Jayjay4547 wrote:

Jie wrote:

I happen to be an artist. What you're saying is basically that when I'm in my home, the house itself has the know-how to make a painting.

In my next sentence below, I said something different than what you claim I’m “basically saying”, when I named the artist as Gaia. But to follow your line of questioning as well as I can; we can see the house but we can’t see the artist. In a way that’s also true in your analogy. I’m not an artist, you are. But what can one physically point to that makes me not an artist and you one? I could even falsely claim to be an artist. But put us each in a room with some paint and after a while an observer will see art on the walls of your room and no art on my walls.

Jie wrote:

"Gaia" is a handle I could use for "who" is knowledgeable, also "God". Something bigger than us. But as soon as one does that, it draws the argument into bickering about the exact nature of what is bigger than us, or flat denial of the possibility. Basically as I see it, humans are observably made up of a hierarchy of organs and smaller bits, but we are also carried along in an unpredictable creative system, which can lead to the intuition that we aren't at the top of the natural hierarchy. Why should we be?

This assumes the existence of such a natural hierarchy. Can you give a demonstration of it?

The observable hierarchy runs from the lowest upwards, as atoms, molecules, body organs, the animal, community, nation, biome, biosphere.

Jie wrote: I have read the[Jayjay’s] claims. They seem to boil down to the silly idea that the fact that Australopithecus lacked large canines is sufficient evidence in and of itself to conclude that they used clubs and other weapons to crack the skulls of large felines, even if no such tools have been found where they lived. You've made the claim, but failed to support it.

Well teeth are pretty important, they are one of the prime sites where the body meets the world.
**snipped the rest of unnecessary post***

Jie wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: My argument is that “progress” is a word used to describe the experience of being embedded in a creative system. Creative means, more out of less.

That's an incorrect definition of creative. Makes me wonder how you're defining progress.

You need to show where my understanding of creativity as more out of less is wrong. Maybe by offering what you regard as the correct definition. That way our discussion might progress.

Jie wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: And I’m claiming that “progress” in particular has been banned from use in evolution for polemical reasons.

That's something else you need to back up.

Well as I’ve been discussing at length with Cali, the reason given for denying the use of the word “progress” is that there is no end state in evolution. I counter that by arguing that we apply the word progress to technological evolution although we also don’t know where it is headed.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I don’t know about large gene pools and biodiversity, maybe so. Strong creativity is called genius and I’m saying, that’s a property of biomes, some more than others.

Jie wrote: Indeed, so you're saying. But can you back it up with some evidence?

Jayjay4547 wrote: For example, the elephant’s trunk, the bat’s sonar, the human’s speech

Jie wrote: LOL

That expression is not a communication, it has no content, indeed it advertises non-communication of content. If you communicate some content I will try to respond.

AjayHarris wrote:So, if I understand you correctly, JayJay, the reason that you believe in Christianity is because you think it makes you innately superior and special by doing so, and not because the belief is based on physical evidence? I would hope that you will have the good sense to learn some humility.

Jie wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Jie wrote:

I happen to be an artist. What you're saying is basically that when I'm in my home, the house itself has the know-how to make a painting.

In my next sentence below, I said something different than what you claim I’m “basically saying”, when I named the artist as Gaia. But to follow your line of questioning as well as I can; we can see the house but we can’t see the artist. In a way that’s also true in your analogy. I’m not an artist, you are. But what can one physically point to that makes me not an artist and you one? I could even falsely claim to be an artist. But put us each in a room with some paint and after a while an observer will see art on the walls of your room and no art on my walls.

It looks like you were trying to make some point there, but try as I might, I cannot make sense of what it could be. Or maybe you were just trying to confuse me, in which case I congratulate you on your admirable success.

Jayjay4547 wrote: "Gaia" is a handle I could use for "who" is knowledgeable, also "God". Something bigger than us. But as soon as one does that, it draws the argument into bickering about the exact nature of what is bigger than us, or flat denial of the possibility. Basically as I see it, humans are observably made up of a hierarchy of organs and smaller bits, but we are also carried along in an unpredictable creative system, which can lead to the intuition that we aren't at the top of the natural hierarchy. Why should we be?

Jie wrote: This assumes the existence of such a natural hierarchy. Can you give a demonstration of it?

Jayjay4547 wrote: The observable hierarchy runs from the lowest upwards, as atoms, molecules, body organs, the animal, community, nation, biome, biosphere.

Jie wrote: Ah, I think I see now. When you say hierarchy, all you mean is that you're arranging things by their physical size. The greater its dimensions, the higher it is in the hierarchy. Got it.

Jie wrote: I have read the[Jayjay’s] claims. They seem to boil down to the silly idea that the fact that Australopithecus lacked large canines is sufficient evidence in and of itself to conclude that they used clubs and other weapons to crack the skulls of large felines, even if no such tools have been found where they lived. You've made the claim, but failed to support it.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Well teeth are pretty important, they are one of the prime sites where the body meets the world.
**snipped the rest of unnecessary post***

Jie wrote: So that's still all you have? It's just not enough to support your claim. If you can show actual tools used by Australopithecus to bash the skulls of large predators, I'll start to pay attention. The size of their teeth by itself just won't cut it.

Jayjay4547 wrote: My argument is that “progress” is a word used to describe the experience of being embedded in a creative system. Creative means, more out of less.

Jie wrote: All I need to do is note that "more out of less" is just too vague to mean anything.

Jayjay4547 wrote: And I’m claiming that “progress” in particular has been banned from use in evolution for polemical reasons.

Jie wrote: That's something else you need to back up.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Well as I’ve been discussing at length with Cali, the reason given for denying the use of the word “progress” is that there is no end state in evolution. I counter that by arguing that we apply the word progress to technological evolution although we also don’t know where it is headed.

Jie wrote: Technological evolution has the goal of producing better products with more features and easier manufacture. In nature, environmental changes drive adaptation, but it doesn't make organisms better than their ancestors, just more adapted to the current situation, which can change.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I don’t know about large gene pools and biodiversity, maybe so. Strong creativity is called genius and I’m saying, that’s a property of biomes, some more than others.

Jie wrote: Indeed, so you're saying. But can you back it up with some evidence?

Jayjay4547 wrote: For example, the elephant’s trunk, the bat’s sonar, the human’s speech

Jie wrote: I had assumed you were joking, and I actually found it funny, so I laughed. Now it appears you were being serious, which is a problem. You see, your response to my request for evidence is no better and no different than when I ask a theist for evidence for God and the theist replies "Look at the trees, the sky, the mountains. Isn't that evidence enough?" ..Such a low level response only left two possibilities I could see. Either you were joking, or you're wasting my time. It seems I was too generous in assuming the former.

Jie wrote: And with this, I must regretfully disengage. I'm finding it just too difficult to continue taking this discussion seriously. Feel free to respond, though. Perhaps you may even say something that might rekindle my interest. Until then, ciao!

I’m not here to kindle your interest, but to investigate, and express ways that atheist ideology has affected the understanding and presentation of evolution.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Jie wrote: All I need to do is note that "more out of less" is just too vague to mean anything.

It’s not vague if one can identify the "more" as I did. Three billion years ago there were only algae on this planet. Now there is still algae and in more species, along with mammals birds, bees, flowers, flowers –each of those made up of many species. I sketched that out earlier, there could be no doubt what I meant. Denial of that vast fact of creation is maybe the most gob-smacking influence of atheist ideology.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And I’m claiming that “progress” in particular has been banned from use in evolution for polemical reasons.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Jie wrote:You see, your response to my request for evidence is no better and no different than when I ask a theist for evidence for God and the theist replies "Look at the trees, the sky, the mountains. Isn't that evidence enough?"

I suppose that theist was assuming you shared a human delight in the wonder of the creation. I was neither joking nor trying to waste your time, which would be an inefficient use of my own time. Rather I was assuming maybe wrongly that you would also see genius in for example, the elephant’s trunk.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I’ll take the challenge to make that explicit by contrasting the elephant with the giraffe. It seemed so obvious to Darwin how the giraffe might have got to be so stretched out, that he used it to demonstrate how natural selection might work. If it’s adaptive to eat things that are further from the ground then it will be adaptive to put your mouth further from the ground. But the elephant has functionality that trumps that: use an appendage that will bring the food to your mouth from higher up- and lower down, and more to the side- all without the awkwardness of bringing your head to the food. Flowing from that genius solution we have the largest land mammal that ever lived, with the largest brain of any land animal and the only one larger than ours, and one of only two species credited with controlling its biome- in it’s case, beneficially to other species.

fluttermoth wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: I’ll take the challenge to make that explicit by contrasting the elephant with the giraffe. It seemed so obvious to Darwin how the giraffe might have got to be so stretched out, that he used it to demonstrate how natural selection might work. If it’s adaptive to eat things that are further from the ground then it will be adaptive to put your mouth further from the ground. But the elephant has functionality that trumps that: use an appendage that will bring the food to your mouth from higher up- and lower down, and more to the side- all without the awkwardness of bringing your head to the food. Flowing from that genius solution we have the largest land mammal that ever lived, with the largest brain of any land animal and the only one larger than ours, and one of only two species credited with controlling its biome- in it’s case, beneficially to other species.

(Sorry for butting in to the thread...)

So; if the elephant's trunk is the 'best' solution, why didn't this genius of the biome, or the creator, or whatever it is you're postulating, also give the giraffe a trunk? Why does the poor old giraffe have to make do with a long neck? It lives in the same biome, surely the same 'genius' should be available to giraffes as well as elephants?

In fact, if the elephant's trunk is so fantastic (which I think it is; it's a wonder of evolution), why don't we all have one?

Pangloss wrote:It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.

Spearthrower wrote:

I’m not here to kindle your interest, but to investigate, and express ways that atheist ideology has affected the understanding and presentation of evolution.

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

Jie wrote:

So that's still all you have? It's just not enough to support your claim. If you can show actual tools used by Australopithecus to bash the skulls of large predators, I'll start to pay attention. The size of their teeth by itself just won't cut it.

JayJay wrote:

That’s what critics of Dart used to dismiss his notion of an osteodontokeratic culture. It’s a bit like saying, you won’t believe that T.Rex ate meat till you find a bone stuck in its teeth.

Spearthrower wrote:With the much justified conclusion that you can tell when JJ is lying because he's typed in words, I hadn't bothered reading his posts.

Is he back on anthropology again? It's like a ritualistic self-flagellation.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Jie wrote:

So that's still all you have? It's just not enough to support your claim. If you can show actual tools used by Australopithecus to bash the skulls of large predators, I'll start to pay attention. The size of their teeth by itself just won't cut it.

JayJay wrote:

That’s what critics of Dart used to dismiss his notion of an osteodontokeratic culture. It’s a bit like saying, you won’t believe that T.Rex ate meat till you find a bone stuck in its teeth.

As for your stupid analogy using T-Rex, it's getting old and doesn't apply. Fossils of plant eating large dinosaurs have been found with healed bite marks that could only been from T-Rex. Fossil bones of other large plant eating dinosaurs have been found with marks consistent with chewing by T-Rex. Showing that not only did T-Rex eat meat but hunted for meat. Pretty good evidence.

Oldskeptic wrote: The most effective of Dart's critics used a hell of a lot more than just dismissing an argument about teeth. His evidence for the hunting, weapon using Australopiths was systematically evaluated and found not only lacking but pointing in the opposite direction.

…Evidence that you do not have the like of for Australopiths 3mya hunting large animals with weapons.

I’m hoping that now you will see that the point is about what do the teeth on their own tell you. Not that it’s just the hominin canines that suggest their use of hand-weapons in place of defensive biting.

Our vision of human origins may have been infested by atheist ideology that dismisses the mechanics of inter-species relations in favor of "intra-species" self-creation.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Our vision of human origins may have been infested by atheist ideology that dismisses the mechanics of inter-species relations in favor of "intra-species" self-creation. But our bodies haven't been so infested. You can demonstrate this difference between what the intellect thinks and what the body knows in this thought experiment.

Imagine getting two forked sticks the length of your forearm and stick them in the ground about four foot apart. Light a brisk little fire between them. Now get a pointy stick at bit longer than that, of green wood so it won't smoulder too easily. You will use that to skewer the vervet monkey you just caught in a snare. It's sitting there watching you make up the fire. Now all you have to do is grab the little monkey, wring its neck and skewer it. It's bright blue balls tells you this is a male and it has long sharp canines but no matter, you are so much bigger than it is. And those canines are just for dominating other vervet males anyway. Go on, grab and wring, grab and wring! What are you waiting for? Your body is telling you what? No? Who is boss here?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Whats the point of it? Is empathy supposed to be divinely ordained or some bullshit?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Our vision of human origins may have been infested by atheist ideology

Jayjay4547 wrote:that dismisses the mechanics of inter-species relations in favor of "intra-species" self-creation.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But our bodies haven't been so infested.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You can demonstrate this difference between what the intellect thinks and what the body knows in this thought experiment.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Imagine getting two forked sticks the length of your forearm and stick them in the ground about four foot apart. Light a brisk little fire between them. Now get a pointy stick at bit longer than that, of green wood so it won't smoulder too easily. You will use that to skewer the vervet monkey you just caught in a snare. It's sitting there watching you make up the fire. Now all you have to do is grab the little monkey, wring its neck and skewer it. It's bright blue balls tells you this is a male and it has long sharp canines but no matter, you are so much bigger than it is. And those canines are just for dominating other vervet males anyway. Go on, grab and wring, grab and wring! What are you waiting for? Your body is telling you what? No? Who is boss here?