Posted: Jun 12, 2019 10:54 am
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t apologise for focusing on the teeth of our ancestors...
I don't think anyone's asking you to apologize, just to get a clue.
Jayjay4547 wrote:... and in particular the Australopithecine canines, so strikingly different from those of the apes.
Ummmm.... they are apes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
Homininae, also called "African hominids" or "African apes", is a subfamily of Hominidae.[1][2] It includes two tribes, with their extant as well as extinct species: 1) the Hominini tribe (with the genus Homo including modern humans and numerous extinct species; the subtribe Australopithecina, comprising at least two extinct genera; and the subtribe Panina, represented only by the genus Pan, which includes common chimpanzees and bonobos)―and 2) the Gorillini tribe (gorillas).
See? You purport to have special insight that strips away generations of institutional ideological bias, but at the same time factually exhibit not even a passing comprehension with the topic matter you wish your pontifications to be taken seriously in.
There's a fundamental mismatch between your ability and how well you think you're doing. This entire thread is basically that in long form.
Jayjay4547 wrote:... 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.
It was, you didn't. You never shut up on anyone else's account JJ - it doesn't matter how clearly, robustly, and comprehensively someone else responds to your claims, the mere fact that you made the claim always supersedes every other aspect.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Oh Wow Cito, you are really trying to drag me onto a different scent here. I’m not claiming something about “design”.
Factually, you are. We may well be dozens of babushkas down from it, but it's the ultimate argument you want to make.
Jayjay4547 wrote: I’m arguing from form-fits-function...
No, you're not. Form fits function when it comes to teeth primarily means mastication. You keep ignoring that and talking about the devious agenda of atheistoevolutionalistamalouts imposing self-creation wibble-flibble on what is obviously designedness from the ineffable creative force.
Jayjay4547 wrote:... 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.
Nonsense repeated just becomes even more nonsensical. Other primates don't use their sharper canine teeth for 'biting predators' - that's really fucking stupid, and yet you refuse ever to acknowledge that it's really fucking stupid. See the point above where you lament that no one told you something was stupid and how you would have changed your tune if only someone had so told you.
Jayjay4547 wrote: I have been arguing FOR a natural selection perspective CONTRA sexual selection.
That's gibberish. Sexual selection is part of natural selection as you've been informed dozens of times. This is one of the reasons why it's clear that you simply do not understand what evolution entails.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.
Not really scientific training as applied sciences doesn't require any scientific capability at all.
It is interesting to note that Creationists who have degrees tend to be trained either as engineers, dentists, or computer scientists. There's a bloody good reason why training in directed design might lead you to see things as being designed by direction. If you had training in Biology though, you'd know that simply does not withstand scrutiny.
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.
Says the guy who got detailed, explained demonstration about afarensis cranial morphology and responded by pretending that this provided evidence that he was right.
It's that response which provoked the jeering, JJ. It's always amusing to watch you pretend to not be a partner in this terrible tango.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Whether I am right or not about the ways that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story,...
You're not just not right, the entire concept is a non-starter.
Jayjay4547 wrote:...the ratskep contributions on this topic demonstrate an alarming collapse of commitment to simple rational discussion.
It's that tango again, JJ. You have never demonstrated even a passing fancy at rational discussion, so it's hardly everyone else's onus to so engage you.
Be the change you want to see in the world, chap.
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.
Oh they can, but then when they're shown to be wrong, they need to back the fuck up and start questioning why it is they were so damn wrong. You, of course, don't. You take being shown wrong as evidence of you being right. It's right there written for posterity.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t know what you mean by “the puddle story”. Can you please clarify. Let’s have a little more minutia.
Douglas Adams wrote:This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
Basically, it's a warning against self-conceited teleological thinking.