've pared the concepts down to their most elementary roots, specifically to make it as easy for you as possible. If you fail to understand what's being told to you after this effort is exerted, the deficiency here is yours, not mine.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And there is, your parroted phrase begs the question whether scientists, in creating origin narratives, do actually proceed by “NOT TREATING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AS FACT”


They do. This is an observed fact. An observed fact that destroys your entire "atheist ideology" fabrication. Game. Fucking. Over.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:...
Jayjay4547 wrote:your point is just to parrot overbearingly


Oh, talk about pot, kettle, black here. Your assertions about "atheist ideology" were immediately countered with the explanation I have given, when you first erected that assertion, yet, despite this, you've continued to parrot your own assertions on this subject, and present them as purportedly constituting fact, despite that systematic countering. So don't try and pull this fast one, JayJay, because the repeated presentation of that systematic countering was in response to YOUR repeated parroting of your assertions. But I'm familiar with the manner in which supernaturalists routinely project their own discoursive malfeasance onto others.


I don’t think I’ve ever put my suggestion that the presentation of human evolution has been influenced by atheist ideology, in caps, or large size print, or red colour.


Oh wait, I've just run a quick chcek, via the search facility, to see how often YOU have parroted the words "atheist ideology". According to the forum search engine, there are ninety nine posts by you in which this occurs, stretching all the way back to May 28th, 2012. You've been repeatedly parroting this for TWO WHOLE YEARS, Jayjay, and not once in all of that two years of parroting this assertion of yours, have you presented an atom of evidence to support this assertion. I didn't even start addressing this fabrication of yours directly until July 17th, 2012, nearly two months after you had repeated peddled this fabrication. So don't try and peddle the lie that I've been the one doing the parroting here, JayJay, because the REAL WORLD DATA says otherwise.

And, by reference to that REAL WORLD DATA, JayJay, here's what I wrote in that July 17th post, which can be checked independently by everyone else here via this link, on the subject of your "atheist ideology" fabrication:

Calilasseia wrote:The idea that we don't treat assertions as fact is wholly alien to this mindset. It's such a revolutionary idea to many supernaturalists, that it's intimidating to them. The idea of treating assertions as ripe for testing to destruction also fills quite a few of them with fear, which is no doubt why some of the more extreme fundamentalists would love to be in a position to declare this "heretical", and start administering suitably brutal treatment to anyone who dares adopt this approach. Indeed, quite a few fundamentalists hate the very idea of thoughts that don't conform to their doctrine, and whilst they remain impotent with respect to realising their darkest desires in this vein, resort to erecting manifest lies about science and atheism as a safety valve for the tension that's building up. That tension arises from the fact that anyone who bothers to pause for thought, can see the stark contrast between the intellectual eunuch that is supernaturalism, and the rampantly fecund stallion that is evidence-based science, a contrast that those of us who pay attention to reality recognise as having been first played out in a major way in 1348. back then, the wasted effort of superstitious people, many prevented from knowing of the existence of an alternative, as a result of the ruthlessness of enforcers of conformity to doctrine, led to 25 million of them dying an unpleasant death, as a result of the abject failure of kissing the arse of an imaginary magic man. By contrast, ignoring fatuous mythological assertions has led to the eradication of smallpox, manned spaceflight being an engineering reality, scientists being able to probe into the heart of matter itself with machines the size of cities, and the development of predictive quantiative theories that are in accord with observational reality to fifteen decimal places, achievements that are hopelessly out of reach of for mythology-based doctrines. The intellectual penis envy arising from this contrast, probably explains the willingness of certain ideological stormtroopers for doctrine to resort to outright lies and fabrications: when reality doesn't agree with you, lies and fabrications are all you're left with if you want to continue trying to push ideas that reality has flatly flushed down the toilet.

It's why we keep seeing the "atheist ideology" bullshit being peddled repeatedly, despite the pounding into its constituent quarks this bullshit has been subjected to. It's why we keep seeing the deriving of conclusions from real world evidence being misrepresented as "atheist bias" (this has been a tiresomely parroted assertion in another thread, the posts in question manifestly displaying wishful thinking turned pathological). It's why we keep seeing supernaturalists trying to peddle made up shit as fact, and trying to misrepresent evidence-based conclusions as made up shit, The reality inversion involved would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous and so utterly toxic, both from the standpoint of the arena of discourse, and the maintenance of a properly calibrated ethical compass. And yes, I can supply evidence of the ethically corroding effects of peddling lies for doctrine - Kent Hovind, anyone?


So, I began my dealing with this subject, not with the "parroting" you accuse me of, but with an analysis of the underlying aetiology. Looks like you've been caught up to your neck in more porkies, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t demand its acceptance


Pull the other one, JayJay, it's got bells on. You wouldn't have parroted this fabrication for TWO WHOLE YEARS if you didn't want the rest of us to treat it as fact. Yet, despite this manifest desire on your part to have this fabrication of yours treated as fact, the moment anyone asks you for evidence to support the requisite assertion, you dodge and evade the question the way Kent Hovind dodged and evaded paying taxes. What we're seeing here, both with respect to your repeated parroting of your assertions, and the subsequent fabrications you've erected, to try and hand-wave away proper suspicion of said assertions, including numerous attempts to suggest that said proper suspicion of your assertions is purportedly the product of some brand of intellectual or moral deficiency, is discoursive dishonesty at its most suppuratingly noxious. It's another reason your posts are treated with well-deserved scorn and derision, JayJay, because we've seen these tactics not only from you, but from other creationists with a fulminating track record of dishonesty, including creationists whose dishonesty has led them to serve prison terms.

Jayjay4547 wrote:but I’m prepared to try to explain and defend it.


In what fantasy parallel universe is your repeated parroting of this assertion a "defence" thereof, JayJay? Repeated parroting that you've been engaged in for TWO WHOLE YEARS?

A proper defence, JayJay, consists of providing the REAL WORLD DATA that supports your assertion, not merely parroting that assertion yet again.

Jayjay4547 wrote:On the other hand your big red sentence is phrased as a demand, and an overbearing one.


Oh look, it's that other synthetic excuse you keep erecting for avoiding substantive addressing of the issues, the "waaah., the nasty man doesn't post the way I like" excuse. Quite simply, I'll tell you what I thnk of this excuse of yours - fuck that.

If you don't like having your dishonest canards subjected to well deserved shredding, the answer is simple - stop erecting dishonest canards.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:As for the question of who is engaging in the above process, namely not treating unsupported assertions as fact, the simple answer, is anyone who asks questions about those assertions, and devises possible tests for those assertions. Once again, the mere fact that you have to ask this, is itself wonderfully informative.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I suppose you mean “science” with yourself as exemplar.


I don't possess the arrogance required for such posturing, JayJay, I leave that to supernaturalists. Instead, what I exhort people to do, is examine the evidence in support of the requisite postulates.


Seeing that you are defending the notion that it’s hopeless to look for “atheist ideology” influencing origin narratives made by scientists


Actually, JayJay, in case you hadn't woken up to this courtesy of my repeated statements to this effect, I'm stating that your "atheist ideology" assertion is a fabrication, and providing evidence to back that statement.

Jayjay4547 wrote:you are indeed making out that scientists proceed by “not treating unsupported evidence assertions as fact”


Except that I'm not holding myself up as some sort of oracle in this regard, as you insinuated in your previous post. People are free to disagree with me, as you repeatedly demonstrate in your own posts. The difference is, JayJay, when people ask me to support my statements on a subject, I exert the effort to do so, something I have yet to see from you on the subject of your "atheist ideology" fabrication.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But I’m not claiming that as an ideology. I understand an ideology as a way of looking at the world that helps to support some shared belief;


And that's precisely the point[, JayJay, namely, it's all about belief. Which consists of treating unsupported assertions as fact. We dispense with this process altogether. Quite simply, we ask ourselves, "what evidence exists to support this assertion?", and if there is none, we treat the assertion as discardable. On the other hand, if there does exist evidence to support the assertion in question, that assertion ceases to be a mere assertion, and instead becomes an evidentially supported postulate. As a direct corollary, JayJay, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant as far as we are concerned, and as a further corollary, the very word "ideology" does not apply.


I was trying to say, science isn’t an ideology, atheism is an ideology.


It isn't. What part of asking other people to support their assertions is an "ideology" again? I'm still waiting for you to answer this question, jayJay, as opposed to erecting yet more excuses to hand-wave it away.

Here's a clue for you, JayJay: in the world of proper discourse, as opposed to the corrupted version supernaturalists have been foisting upon us for centuries, those who erect assertions are required to support them with proper evidence, otherwise, said assertions are discardable. We're all familiar here, with the manner in which supernaturalists treat their unsupported assertions as some sort of natural default axioms, requiring the rest of us to exert effort to dismiss them, but proper discourse doesn't work like that, JayJay. In the world of proper discourse, your inability to support your assertions is your deficiency, and trying to shift that burden onto us doesn't wash. Just as trying to deflect attention from the exposure of your assertions as unsupported, by trying to smear the rest of us with insinuations of intellectual or moral "deficiency", just because we don't treat your unsupported assertions as fact, also won't wash.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:An ideology is a way of looking at the world that helps to support some shared belief.


Oh wait, what did I just say above, in the very passage you yourself quoted from my post? Here it is again, with the requisite parts answering your above assertions highlighted in glorious technicolour once more:

Calilasseia wrote: And that's precisely the point[, JayJay, namely, it's all about belief. Which consists of treating unsupported assertions as fact. We dispense with this process altogether. Quite simply, we ask ourselves, "what evidence exists to support this assertion?", and if there is none, we treat the assertion as discardable. On the other hand, if there does exist evidence to support the assertion in question, that assertion ceases to be a mere assertion, and instead becomes an evidentially supported postulate. As a direct corollary, JayJay, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant as far as we are concerned, and as a further corollary, the very word "ideology" does not apply.


You did not even read the above part you quoted, which answers substantively all of your assertions on this subject, and destroys your "atheist ideology" fabrication wholesale. What part of "we don't bother with belief itself" do you not understand? The moment one dispenses with belief, JayJay, and simply asks oneself "what does the REAL WORLD DATA tell us about this assertion?", then by definition, the word "ideology" DOES NOT APPLY. When are you going to learn this elementary concept, JayJay?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:in this case, the belief that there is no god.


And this is where you, like every other supernaturalist peddling this trope, gets it all woefully and horribly wrong, JayJay. Because, wait for it, not treating the existence assertion peddled by supernaturalists as fact, does NOT mean automatically treating the converse assertion as fact. That you fail to recognise this elementary concept, again speak volumes. Because the actual position that I and others applying rigour to the matter here adopt, JayJay, is NOT that unsupported assertions are false, but that they possess the status "truth value unknown". And THIS, JayJay, is the REAL reason we ask for evidence for assertions, because ALL assertions, when first presented, possess that status, namely, truth value unknown. That is the whole purpose of asking for evidence, JayJay, to remedy that deficit, and establish a known truth value to the assertion. And this is, of course, the reason that supernaturalists hate this process, because this process opens up the possibility of alighting upon evidence rendering their assertions false, a possibility that is anathema to them.

On the other hand, JayJay, the moment evidence materialises pointing to the existence of a god type entity, I and many others here will, in accordance with good discoursive and scientific practice, accept that evidence. All too often, we see evidence that supernaturalists are wholly unwilling to reciprocate in the reverse situation. That's another of the reasons we regard your "atheist ideology" fabrication AS a fabrication, because we are willing to let evidence change our views, something that never happens in the world of genuine ideologies.

In short, JayJay, our view is this. There is no evidence to support supernaturalist assertions about magic entities, therefore we may safely operate as if said entities do not exist, pending the arrival of evidence to the contrary.

Another way of viewing this, JayJay, is as follows. Since a mere assertion has the status "truth value unknown", it follows as a corollary, that in the absence of evidence pointing one way or the other, since it does not matter what truth value is assigned thereto in the absence of said evidence, the assertion may simply be discarded for the duration. Only once we are in a position to test that assertion, and arrive at a known and evidentially established answer for the truth value of that assertion, does the situation change.

This, JayJay, is possibly the most elementary exposition of the foundations of discourse one can present to you. That you need this to be done, again is woefully informative.


I’m not really interesting here in on what grounds you take it as a working assumption, that there is no god.


In short, you're not interested in the real reasons why we dispense with unsupported assertions, when this is inconvenient for your apologetic fabrications. A more clear instance of discoursive mendacity on your part one could not have wished for - a clear and explicit admission that you ignore any data not conforming to your narrative - as blatant an instance of real ideology at work as one could wish for.

Thank you, JayJay, for demonstrating that your "atheist ideology" fabrication is not merely a fabrication, but blatant projection of your own modus operandi onto us, in a manner that is entirely consistent with all the REAL WORLD DATA on the aetiology of creationism.

Game over, methinks.

This brings Part 1 to an end. Part 2 will follow shortly.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22570
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#514  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 09, 2014 6:39 am

Welcome to Part 2.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m interested in the influence that has on the human origin narrative.


Except that if an assertion is discarded, JayJay, on the basis that its truth value is unknown, and therefore provides no substantive knowledge in any direction, it cannot influence discourse by definition. The only assertions that can influence discourse, JayJay, are assertions that are kept in the discoursive arena.

That you manifestly do not understand even this elementary concept, is again woefully informative.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The influence is to make it seem that nothing bigger than our ancestors acted as forcing agent.


Bullshit.

First of all, go and re-read my preceding paragraph on the absence of influence on discourse of discarded assertions. Second, go and pick up an actual biology textbook, JayJay, and learn what biologists actually state on this subject, instead of the fantasies about this you've cooked up in the television inside your head.

Jayjay4547 wrote:To make it seem as much as possible, that they created themselves.


Bollocks. Show me one scientific paper that makes the claim that past hominids directed their own acquistion of mutations. And don't bother erecting predictable and duplicitous apologetics about sexual selection here, JayJay, because those apologetics have already been destroyed.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I understand that atheist ideology to have grown partly because of the sustained opposition to atheism by theists.


And once again, you fall into the entirely predictable category error trap, the same trap I've just covered in detail above. When questioning the assertions underpinning an actual, existing ideology, JayJay, one does not need to adopt another ideology to do so. Indeed, it follows as a corollary of doing so, that first, one opens up the possibility of all ideologies being wrong, and as another corollary, that consistency demands one abandon the very concept of ideology itself in order to maintain rigour. Indeed, the elementary principles of proper discourse I have just presented above, force anyone adopting them to take this position, if they do so properly and consistently.

That you manifestly don't understand this, JayJay, namely that our remit isn't just your favourite set of unsupported assertions, but all unsupported assertions that are presented to us, regardless of source, and the consistent application of proper rules of discourse thereto, is wonderfully informative with respect to your persistent insistence upon treating our discoursive methods as an "ideology"


ideologies parasitize the mind, you don’t know they are doing it.


Bollocks. If I can describe the aetiology in detail, JayJay, as I have done in numerous past posts, then it's safe to say I know more about the process of ideology and its insidiousness, than you will ever be willing to give me credit for. However, I can apply one simple test, to determine if "ideology" is affecting my thinking, and it is this: namely, to ask myself what unsupported assertions are being included in that thinking. The moment I can do this, and apply the test, I can take steps to eliminate those unsupported assertions.

You really do present utterly florid levels of failure of understanding of even the most elementary discoursive concepts here, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:And that the expression of atheist ideology in the way evolution is understood and presented has arisen from the evo-creo debate.


Once again, fatal error.

Because, JayJay, there's something to be factored into the equation here, that allows us to determine the truth-value of the requisite assertions. It's called real world data. For example, if a creationist asserts (as some I've seen have done) that speciation is impossible, but scientists not only demonstrate that a real world instance of speciation took place, but replicate that instance in the laboratory, then it's game over for that creationist's assertion. What part of the words "real world data" do you not understand, JayJay?


I’m all for “real world data” – for example, that the australopiths, uniquely amongst primates, didn’t have fangs.


They still had canine teeth, JayJay, as you and I do. Which makes one ask why they are reduced in our lineage? Here's a hint: what is the primary purpose of teeth?

Jayjay4547 wrote:The issue then becomes, how important is that data?


Ah, we're back to relevance. See my above question.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s a dialectic.


No it isn't. It's a matter of what the data says is happening. Learn this elementary concept once and for all, JayJay.


Well that’s what you say


No, it's what the REAL WORLD DATA tells those of us not looking at the world through your ideological blinkers.

Jayjay4547 wrote:but I think the evo-creo debate has had major impact on the way the theory is understood and presented.


Only because pedlars of real ideology, namely creationists, have attempted to displace evidence based science with mythology, frequently by deploying dishonest discoursive tactics. The fun part being, jayJay, that when scientists have actually found some interesting questions lurking within dishonest creationist tactics, they've then performed research to obtain real answers thereto. Such as the hilarious moment when IDists tried peddling the bacterial flagellum as the "poster child" for something purportedly impossible for evolutionary processes to produce. At which point, scientists turned round and said "what would we expect to see if the bacterial flagellum had actually evolved?", then set about finding this. One of the expected pieces of data arising from a "yes" answer, was homologies between the genes and proteins of the bacterial flagellum, and those of a different metabolic system. Lo and behold, those homologies were found, and in quantity.

Moreover, scientists started testing IDist assertions about "irreducible complexity", even though they already had their own working definition from Hermann Joseph Müller, arising some 30 or more years before Behe had even been born, a definition that posited "irreducible complexity" not as a "problem" for evolutionary biology, but as a natural outcome of evolutionary processes. When they set about testing IDist assertions on this subject, by deliberately breaking parts of the bacterial flagellum to see if the resulting broken version still worked, they found something interesting. Removing one flagellar protein brought flagellar biosynthesis crashing to a halt. But removing a second protein, resulted in flagellar biosynthesis being reinstated, with the resulting flagellum working as well as the original. A result which on its own drives a tank battalion through IDist assertions on the subject.

This is how it's done, JayJay. REAL WORLD DATA, not your fictitious "ideology".

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:You might object that there isn’t really an evo-creo “debate”, it’s too one sided; that could be where your “vast supporting evidence” comes in.


Oh wait, what have I just said about real world data, JayJay?

It doesn't matter how exquisite your assertions are, JayJay, or how much you love them, if the real world data says that your assertions are false, it's game over.


I agree.


Except when peddling your pet assertions. The evidence for this charge being present in your posts in profusion.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:But I’m proposing that atheism is more reactive than atheists like to believe.


Bullshit. Pointing out fallacies and deliberate misrepresentations is entirely proper. Stop misrepresenting this as "ideology", JayJay.


You are certainly coming over as reactive.


Oh look, its the Amateur Freudian analysisTM canard yet again. If someone presents something to you that you know to be lies and bullshit, JayJay, and can demonstrate to be so by recourse to the relevant facts, your presentation of those facts isn't "reactive", it's an entirely proper course of action. Likewise, so is ours. Once again, drop the duplicitous misrepresentation of this proper process as being some sort of "deficiency" when we apply it to your assertions, because apart from being duplicitous, it's stinkingly hypocritical.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Your whole position could be summed in one word, “NO!”. There’s no exploration in it, just denial.


Bullshit. Oh wait, YOU QUOTED PARTS OF MY POSTS WHERE I PROVIDE REASONS FOR TREATING YOUR "ATHEIST IDEOLOGY" FABRICATION AS A FABRICATION, then having done so, PARROTED THE SAME ASSERTIONS DESTROYED BY THOSE QUOTED SECTIONS AS, AS IF THOSE ASSERTIONS HAD NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED.

The only "denial" on display here is YOUR denial, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I think that you are implicitly claiming that science builds knowledge by considering evidence and I’d agree except that
the narrative constructed might use evidence but it foregrounds some and backgrounds others as less significant, or it may ignore evidence.


Wibble.

Did you take yourself seriously when you typed the above drivel?

One word, JayJay. Relevance. I know some astrologers think otherwise, but the motion of a star 1,000 light years away isn't going to have any effect on Earth based biochemistry. The incoming radiation from a supernova explosion may have some input here, but that's a separate question.

Oh wait, that's why we have separate scientific disciplines encompassing different classes of phenomena. It's called organising our thoughts, JayJay.


What I said wasn’t drivel


It was. I know five year olds who would point and laugh at it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:but I should have clarified that the foregrounding and backgrounding of data is relatively unproblematic in the hard sciences


Oh you think biology isn't a "hard science"? I think the world's biologists will have something to say to you on this matter.

Jayjay4547 wrote:but when it comes to building origin narratives about a creative system such as biological or human history, then it becomes critical.


Oh no, it's the tiresome creationist "interpretations" canard in another guise. Yawn. Been there, destroyed that.

Once again, JayJay, all that matters is the REAL WORLD DATA. If that data happens to toss your precious assertions into the bin, it's fucking tough. Live with it.

Quite frankly, JayJay, I and several others here are becoming bored shitless, with your non-stop petulant whinges to the effect that refusal to treat your made up shit as fact is purportedly motivated by some sort of "ideological" malice. It isn't, it arises because we've learnt to tell fact apart from made up shit. Fucking learn this will you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:If ideology does play a role in the way evolution is understood


Which it doesn't, except in the world of creationism.


let me finish the proposition Cali, you just muddy the discussion by cutting my sentences in half.


No, I just pounce upon duplicitous apologetic elisions as and when they arise. If you don't like it, stop posting them.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:and presented the place it can be expected to be seen most clearly is in the human origin narrative because that confronts the Genesis narrative.


Oh but wait, the Genesis narrative is itself A COLLECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL ASSERTIONS!!!.

Oh but wait again, if the REAL WORLD DATA says that those assertions are WRONG, then it's fucking tough for anyone who happens to have an emotional attachment to those assertions. Those assertions are wrong, and go in the bin. Game. Fucking. Over.

And that is the REAL reason, JayJay, why you're peddling this "atheist ideology" trope - because you can't stand the thought that the REAL WORLD DATA renders YOUR favourite ideological assertions null and void, and to protect YOUR precious ideology from crumbling under the assault of the data, you misrepresent the proper analysis of that data as an "ideology". It's duplicitous bullshit and lies from start to finish.


Part of your reactive position


Bollocks, JayJay. You've been told why this is bollocks above. Let me re-iterate:

If someone presents something to you that you know to be lies and bullshit, JayJay, and can demonstrate to be so by recourse to the relevant facts, your presentation of those facts isn't "reactive", it's an entirely proper course of action. Likewise, so is ours. Once again, drop the duplicitous misrepresentation of this proper process as being some sort of "deficiency" when we apply it to your assertions, because apart from being duplicitous, it's stinkingly hypocritical.

Jayjay4547 wrote:is to endlessly accuse me of lying and bullshit.


Oh wait, this might have much to do with the fact that the REAL WORLD DATA says you're peddling lies and bullshit on a grand scale here. Your whole "atheist ideology" lies and bullshit being a case in point, an ex recto assertion on your part that you have never once supported with an atom of evidence, yet parroted repeatedly as if it constituted established fact, whilst duplicitously dismissing the substantive reasons presented by myself and others refuting this assertion, with insinuations that they are the product of some sort of "ideologically motivated" malice. Your entire apologetic splurge is mendacious tripe from start to finish. It's exactly the sort of shite we see from the professional liars for doctrine such as Ken Ham and Ray Comfort, when they peddle the farcical "you only believe in evolution because you hate god" wankery. If you think we're not aware of the fast one you're trying to pull here, JayJay, then allow us to reciprocate with respect to the low opinion of us you manifestly have, except that we have evidence supporting our disdain.

Jayjay4547 wrote: But I’m actually making the sensible point that if there is any place where ideology might influence the established scientific narrative, it is the human origin narrative.


And lo and behold, who are the people who demonstrate this in spades? Not the scientists you accuse thereof, but creationists, who are the ones peddling the REAL ideology here. It's creationists who are peddling unsupported assertions as purportedly constituting fact, without an atom of supporting evidence, and moreover resorting to outright lies and fabrication to do so. Indeed, I've dealt with creationist lies for so long now, I can smell them across trans-continental distances.

Oh, and while we're at it, how come, JayJay, that ALL the websites devoted to quote mining and other instances of discoursive duplicity, feature CREATIONISTS engaging therein? How come we've never once seen anything of this sort reported as emanating from a peer reviewed biologist? Oh wait, if a scientist engages in such duplicity, his career crashes and burns. When a pedlar of creationist apologetics engages in such duplicity, he's hailed as some sort of "hero". This tells you where the REAL ideology lies, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Look at the bright side for your position: if there isn’t any influence on the human origin narrative, then it’s unlikely to be found anywhere else.


Poppycock. Oh wait, every religion on the planet erects its own fairy tale about this, and presents that fairy tale as fact. And all of them are tossed into the bin by the REAL WORLD DATA. It's game fucking over, JayJay, not just for your sad little mythology and the even sadder masturbation fantasies erected around it, but for all our invented mythologies. They're ALL wrong, JayJay, not just your favourite one, they're ALL the product of superstitious, pre-scientific humans who wouldn't have recognised a real scientific experiment if it slapped them across the face with a large fish, before inserting venomous spiders into their underpants.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Most recently I took as evidence of ideological bias apologetic source material for the fabrication of an accusation of bias


Fixed it for you.


I’ll be obliged if you wouldn’t change my words.


Stop posting the wrong ones then. Because there isn't any evidence of "ideological bias" in that paper you quote mined. Your assertions are rampant, manifest fabrication from start to finish.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s book chapter on Reconstructing Hominin Interactions with Mammalian Carnivores
http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/p ... t_2007.pdf


And your assertions on this matter have been fucking carpet bombed, Jayjay. Once again, THE DATA SAYS YOU ARE WRONG. Suck on it.


I don’t believe so.


DATA, JayJay, isn't a matter of "belief". Learn this.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You actually withdrew from that discussion to indulge in one of your generalised spluttering rants.


Oh look, it's the Amateur Freudian AnalysisTM canard once more. The tiresome misrepresentation of robust demolition of manifest lies and bullshit, as purportedly the product of some sort of intellectual or moreal "deficiency" on my part. It's yet more lies and bullshit on your part, JayJay. Demonstrting that your lies and bullshit ARE lies and bullshit isn't a "spluttering rant", regardless of whatever fantasies you entertain in this vein. But then that's the whole problem, JayJay, you're a creationist, which means you treat fantasy as fact.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m snipping here a history of to-and-fro that has become pointless.


Here we go again with the synthetic excuse to avoid the substance of my posts, the tiresome complaint about the fact that I subject your worthless fabrications to an entirely deserved hosing with the discoursive minigun. Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn ...

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:We could start up again. The real heart of the issue is in this sentence:

“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.”


Oh wait, JayJay, we have evidence that this is the case. Fucking supertanker loads of evidence. The natural history television documentaries produced by humans over the past 60 years are littered with this evidence. Ever watched any of them?]


Well, JayJay, have you watched any of these documentaries produced over the past 60 years, supplying us all with vast quantities of observational evidence for the requisite postulates?

Jayjay4547 wrote:For goodness sake, let me make some point then respond to that.


Excuse me, JayJay, but YOU are the one asserting that these published scientists are purportedly "wrong", therefore it's entirely legitimate for me to point out instances where the REAL WORLD DATA supports their statements. Or did this elementary concept not occur to you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The word “canines” appears only once again in that article, where the authors repeat how implausible it is to suppose that the hominins could take prey from the predators that had made a kill.


Oh wait, JayJay, what do those other predators have? Canines. And much bigger ones.

:picard:


Indeed. Fangy canines are part of the physical interaction between primates and their predators. So when one genus doesn’t have fangs that’s evidence to be considered.


Oh, and you think those peer reviewed authors didn't do this, despite spending twenty seven pages on the subject?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Those authors neglect evidence:


Bollocks.


The authors do neglect the evidence of lack of fangs in the australopiths.


It's a fucking irrelevance, JayJay. Because, wait for it, those Australopiths clearly managed to survive and reproduce, and in the process, give rise to subsequent homind lineages, without needing them. Along with something like two thousand other mammal species that happily live without these appendages, almost all of which have exhibited zero tendency to manufacture or deploy weapons. The rodents alone number over two thousand species, and somehow manage to survive and breed happily without fangs. That's before we factor in other vertebrate lineages, such as birds (which happily live without teeth of any sort), reptiles, amphibians, and of course fish, which possess a diverse range of dental morphologies that are intricately correlated with diet.

Now of course, the question is, how did they manage to avoid being hunted and eaten into extinction? It's not unreasonable to look for interactions seen in other lineages, particularly if those lineages share a relatively recent evolutionary history, and ask whether or not those interactions play a part in this, which is, lo and behold, what the authors clearly did in that paper.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: the australopith’s lack of fangs;


They still have canines, JayJay. You know, those pointy teeth between the incisors and premolars?


We and our ancestors going back to australopiths, didn’t have fangs.

But, oh wait, the predators they were likely to encounter had MUCH BIGGER CANINES.


So once again, how do organisms without large canines continue maintaining populations alongside organisms that do possess them? Only there's rather a lot of these, two thousand or so of them in the Order Rodentia alone.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:the only primate genus with that characteristic.


Wrong. From the Boneroom website, we have:

Douc Langur - small canines

Aye-Aye - NO CANINES AT ALL.


What is your substantive point? With incisors like that, they would perform the functions of canines as well.


YOU were the one who asserted that the Hominid lineages were the only primates lacking fangs, I simply fact checked this. You do know what "fact checking" means, don't you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Ever been bitten by a lab rat? I was as a child, can still see the blood in my mind’s eye.


Oh but wait, that's not the primary function of rodent incisors. Three guesses what is?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They had no trouble considering the possession of fangs by predators as significant.


Oh wait, that's because we have LARGE AMOUNTS OF REAL WORLD DATA TO THIS EFFECT, JayJay. Go and watch some of those television documentaries featuring big cats at work.


I didn’t claim that canines are there for decoration, quite the opposite. They are an important part of the interface between the animal and the world.


But wait, there are other interactions to take into account here. This is something ecologists have been telling us for a long time.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Their whole article could have been written without knowledge of the australopiths in the first place


Bollocks. What part of "big cats have large canines because said large canines equip them well for the task of killing other animals" do you not understand, JayJay?


I understand that very well. And that, to avoid being killed by predators, it’s most relevant for a primate to have fangs of its own, used with the powerful primate hands and arms to hold on to the predator and tear gashes out of it. [/quote]

Oh, this fantasy of yours again. Ho hum. I seem to recall that one being destroyed in that other trainwreck thread of yours. The hilarious leopard versus baboon fiasco being a case in point.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:it could have used the same discussion with Piltdown Man as exemplar hominin.


Bollocks. Go and watch some television documentaries, JayJay.


That’s a pointless response.


No it isn't. The reason it isn't pointless, JayJay, is because those documentaries present YET MORE REAL WORLD DATA. Penny dropping yet?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Rather explain what Treves and Palmqvist wrote, that applied only because of the distinctive physiology of the hominins.


And of course behaviour has nothing to do with this does it ... ??? :roll:

In case you hadn't worked this out, JayJay, the authors of that paper propose a behavioural solution One that is entirely consistent with known facts about primate behaviour in real ecosystems. You know, more REAL WORLD DATA???

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The hominin lack of fangs becomes important if you ask the question: How did those little creatures physically avoid predation?


Try "the same way other similarly equipped creatures avoid predation". Go and look at some in action, JayJay.


Who is similarly equipped? Primates bite. Try grabbing a wild monkey.


Achieve surprise and catch it from behind, and this need not be an issue. Just ask any Harpy Eagle.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Although Treves and Palmqvist’s whole article is about predation they don’t ask about the mechanics, even implicitly.


This is a flat out lie, JayJay. Even from the introduction of the paper, the authors write the following:

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.


Again you wrongly accuse me of lying. I’ve pasted in the conclusions reached for each of the headings you brought up:


Let's see how this pans out, shall we?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Those sections the authors refer to bear the following titles:
Habitat Selection:


”In sum, hominins could not have escaped predation by using different habitats than large carnivores nor could they have done so by using them at different times of day, although such tactics may well have lessened their exposure to paleopredators. Hunting Tactics\In sum, coursing paleopredators would have placed a premium on refuge use by hominins when in open country, while the more numerous opportunistic and stalking predator genera (Figure 17.1, Table 17.1) using more forested or bush
habitats would demand vigilance by hominins”.


Excuse me, but what part of "using cover to hide from predators" do you not understand as an anti-predation strategy? Or "keeping a careful watch for anything suitably menacing looking"?

This is something a primary school child can understand, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Prey Selection


Because adult baboons such as Parapapio jonesi (mass 30–40 kg: Brain, 1981; Delson et al., 2000) fell prey to paleopredators it would not be parsimonious to suggest that adult hominins were immune, resistant, or avoided by large carnivores thanks to their size.


Oh wait, they're saying that being a large primate doesn't render one immune from the attentions of even bigger things with sharp teeth. Another one of those elementary concepts a five year old can understand.

Is your reading comprehension so bad, JayJay, that you can't work out how this applies to the business of living with big carnivorous animals?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Fossil Anatomy, Isotope Frequencies, and Composition of Bone Assemblages


These finds are strong indication that hominins were regularly hunted.


Oh wait, they're saying in this section that REAL WORLD DATA points to this conclusion. What part of this elementary concept did you miss again?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Competition Between Carnivores and Hominins


At the moment, confrontational scavenging of the sort envisioned above appears an unlikely route to regular meat acquisition, hence we side more with authors who envision hominins as primary predators or as scavengers of unattended fresh carcasses who fled when challenged, rather than confrontational scavengers (Brantingham, 1998; Dominguez-Rodrigo & Pickering, 2003).


I suspect those cited authors also presented REAL WORLD DATA supporting their conclusions. Because this is what scientists do, in case you haven't worked this out.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Anti-Predator Behavior and Hominin Reconstruction


The primary tactics of stage one are inconspicuousness, avoidance of dangerous locations, and vigilance oriented to early detection of a predator. The second stage begins when predators are encountered. The
366 A. Treves and P. Palmqvist corresponding anti-predator behaviors will reflect the immediacy of the threat, although the exact steps and sequence will vary with the type of predator, type of primate prey, cost-benefit ratio of prey responses, and with the physical context (Ydenberg & Dill, 1986; Lima, 1993; Treves, 2002). The primary tactics in stage two are monitoring of predators, escape, deterrence, and hiding among other targets (selfish herd).


Once again, at what point did you fail to notice discussion of ways of avoiding being eaten in the aboev, JayJay?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
In the Absence of Predators


Therefore, hominins using Pliocene African savanna-woodlands might have invested more in visual vigilance than those in closed, forested habitats. We discuss vigilance further below as it is intricately tied to social organization.


Oh wait, that's another means of dealing with big things wanting to eat you. See them before they see you, and fuck off out of sight.

Once again, JayJay, how did you fail to recognise this as a mechanism for dealing with predators?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
After Predator Encounter


Therefore, we doubt that hominins counterattacked carnivores in packs or lion-sized carnivores in the Pliocene.


Have you seen what happens to humans who try this? And we're a good deal bigger than an Australopith.

Oh wait, I've posted two video clips here in the past, showing lions and tigers attacking humans armed with fucking guns. In the case of the tiger, it attacked humans riding on the back of a fucking elephant, as well as toting fuck-off big guns. Which rather suggests to me that a stick is going to be fuck all use against an animal capable of ruining your day even when you have access to firearms.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Trade-Offs Between Anti-Predator Aggregation and Vigilance


In sum, the net protection afforded by large groups fluctuates in a delicate balance of costs and benefits that are contingent on many local factors. This makes it difficult to conclude that hominins would have formed large groups in response to the putative higher risk of predation in the Pliocene.


Oh wait, what are they saying here? More research needed. Possibly including some nice simulations. This might have something to do with the existing body of REAL WORLD DATA on social groups in other species.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Social Organization Reconstructed for Hominins


Given the larger body mass of hominins (see above) and this higher-quality diet, which presumably included variable amounts of animal proteins, average foraging group sizes exceeding 20 seem highly unlikely. However, we cannot reject this possibility yet.


Oh wait, they're saying that they cannot reject a particular possibility, because they have insufficient data. What part of this elementary concept did you fail to recognise?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Did you even read the fucking paper, JayJay?


With attention and interest.


Oh, it really looks as if you did. Not.

Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s nothing I can see in the above that was about physical contact between predator and hominin prey.


Ha ha ha ha ha. Didn't look very far did you. In that section headed After Predator Encounter, this is the second paragraph in that section:

If a predator is detected before it kills its prey, primates display several effective anti-predator tactics. Many individuals will produce alarm calls to warn associates some protect themselves without warning others. When primates have detected a predator they may produce predator warnings to deter further approach by that predator (Zuberbühler, 2000). Mobbing calls are used to attract attention to a predator or intimidate it. Chimpanzees and humans give alarm and mobbing calls (Corbett, 1954; Goodall, 1986; Hiraiwa-Hasegawa et al., 1986; Boesch, 1991; Tsukahara, 1993). Hominins would presumably have done the same.


Didn't look very far, did you?

Then we have this:

In addition, all primates escape. We have found no convincing descriptions of primates using the “confusion effect” (i.e., escape not in a direct line to refuge, but in coordinated, evasive action confusing to the observer), to avoid predation, the kind of effect that is seen in some fish or open-country herds of ungulates (Edmunds, 1974). Moreover, primates virtually always flee to refuge rather than try to outdistance their attackers. Refuges for terrestrial primates include some trees and cliffs, while arboreal primate forms rapidly change levels. Humans and apes also commonly flee from predators and use refuges such as trees (Corbett, 1954; Boesch, 1991; Tsukahara, 1993; Hill & Hurtado, 1995). Presumably,early hominins would have minimized forays away from refuge and maintained proximity to trees and cliff sides to improve their chances of escape from speedy predators.


Meanwhile, the full paragraph from which you took your minimal quote is the final paragraph in that section, which reads as follows:

Silverback gorillas sometimes defend their groups from predators and hostile conspecifics by using intimidation displays. Chimpanzees have pursued and even killed cornered leopards (Boesch & Boesch, 1981; Hiraiwa-Hasegawa et al., 1986). Chimpanzees have attacked stuffed leopard models with sticks and stones (Kortlandt, 1980, 1989). However, healthy lioness-sized or larger carnivores may be too formidable, even for male apes in groups (Tsukahara, 1993). Counterattack with hand weapons may be an especially effective anti-predator tactic in some situations, but we have very little systematic evidence of this. It is doubtful that simple projectiles can deter coursing predators that do not abort pursuit easily or packs of carnivores emboldened by their own numbers. Moreover, a weapon does not provide protection if its wielder is surprised. Therefore, we doubt that hominins counterattacked carnivores in packs or lion-sized carnivores in the Pliocene.


Did you spend time deliberately avoiding all the bits I've highlighted in colour, in which the authors describe actual mechanisms for dealing with predators, and cherry-pick the bits you thought supported your pre-determined conclusion? Because that's what it looks like, JayJay, it looks yet again as if you engaged in deliberate quote mining to fit your agenda, avoiding all the inconvenient bits of data that flushed your pre-determined conclusion down the toilet.

Looks as if you've been caught not only peddling porkies, JayJay, but quote mining to boot to try and hide this.

Moving on ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:How did the actual bits of the hominin interact with bits of their predators?


So because the authors didn't provide you with a fucking martial arts manual for Australopiths, you're rejecting their discussion as covered above? Fucking hell, JayJay, have you any idea how lame this specious pseudo-objection of yours looks to anyone who paid attention in science class?

Jayjay4547 wrote: Bearing in mind how very different the bits of other primates s were that did come into contact with bits of the predators. They grabbed and bit; the hominins may have grabbed, they were no etter at than other primates, and they could not have bitten the way other primates can.


But despite the fact that other primates have been demonstrated to use a range of behaviours for dealing with predators, you summarily reject the idea that Australopiths, sharing an evolutionary history with these other primates, used a similar range of behaviours. Once again, JayJay, have you any idea how fucking lame this looks to the rest of us?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Their last sentence is “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”. by “material culture” they mean the use of sticks and stones for defence, as an alternative to biting.


Oh wait, what was that piece of evidence leading to this conclusion? Oh. that's right, the absence of any evidence that these organisms fashioned weapons. Which contrasts with evidence that later Hominins did indeed construct weapons, courtesy of the requisite materials being found alongside their remains.


We agree then at least, on what they meant by “material culture”. Stone tools are found in many places not accompanied by hominin fossils. it’s not always clear what species was responsible for what tools.


But the fact that enough stone tools of specific shapes have been found with specific hominid fossils, to allow a determination to be made in many cases, is another collection of REAL WORLD DATA you're going to ignore?

Jayjay4547 wrote: You can ignore the evidence of the lack of hominin fangs if you like, that’s exactly what Treves and Palmqvist do, but that’s an interestingly strange thing to do.


As opposed to you ignoring the large body of evidence for multiple behaviours in primates aimed at solving the predator problem?

Jayjay4547 wrote: When evidence is obviously ignored, then we should ask Why.


Which is what I'm about to do with respect to the above.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Once again, JayJay, what part of the words "REAL WORLD DATA" do you not understand?


I love real worlds data, like data that the hominins didn’t have fangs.


Or that primates exhibit a multiplicity of behaviours ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology


Is manifestly a fiction on your part, JayJay.

I don’t think so.


Ahem, what was that about "ignoring data", JayJay? The evidence thus far demonstrating that YOU have been the one ignoring important data, whilst picking upon irrelevancies to try and prop up your pre-fabricated "conclusion"?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:comes into Treves and Palmqvist’s snapshot at a high level.


Bollocks. What part of the words "REAL WORLD DATA" do you not understand?


I love real worlds data, like data that the hominins didn’t have fangs.


But apparently not the REAL WORLD DATA that primates exhibit a multiplicity of behaviours with respect to predator interactions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:One way of starting is to point out that their narrative doesn’t involve necessity: What the *^%@ did the australopiths actually do when a pack of hyenas appeared?


Did you actually read the fucking paper, JayJay? You know, as in all twenty seven pages of it, as opposed to cherry picking odd sentences to suit your apologetics?


Stop asking me that. You don’t own the paper, other people can read it and draw their own conclusions from it.


And after what I've found above, they'll be drawing radically different conclusions than you, but this might be because their conclusions will be real conclusions, arrived at after examination of the data, rather than fake conclusions that were decided upon in advance as a part of an agenda, and then desperately propped up by quote mines and other malfeasance.

Jayjay4547 wrote:As to “cherry picking”, the last sentence of a well constructed article is very often significant, as this one was.


But the rest of the entire section wasn't?

If you're trying to sell this crap, JayJay, this really does smack of desperation here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:To factor in necessity is to place the hominins inside a forcing system. Everyone knows in principle that populations evolve as embedded in relationships with other living things as well as the physical environment.


Which, if you bothered to read all twenty seven pages of that paper, the authors discuss in minute detail.


Not the necessity of what the hominins could do, when they encountered a predator under circumstances that would lead other primates to use their fangs, which the hominins didn’t have.


Oh, you mean all those bits I highlighted from that section in bright red and blue, that you manifestly ignored because they drove a tank battalion through your assertions about the paper?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:If the hominins were to be pictured as embedded that would draw attention to the biome as a matrix much larger than the population of hominins, or even as the agent squeezing the hominins in the same way as potter squeezes his creation on a wheel.


Heard of the word "ecology", have you JayJay?

This paragraph is instructive here:

Treves & Palmqvist, 2007 wrote:In the next section of this chapter we review African large carnivore ecology and hunting behavior in extant taxa and that reconstructed for Plio-Pleistocene forms (“paleopredators” hereafter). Following this, we review the anti-predator behavior of hominins by analogy with monkeys and apes; this analogy is parsimonious because of the observed cross-taxonomic consistency of their behavioral responses to predators. Vigilance behavior in relation to social organization is particularly informative. Finally, we integrate the two reviews to reconstruct the range of antipredator behaviors open to hominins.


Looks like you've been caught out peddling porkies again, JayJay. Because, oh wait, the authors explicitly state that they take into account interactions between the requisite species.

Which renders your above assertions about them not doing so a manifest lie, JayJay.


That parroted accusation of lying again, it’s nonsense.


The REAL WORLD DATA presented above says otherwise, JayJay. You're busted. Game. Fucking. Over.

You asserted that the authors of this paper didn't take interactions with other species, despite numerous instances of their doing precisely this in that paper, instances I've highlighted in pretty colours all over this post. Which means that your assertion has been demonstrated, by the REAL WORLD DATA, to be a flat out lie, JayJay. You might want to factor in here what the mythology you claim to adhere to has to say on this subject - you know, Ninth Commandment and all that?

Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s no problem with supposing that, like other primates, the hominins used vigilance. One could even claim- which I don’t think Treves and Palmqvist do- that being bipedal would make vigilance more effective. What is missing is the high implications of the intimacy of flesh meeting bone – and stone meeting skull.


Once again, this is truly lame, JayJay. Your objection at this stage consists of "the authors failed to provide a martial arts manual for Australopiths, therefore their work is wrong".

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

How FUCKING LAME is this excuse of yours, JayJay?

Jayjay4547 wrote:And a stone being carried around with the prospect of smashing a skull.


Where's the REAL WORLD DATA here, JayJay? Only the thought has almost certainly occurred to several others here, as well as me, that if it only took an Australopith brain to start developing weapons, then there are quite a few other primates around that could have done the same, but manifestly didn't. Otherwise, we'd be seeing chimpanzees, orang-utans and gorillas following pretty rapidly in our footsteps. Funny how none of the numerous TV documentaries I've seen featuring chimpanzees has featured them being weaponised. And, let's face it, if weapons would have been efficient and effective in the hands of Australopiths, they would have been even more so in the hands of chimpanzees and their ancestors. Which means that the big threat Australopiths would have faced in this scenario wouldn't have been feline predators, it would have been weaponised chimpanzees striking out and seeking their own ascendancy. And, in this scenario, almost certainly being better at it than the Australopiths.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:At this point the opposite story to that of Treves and Palmqvist would start to ring ideological alarm bells.


Bullshit.

Since it's already been established that you've posted manifest lies about their work, JayJay, we need no longer take your assertions about this seriously.


I haven’t posted lies, as indeed I’ve demonstrated above.


Pull the other one, JayJay, I've just ripped your post several new orifices in this regard.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The industry informing Treves, Palmqvist and also posters here, can hear those bells from a great distance and that’s why the narrative is directed away from necessity and embeddedness.


Bollocks. Another fantasy fabrication on your part. Oh wait, we were learning about ecology when you were still in your fucking nappies. You do know what the word "ecology" means, don't you? Oh wait, that's right, the study of the relationships between multiple species in a given environmental setting.


Yes, I know what ecology means. Ecology is maybe of critical support now. But the stodgy narrative of human evolution isn’t helping to support its importance.


Bollocks. That you can post this manifest drivel, after purportedly "reading" the Treves & Palmqvist paper (but, oh wait, I've just demonstrated that you didn't, you merely skimmed it for mineable quotes, in accordance with the good old Henry Morris methodology), really is informative here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:These alarm bells ring more clearly on this forum , where posters including yourself have been absolutely determined not to consider what a hominin would have done, under circumstances where other primates would have bitten.


Bollocks. Another manifest fantasy fabrication of yours. All the more so in the light of my considering above the possibilitites that could have arisen, if an Australopith brain had been capable of weapon deployment.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You allowed yourself to go into raptures about the size of a Siberian tiger’s paws.


Oh wait, you mean the REAL WORLD DATA with respect to this? As opposed to you going into fantasy raptures over your own made up shit, in a manner disturbingly resembling a toddler playing with its own faeces?

Jayjay4547 wrote: Theropod went on about spire-tipped bullets. None of you have actually seen the necessity of asking the direct question: what did those creatures actually do, under circumstances when other primates would have bitten.


Another manifest lie, JayJay. Because, oh wait, the authors of that paper asked that very question and answered it. Despite your manifestly false assertions that they didn't.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But it’s necessary to look for this effect in professional papers, to support the argument that atheist ideology has fucked up the narrative of human evolution.


Lies, lies, lies, JayJay. It's all bullshit and lies you're peddling here. The only ideology on the scene is coming from creationists like you, trying to sell fantasies as reality.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I hope to be travelling for a few days, I’ll try to respond to any posts when I’m back on line.


This one will be waiting for your return. All 13,780 or so words of it.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22570
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#515  Postby Fenrir » Aug 09, 2014 6:49 am

Image

Lucky He had that stick handy.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 4045
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#516  Postby LucidFlight » Aug 09, 2014 6:59 am

Animavore wrote:You've let whatever point you may ever of had get lost in a pile of confusion.

Maybe obfuscation is the point of this whole exercise. :think:
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10805
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#517  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 13, 2014 5:52 am

Calilasseia wrote:Welcome to Part 2.

Earlier you accused me of traducing Treves and Palmqvist by using their article on hominin-predator relations as a way of demonstrating the influence of theist ideology on the way human evolution is understood and presented. I wasn't traducing them at all, just commenting the way one may about any published work. But that made me think of a way to respond to this long post. I cut out all the passages where you traduced me and where your response was nothing but bad-mouthing, I deleted my own earlier point as well. I also deleted some repetition.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The influence [of atheist ideology on the human origin narrative] is to make it seem that nothing bigger than our ancestors acted as forcing agent....To make it seem as much as possible, that they created themselves.

Show me one scientific paper that makes the claim that past hominids directed their own acquistion of mutations.

It’s not possible to go that far. I used the Treves and Palmqvist article to discuss how far is possible.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m all for “real world data” – for example, that the australopiths, uniquely amongst primates, didn’t have fangs.

They still had canine teeth...as you and I do. Which makes one ask why they are reduced in our lineage? ...what is the primary purpose of teeth?

Primate teeth have two primary purposes: fangs to maim or kill and other teeth to masticate plants or animals that are already dead.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:but I should have clarified that the foregrounding and backgrounding of data is relatively unproblematic in the hard sciences

...you think biology isn't a "hard science"?


Biology has bits that are hard science, but when biologists build narratives about a creative system such as biological history, then that’s not hard science. And there the foregrounding and backgrounding of particular data becomes critical.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:and presented the place it can be expected to be seen most clearly is in the human origin narrative because that confronts the Genesis narrative.


the Genesis narrative is itself A COLLECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL ASSERTIONS!!!.... if the REAL WORLD DATA says that those assertions are WRONG, then ...Those assertions are wrong

A narrative can be read at different levels. At a high level Genesis might be more right than the evolution narrative, in depicting humans being created by something greater than themselves.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: But I’m actually making the sensible point that if there is any place where ideology might influence the established scientific narrative, it is the human origin narrative.

And lo and behold, who are the people who demonstrate this in spades? Not the scientists you accuse thereof.

Yes I agree, creationists are more to blame than scientists. But I’m arguing that scientists have been influenced, more than they know.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:the introductory paragraph of Treves and Palmqvist’s book chapter on Reconstructing Hominin Interactions with Mammalian Carnivores
http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/pubs/Treves_Palmqvist_2007.pdf
The real heart of the issue is in this sentence:
“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.”

...We have evidence that this is the case. ...The natural history television documentaries produced by humans over the past 60 years are littered with this evidence.

I haven’t got a TV at present but I’ve seen some excellent documentaries, I haven’t seen one that showed that simple sticks stones and bones could not have provided defense against predation, provided these were selected, carried everywhere and used with courage and high skill. I don’t know about the “personal” part, but primates can gather swiftly. More importantly, the data of the hominins lack of fangs, plus the known abilities of their descendants, support the inference that they did defend themselves that way.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The word “canines” appears only once again in that article, where the authors repeat how implausible it is to suppose that the hominins could take prey from the predators that had made a kill.... Fangy canines are part of the physical interaction between primates and their predators. So when one genus doesn’t have fangs that’s evidence to be considered.


...you think those peer reviewed authors didn't do this, despite spending twenty seven pages on the subject?


Yes, in those 27 pages Treves and Palmqvist don’t discuss the implications of the hominins not having fangs, for their relations with their sympatric mammalian predators.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The authors do neglect the evidence of lack of fangs in the australopiths.

It's [an] irrelevance. Because...those Australopiths clearly managed to survive and reproduce, and in the process, give rise to subsequent homind lineages, without needing them. Along with something like two thousand other mammal species that happily live without these appendages, almost all of which have exhibited zero tendency to manufacture or deploy weapons. The rodents alone number over two thousand species, and somehow manage to survive and breed happily without fangs. That's before we factor in other vertebrate lineages, such as birds (which happily live without teeth of any sort), reptiles, amphibians, and of course fish, which possess a diverse range of dental morphologies that are intricately correlated with diet.


Rodents have sharp incisors like the AyeAye that can play the same role as canine fangs. Birds use a variety of predator avoidance apart from biting. Same with fish.
Calilasseia wrote:
Now of course, the question is, how did they manage to avoid being hunted and eaten into extinction? It's not unreasonable to look for interactions seen in other lineages, particularly if those lineages share a relatively recent evolutionary history, and ask whether or not those interactions play a part in this, which is...what the authors clearly did in that paper.

Yes, but they don’t factor in that other primates have fangs.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:What is your substantive point? [by showing that the AyeAye has rodent-like incisors and no caninines] With incisors like that, they would perform the functions of canines as well.

YOU were the one who asserted that the Hominid lineages were the only primates lacking fangs, I simply fact checked this.


I accept the correction: The hominins are the only primates without fangs or incisors that can function as fangs. It’s not a substantive point.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Ever been bitten by a lab rat? I was as a child, can still see the blood in my mind’s eye.


...that's not the primary function of rodent incisors.


It would be redundant for a rodent to have its incisors and also canines for predator avoidance, since their incisors can do the defending.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:They had no trouble considering the possession of fangs by predators as significant.


that's because we have LARGE AMOUNTS OF REAL WORLD DATA TO THIS EFFECT

And if one tries to grab a wild monkey one finds their fangs are significant

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
The hominin lack of fangs becomes important if you ask the question: How did those little creatures physically avoid predation? ...Primates bite. Try grabbing a wild monkey.


Achieve surprise and catch it from behind, and this need not be an issue. Just ask any Harpy Eagle.


If any predator is able to surprise its prey so that can’t respond then the prey is killed. I was putting the question to you as a human being who would have zero chance of grabbing a monkey by surprise and 100% chance of getting bitten.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Although Treves and Palmqvist’s whole article is about predation they don’t ask about the mechanics, even implicitly.

from the introduction of the paper, the authors write the following:

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.

Yes but then they don’t actually discuss directional selection – of which the most profound would have been towards increasing their competence at using sticks stones and bones to fight off their predators

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Habitat Selection:

”In sum, hominins could not have escaped predation by using different habitats than large carnivores nor could they have done so by using them at different times of day, although such tactics may well have lessened their exposure to paleopredators. Hunting Tactics\In sum, coursing paleopredators would have placed a premium on refuge use by hominins when in open country, while the more numerous opportunistic and stalking predator genera (Figure 17.1, Table 17.1) using more forested or bush habitats would demand vigilance by hominins”.


....using cover to hide from predators" [would be] an anti-predation strategy Or "keeping a careful watch for anything suitably menacing looking"?

Definitely. Common to all primates and worth stating. No problem.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Prey Selection
Because adult baboons such as Parapapio jonesi (mass 30–40 kg: Brain, 1981; Delson et al., 2000) fell prey to paleopredators it would not be parsimonious to suggest that adult hominins were immune, resistant, or avoided by large carnivores thanks to their size.


they're saying that being a large primate doesn't render one immune from the attentions of even bigger things with sharp teeth.

Definitely. Common to all primates and worth stating. No problem. And similarly for their following, point, that the hominins were regularly hunted.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Competition Between Carnivores and Hominins
At the moment, confrontational scavenging of the sort envisioned above appears an unlikely route to regular meat acquisition, hence we side more with authors who envision hominins as primary predators or as scavengers of unattended fresh carcasses who fled when challenged, rather than confrontational scavengers (Brantingham, 1998; Dominguez-Rodrigo & Pickering, 2003).


I suspect those cited authors also presented REAL WORLD DATA supporting their conclusions.

Yes, Treves and Palmqvist were siding here against a particular controversial hypothesis.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
[Anti-predator behaviour ]In the Absence of Predators
Therefore, hominins using Pliocene African savanna-woodlands might have invested more in visual vigilance than those in closed, forested habitats. We discuss vigilance further below as it is intricately tied to social organization.

that's another means of dealing with big things wanting to eat you. See them before they see you, and fuck off out of sight.[This is a mechanism ] for dealing with predators

It surely is, common to all primates.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
[Anti-predator behaviour] After Predator Encounter
Therefore, we doubt that hominins counterattacked carnivores in packs or lion-sized carnivores in the Pliocene.


Have you seen what happens to humans who try this? And we're a good deal bigger than an Australopith...I've posted two video clips here in the past, showing lions and tigers attacking humans armed with fucking guns. In the case of the tiger, it attacked humans riding on the back of a ...elephant, as well as toting ...big guns. Which rather suggests to me that a stick is going to be [no] use against an animal capable of ruining your day even when you have access to firearms.


Those clips both show a trapped and hunted predator turning on its human tormentors and dying heroically. More relevant data comes from Masai lion hunts. Not that I’m claiming that hominins did “counterattack” pack predators or carnivores the size of lions. That isn’t quite the same thing as defending against predators using sticks and stones.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Trade-Offs Between Anti-Predator Aggregation and Vigilance
In sum, the net protection afforded by large groups fluctuates in a delicate balance of costs and benefits that are contingent on many local factors. This makes it difficult to conclude that hominins would have formed large groups in response to the putative higher risk of predation in the Pliocene.


More research needed. Possibly including some nice simulations. This might have something to do with the existing body of REAL WORLD DATA on social groups in other species.

Definitely. Common to all primates and worth stating. No problem

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Social Organization Reconstructed for Hominins
Given the larger body mass of hominins (see above) and this higher-quality diet, which presumably included variable amounts of animal proteins, average foraging group sizes exceeding 20 seem highly unlikely. However, we cannot reject this possibility yet.


they're saying that they cannot reject a particular possibility, because they have insufficient data

Yes, its reasonable. No problem.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s nothing I can see in the above that was about physical contact between predator and hominin prey.


In that section headed After Predator Encounter, [b]this is the second paragraph in that section:

If a predator is detected before it kills its prey, primates display several effective anti-predator tactics. Many individuals will produce alarm calls to warn associates some protect themselves without warning others. When primates have detected a predator they may produce predator warnings to deter further approach by that predator (Zuberbühler, 2000). Mobbing calls are used to attract attention to a predator or intimidate it. Chimpanzees and humans give alarm and mobbing calls (Corbett, 1954; Goodall, 1986; Hiraiwa-Hasegawa et al., 1986; Boesch, 1991; Tsukahara, 1993). Hominins would presumably have done the same.

An alarm call or a mobbing call are not about physical contact.
Calilasseia wrote: the full paragraph from which you took your minimal quote is the final paragraph in that section, which reads as follows:

Silverback gorillas sometimes defend their groups from predators and hostile conspecifics by using intimidation displays. Chimpanzees have pursued and even killed cornered leopards (Boesch & Boesch, 1981; Hiraiwa-Hasegawa et al., 1986). Chimpanzees have attacked stuffed leopard models with sticks and stones (Kortlandt, 1980, 1989). However, healthy lioness-sized or larger carnivores may be too formidable, even for male apes in groups (Tsukahara, 1993). Counterattack with hand weapons may be an especially effective anti-predator tactic in some situations, but we have very little systematic evidence of this. It is doubtful that simple projectiles can deter coursing predators that do not abort pursuit easily or packs of carnivores emboldened by their own numbers. Moreover, a weapon does not provide protection if its wielder is surprised. Therefore, we doubt that hominins counterattacked carnivores in packs or lion-sized carnivores in the Pliocene.

This longer extract ends with the conclusion that I already discussed. The authors are saying what they believe the hominins didn’t do

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:How did the actual bits of the hominin interact with bits of their predators?


So because the authors didn't provide you with a martial arts manual for Australopiths, you're rejecting their discussion as covered above?

I’m pointing out that Treves and Palmqvist don’t actually describe what the australopiths did when their predators came close.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Bearing in mind how very different the bits of other primates s were that did come into contact with bits of the predators. They grabbed and bit; the hominins may have grabbed, they were no better at than other primates, and they could not have bitten the way other primates can.


But despite the fact that other primates have been demonstrated to use a range of behaviours for dealing with predators, you summarily reject the idea that Australopiths, sharing an evolutionary history with these other primates, used a similar range of behaviours.

I quite accept that range of behaviours, up to the point when predators came close to their primate prey. There I’m arguing that the lack of australopith fangs became significant.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Their last sentence is “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”. by “material culture” they mean the use of sticks and stones for defence, as an alternative to biting.


...what was that piece of evidence leading to this conclusion? ...the absence of any evidence that these organisms fashioned weapons. Which contrasts with evidence that later Hominins did indeed construct weapons, courtesy of the requisite materials being found alongside their remains.

Yes, but that’s not enough on its own. It’s quite clear about the later hominins that they didn’t have fangs because they didn’t need them, they had hand axes. But the awkward data is that for a few million years before that, their ancestors, who didn’t leave worked stones, also had fangless jaws. That data shouldn’t be ignored, not in an article of 27 pages.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: We agree then at least, on what they meant by “material culture”. Stone tools are found in many places not accompanied by hominin fossils. it’s not always clear what species was responsible for what tools.


But the fact that enough stone tools of specific shapes have been found with specific hominid fossils, to allow a determination to be made in many cases

I think that’s true of Acheulean tools, not so much about the oldest Oldowan tools.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: You can ignore the evidence of the lack of hominin fangs if you like, that’s exactly what Treves and Palmqvist do, but that’s an interestingly strange thing to do.


As opposed to you ignoring the large body of evidence for multiple behaviours in primates aimed at solving the predator problem?

I don’t have a problem with what Treves and Palqvist say about multiple behaviours, but about what they leave out.
Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: the last sentence of a well constructed article is very often significant, as this one was. [“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.”]

But the rest of the entire section wasn't?

We have been discussing the whole paper, but the last sentence is particularly significant: it’s the punch line.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: [Treves and Palqvist didn’t discuss] the necessity of what the hominins could do, when they encountered a predator under circumstances that would lead other primates to use their fangs, which the hominins didn’t have.


Oh, you mean all those bits I highlighted from that section in bright red and blue

None of that addressed ] the necessity of what the hominins could do, when they encountered a predator under circumstances that would lead other primates to use their fangs, which the hominins didn’t have

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:If the hominins were to be pictured as embedded that would draw attention to the biome as a matrix much larger than the population of hominins, or even as the agent squeezing the hominins in the same way as potter squeezes his creation on a wheel.


This paragraph is instructive here:
Treves & Palmqvist, 2007 wrote:In the next section of this chapter [b]we review African large carnivore ecology and hunting behavior in extant taxa and that reconstructed for Plio-Pleistocene forms (“paleopredators” hereafter). Following this, we review the anti-predator behavior of hominins by analogy with monkeys and apes; this analogy is parsimonious because of the observed cross-taxonomic consistency of their behavioral responses to predators. Vigilance behavior in relation to social organization is particularly informative. Finally, we integrate the two reviews to reconstruct the range of antipredator behaviors open to hominins.


the authors explicitly state that they take into account interactions between the requisite species


And so they do, up to the point where predators encountered primates under circumstances where other primates use their fangs, which the hominins didn’t have.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s no problem with supposing that, like other primates, the hominins used vigilance. One could even claim- which I don’t think Treves and Palmqvist do- that being bipedal would make vigilance more effective. What is missing is the high implications of the intimacy of flesh meeting bone – and stone meeting skull.

Your objection at this stage consists of "the authors failed to provide a martial arts manual for Australopiths, therefore their work is wrong".


Their work isn’t so much as wrong as it misses what was distinctive about the hominins and in doing that it misses everything.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:And a stone being carried around with the prospect of smashing a skull.


Where's the REAL WORLD DATA here? ...the thought has almost certainly occurred to several others here, as well as me, that if it only took an Australopith brain to start developing weapons, then there are quite a few other primates around that could have done the same, but manifestly didn't. Otherwise, we'd be seeing chimpanzees, orang-utans and gorillas following pretty rapidly in our footsteps. ...none of the numerous TV documentaries I've seen featuring chimpanzees has featured them being weaponised. And, let's face it, if weapons would have been efficient and effective in the hands of Australopiths, they would have been even more so in the hands of chimpanzees and their ancestors. Which means that the big threat Australopiths would have faced in this scenario wouldn't have been feline predators, it would have been weaponised chimpanzees striking out and seeking their own ascendancy. And, in this scenario, almost certainly being better at it than the Australopiths.

I used the example of the pom pom crab to make the point that there is no threshold brain level at which an animal might use foreign objects defensively.
Kortland’s film showing chimps hitting a model leopard show that they are grossly incompetent at it, compared with the level of competence a hominin would have needed to defend against predators.

A habit of carrying weapons continuously militates strongly against arboreal habits , which might be part of the reason that only one or a couple of hominoid genuses took it up.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Theropod went on about spire-tipped bullets. None of you have actually seen the necessity of asking the direct question: what did those creatures actually do, under circumstances when other primates would have bitten.

b]the authors of that paper asked that very question and answered it[/b].


Oddly enough, Treves and Palmqvist don’t anywhere discuss what the hominins did under circumstances when other primates would have bitten.

Calilasseia wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: ]I hope to be travelling for a few days, I’ll try to respond to any posts when I’m back on line.


This one will be waiting for your return. All 13,780 or so words of it.

In cutting out your badmouthing I reduced my response to less than half the post I’m responding to here.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

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

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#518  Postby Sendraks » Aug 13, 2014 10:02 am

Still cherry picking the whole "fang" thing JayJay?

No fangs therefore stick?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15260
Age: 107
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#519  Postby Jayjay4547 » Aug 13, 2014 10:43 am

Sendraks wrote:Still cherry picking the whole "fang" thing JayJay?

No fangs therefore stick?


You got it in one!
By the way, the last sentence in the Treves and Palmquist article contradicts your position about a low predator environment on the Savanna:

"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."
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1406
Male

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

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#520  Postby Sendraks » Aug 13, 2014 10:53 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:You got it in one!


Good, well at least you're confirmed that you're cherry picking. Which is a laughable approach to science.

Jayjay4547 wrote:"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."


Oooh, you mean a social adaptation like group size and composition?

I note that the first para of the chapter states:

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


Semi-terrestrial? I wonder what this means JayJay? Does it mean semi-aquatic do you think? Or semi-aboreal?

Oh look!

Nevertheless, the essential nocturnal anti-predator adaptation was the use of trees or cliffs inaccessible to most large carnivores; this adaptation was important until the advent of controlled fire in the Pleistocene.


And more!

Hominins would generally have avoided predator encounter through vigilance, minimizing time spent in dangerous areas, and behavioral inconspicuousness.


Did you intentionally post a link to material that debunks your assertions?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15260
Age: 107
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron