Posted: Jun 11, 2019 7:41 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I can’t help you with a Gawd ideology, but what the contrast between australopithecus canines and ape canines has to do with atheist ideology can be explained from the historical path taken by the presentation of evolution.

No, that's what you have tried to establish and have resoundingly failed to do.

Aside from the fact that it's just wrong, it's also nonsensical and somewhat disturbed. It's the product of obsessive compulsive reaction to the existence of non-believers, and the lack of interest in your god that the modern means of understanding the universe employs.

Jayjay4547 wrote:When Darwin published The Descent of Man a decade after the blockbuster Origin of Species he devoted 2/3 of it to the novel concept of sexual selection.

For historical accuracy, Darwin had already talked at length about this in On the Origin of Species.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Whereas there had long been rumbling about natural selection in scientific society and it was Wallace’s similar ideas that had forced Darwin’s publishing hand,...

This is insufficiently accurate.

There were no rumblings about 'natural selection'. There were observations which people groped at explanations for but failed to properly formulate regarding observed traits and adaptation to environments, but no one had produced an explanatory framework or produced evidence for any hypothesis.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... sexual selection was (so far as I know) Darwin’s own idea.

It is part and parcel of the very same thing: natural selection. Ergo, if there were rumblings about natural selection, then sexual selection was similarly rumbled.

Jayjay4547 wrote: And to a great extent, human origins have been presented in term of sexual selection, ever since.

Categorically false. This falsehood of yours is manufactured out of nothing, and is simply not correspondent with any degree of truthful analysis.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Thus on this thread, the long sharp canines of male chimps have been presented as mainly used in displays by alpha males to put the scare into the beta males.

No alpha or beta males involved. Nor just 'scare'. To contend with other males for a shared, desirable resource.

Jayjay4547 wrote: If that is the main mechanism used in explanation, then primate evolution is driven mainly by internal elements:...

A non-sequitur because those males also have to eat and survive. Given you've already had this slammed into your face several times, your repetition of this falsehood has to be labelled a 'lie'. If you don't like that, amend the presentation of falsehoods.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... you could draw a geographical line around a population of apes and these main causative elements will all be inside it.

A nonsensical notion that has no bearing in reality. There is no 'geographical line' other than the extend of a population's range. And of course, it simply does not follow at all that this becomes the 'main causative agent'.

There are more holes in your claims than there is substance. All the bits you need to show to have your idea taken seriously, you simply skip over with assertions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:By contrast, if you view primate canines in term of natural selection then they have to do with the interface of the population in its struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings.

That is already the case because 'existence' biologically speaking, and as Darwin noted, is primarily about reproduction. Natural selection's impact is on successive generations, not on individuals. You simply do not understand what evolution entails.

Jayjay4547 wrote: If you wander into a gorilla group you might first encounter the silverback and be effectively driven back. When the first Europeans encountered the Mauri they might have met the haka as a war dance, and been impressed.

Fuck me, you are arrogant as hell. They are not 'haka war dances' - they are haka. Haka are used for many reasons, as you've already been told.

And were the Europeans to come across a group of chanting Mauris, one might think they'd pull their rifles and commence firing, not pull back impressed.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Those external relations are unbounded and hugely creative in terms of novel functionality that is seldom forgotten once acquired.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So I’m arguing that there has been a consistent trend amongst those presenting human origins, towards explaining human origins in term of internal factors,...

You are asserting it in the absence of evidence and despite evidence to the contrary, and the basis on which you have formulated your argument is a deep ignorance of the topic matter you are supposedly engaging.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... which has the effect of drawing attention away from external creativity that has the basic qualities associated with God.

A complete non-sequitur that has nothing even to do with your argument. Even if chimpanzees' teeth are because of the reason you've decreed, it doesn't then stand to reason that it offers so much as a jot of support for a fictional deity character. Another vast gulf in your reasoning.

But I know why this gulf appeared: it's babushkas. What you want to argue is that a Creator is necessary for observations we make in the world, unable to muster any degree of argument for that, you've made increasingly dependent arguments that have less and less bearing on that desired position.

Jayjay4547 wrote:An agnostic might claim that society invented the concept of God to explain this unpredictable creative quality in the world.

Or they might not bother at all because they might never buy into the notion of there being an 'unpredictable creative quality in the world'.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Where the short blunt canines of Australopithecus males come in,...

Is in a fantasy world that is not planet Earth because australopithecine males don't have short, blunt canines.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... is that, if you view them in terms of natural selection then you must immediately conclude that Australopithecus were deeply adapted into defensive kinetic weapon use.

No 'must' - that's your silly notion that is just a babushka you manufactured, and actually has no logical underpinning whatsoever. Certainly the leap to 'defensive kinetic weapon use' is outright batshit nonsense.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Because they faced the same predators as other primates...

As which other primates, and why don't those primates have "adaptations" for "defensive kinetic use"?

Jayjay4547 wrote:... and those canines would have been ineffective to put off predators.

As if sharp canines in other primates put off predators.

It's so damn silly, JJ - your own contentions debunk your argument. Predators routinely feed on primates with sharp canines, that's because those sharp canines are not about defending against predators which are factually adapted to hunt and kill their prey.

A 40kg primate could have canines the size of a sabretooth tiger and it's still not going to cause even a momentary speed-bump to a 100+kg predator.

You refuse to engage in reality.

Jayjay4547 wrote: If the Australopithecus genus had occupied an island without predators, then one might expect their male canines to be like the females, but historically Australopithecus species and ones with similar body plans and similar teeth, spread widely out of Africa almost to the ends of the Earth.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your argument. Australopithecines didn't use canines or kinetic weapons to evade predation, JJ.

Jayjay4547 wrote:If you look at human origins in that light it comes to look oddly MECHANICAL rather than inspirational.

Even if that were true, which it obviously isn't, it's not like human origins are obliged to inspire you any more than slug origins.

Jayjay4547 wrote: One aspect is that a head that doesn’t need to bite effectively, is freed from compromises that the human skull is clearly free from, and our heads support speech.

Our heads don't 'support speech' JJ - yet more nonsense. Speech isn't produced by the head, it's produced primarily by the throat, and modulated with tongue and lips.

And our 'heads' do need to bite effectively, JJ. You're completely contradicting your own supposed argument - you're now appealing to this woo-laden self-creation element, whereas factually, humans of all stripes still need to eat food, and consequently need to bite effectively.

Jayjay4547 wrote:There seems to be some evidence that human brains have been shrinking since around the time human speech appeared.

Does there? Really? Are you sure?

Jayjay4547 wrote: Whether that line of argument is true or not, it sure is obvious.

Whether it's true or not, it's obvious. :lol:

Jayjay4547 wrote:And it’s curious that all the elements of that argument are vigorously opposed in this little laboratory of atheist thought.

In conclusion, self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.