Posted: Jun 12, 2019 3:28 am
by Jayjay4547
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
That was an embarrassing misstep on my part. Drawing a vector along the axis of a chimp skull’s sloping incisors I worked out orthogonal components of biting force and force towards an object being bitten. I got quite invested in that. But then I dropped it like a hot potato, not because of anything other posters said, but because I noticed that the axis of the chimp’ canines told a different story: they were aligned along the biting axis. That’s how I recall it.

Look, JJ, I was just having another little laugh at your expense. If you would just stop amending minutiae in this or that report of yours, as if you were some junior surveyor on a construction site, and get to the point of something besides the teeth.

I don’t apologise for focusing on the teeth of our ancestors and in particular the Australopithecine canines, so strikingly different from those of the apes. In the case that you cited above, it was my noticing the “minutia” of the different axis directions of chimp canines and incisors, that caused me to instantly drop a false line of argument. What I noticed should have been as obvious to you and other ratskeps and if one of you had pointed it out that would have shut me up on the line I was pursuing.
Cito di Pense wrote: Since you are a creationist (old- or young-earth, doesn't matter to me) and what you're obviously trying to do is find signs of the hand of some god somewhere, sometime -- you have to stop cherry picking cases you think demonstrate design. There are so many cases that demonstrate crappy design (many have been repeatedly pointed out to you). You aren't the first creationist who has ever tested his ideas in public, but I've never seen someone so desperate to keep away from the obvious cases that have not been designed (cases where function can simply not be attributed to the mysterious divine aims). I mean, really, JJ: Give us an account of the design features of the human male prostate gland, wrapped as it is around the human male's urethra. You may even be old enough to know how this is a bad design. Alan B certainly is. For instance, you could make up a story about putting away childish things.

Oh Wow Cito, you are really trying to drag me onto a different scent here. I’m not claiming something about “design”. I’m arguing from form-fits-function that the short blunt canines of our deep ancestors showed, about their relations with other species, that they were adapted away from biting in predator avoidance. I have been arguing FOR a natural selection perspective CONTRA sexual selection.

Cito di Pense wrote: My only point is that the last few pages of this thread have shown that your interest in human paleontology is not backed up by sufficient expertise for anything you say on the topic to be taken seriously, at least not by anyone with scientific training. The latter is something you readily admit you do not possess.

I might have said I have no LIFE SCIENCES training. My SCIENTIFIC training is I guess fairly typical of posters, with a BSc (Eng) and an MSc. As to me being drowned by the expertise of others, I can be impressed by explicable demonstration, not by unlabelled and un-discussed pics of teeth or a pic of a line of jeering youths. Whether I am right or not about the ways that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story, the ratskep contributions on this topic demonstrate an alarming collapse of commitment to simple rational discussion.

And if you think a land surveyor is not allowed to point to the length of australopithecus canines and talk about that, then that is just part of the collapse.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
If you look at human origins in that light it comes to look oddly MECHANICAL rather than inspirational. 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. There seems to be some evidence that human brains have been shrinking since around the time human speech appeared. Whether that line of argument is true or not, it sure is obvious.

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

The reason is that it's long since obvious that your entire output is an obsessively repetitive account of how taken you are by the puddle story. Everything fits into the picture, if you expend enough effort on making it fit. The puddle story obviously doesn't flatter your pretensions to scientific knowledge, insight, and critical faculties, but there's nothing there to be flattered, as you yourself readily admit.

I don’t know what you mean by “the puddle story”. Can you please clarify. Let’s have a little more minutia.
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Plus, I have graduated from Paint.exe to Paint.Net

You have selected a sub-standard operating system on which to run your software. So, what else is new? Choose any software you like: If you run it in a clunky operating system, you're stuck with that clunky operation, and all you can do is make it work for you. You can't make it work for anyone else who's not satisfied with less than the best available. There's a lesson there about creationism, JJ.

Again, you have lost me. What “sub-standard operating system” are you talking about?