rationalskepticism.org

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.

You can probably name a few species extant today that you could claim have "evolved away from" predator avoidance, but that didn't take up clubbing predators silly. Maybe your problem is that there are too many examples of evolution that shout sexual selection at you, hence you know sexual selection is important in general. You are claiming something about design, namely that humans are a special case in evolution (your 'talking apes" schtick) and you must either be taking me for a fool or somebody who didn't read your exchanges in the last few pages of this thread.

You only seem to care about the human story as far as defensive biting is concerned (or any other features, for that matter). You don't care about evolutionary principles in general, which you seem quite prepared to accept in every context except for human evolution. This is because you're trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion, a teleology. You're arguing that one lineage of primates lost its sharp, enlarged canines because it didn't need them any more. You're practically a Lamarckian in reverse, implying that features disappear when they're not used any more. But no, JJ. You only care about teeth. That's the story you made up, and you are sticking to it. The way you cling to that story, which is really just a "hoomins is speshul" story is comically obsessive and only seems directed at your conviction that you've come up with a Big Idea. The previous few pages of this thread have made that abundantly clear.

I read the same exchanges you had with Spearthrower, so I know you are claiming something from design. It's certainly not the case that Australopithecus was an extraordinarily successful branch on the human family tree, or they'd have left a better fossil record. The position of Australopithecus in the human evolution lineage mainly tells me they didn't reach a dead end. They had other stuff going for them besides teeth, but you're obsessed with teeth, and you put far too much effort into that to add anything else to your story. That's because it's an ad hoc story, something you fondle obsessively as your Big Idea, your approach to implying that a fairly large and accomplished body of science has a glaring error in it, that could only be ignored by idiots or ideologues, and nothing else will fit your precious, precious little story.