Posted: Jun 26, 2019 6:47 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Yes indeed all australopithecines ARE primates, Spearthrower.

Yes indeed, that's what I just told you after you'd bizarrely contrasted them as you've done before.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Why not? Birds can adapt to building nests.

Because evolution doesn't work like Pokemon, JJ. Natural selection is a gradual process that favours slight improvements in reproductive success, in contrast to the sudden appearance of extremely complex hopeful monster behavior.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
But australopithecine males don’t have long sharp canines, nor do any of their descendants, just like the Smithsonian says,

The Smithsonian does not say that, JJ - that's your wilful spin talking. Again, (sigh as I've pointed out half a dozen times already) you've lifted one single adjective out of one single sentence, out of one single paragraph in what is essentially a dummy's guide to A. afarensis, and you're trying to build a credible case around it. Of course, it looks really fucking silly, but the fact you appear to find it persuasive enough to keep repeating it really does go a long way in explaining quite why you're so arrogantly insisting you're a great swimmer even while you're so obviously drowning.

Most australopithecine (you've gone back to the numpty word again) species exhibit dental sexual dimorphism JJ - I've already shown you wrong on this at least a dozen times, including references to peer-reviewed papers that you've replied to and therefore you've implicitly acknowledged that the facts are contrary to your claims.

Male afarensis do have longer, sharper canines than females. That's a relative comparison between males and females. You're trying to wing an absolute value without ever discussing the values such as what constitutes 'long' or what constitutes 'sharp'. As such, and because you're trying to pull a fast one, there's no need for me to go any further than simply say 'nope, you're wrong'.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: JJ. For example, canine teeth in primates, no matter how long and sharp, don't make them dangerous for predators to attack.

Just try grabbing any non-human primate with your bare hands.

Is that the best argument you can muster after hundreds of pages of trying to contend this argument?

Well, it's funny because - unsurprisingly, I've grabbed many a non-human primate with my bare hands, and never was I in danger from them.

And I'm not even a leopard or a tiger with a thick coat of fur, running at them at breakneck speed with a maw full of sharp teeth to eat them.

So as usual, even when you've got the best opportunity in the world to provide a coherent argument to support your case, the best you can come up with is just nonsense.

Primates' canines do not pose a danger - in the slightest - to the predators which prey on them. Unless you want to try and argue that the predator might get a bit of a scratch, and goodness knows, scratches can turn septic so easily without medical treatment, and thus they're a danger? Is that an interesting argument for you, JJ?

Of course, you're still failing to address - because of your terminal absence of comprehension - how selection works. For a trait to be positively selected by evolution JJ, it has to confer a reproductive benefit over and above individuals without that trait. So a monkey with even the most impressively sharp, long canines imaginable that gets attacked and killed by a tiger doesn't pass those traits on preferentially on account of it being dead. It's rather hard to reproduce when you're dead, JJ.

However, those same impressively long and sharp canines may just have helped that monkey scare off a male competing for mates, resulting in unfettered access to the pool of female monkeys, and therefore that trait being preferentially selected for into the next generation of widdle monkeys.

See the comparison JJ?

Yeah, of course you don't because you're not interested in reality, truth, evidence, facts, logic or any of that jazz... it's babushkas all the way down for you, and you know that the biggest babushka is one you would never let yourself forgo, but you've made the mistake that all hubristic Creationists find themselves in: having absolute faith in every statement they make, considering their own word gospel, and that whatever they believe supersedes reality.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: JJ. For example, symbiosis requires two living things, not objects JJ.

Well Hokay Spearthrower, but the relationship between humans and objects can’t be distinguished from symbiosis.

Umm, it can. It's quite easy actually. Is it alive? No. Then it's not symbiosis.

Feel free to use another word that perhaps means what you want it to mean, but leave this word alone eh? You make up enough words as it is to flail around and evade honest discourse without needing to pervert already established words to your cause.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: So all you're doing is repeating all your errors again. Yes, we know all the errors you've made and the conversations which occurred explaining to you why they are errors, but stacking so many of them together like that just emphasizes how confidently clueless you are.

You insist on repeating your errors and refuse ever to amend them, that's why your wibble is rejected, not because of spooky atheistic ideology - just because you're spluttering out of the wrong end of your digestive tract.

Nah, what is actually happening is that in your keenness to disagree with everything a creationist says,...

It's not my fault you're acting like all the ignorant, arrogant Creationists who demand that they fucking stupid ideas be taken as valid even when manifestly wrong according to evidence and observation.

Once again, the simple fact is that if you said something agreeable, I'd agree with it... but while you're talking shit, I will consider it shit.

Onus, chap, is on you.

Jayjay4547 wrote: you have taken up the extreme position of seeing only noise in human origins,...

We should put these lyrics to music:

Self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.

Jayjay4547 wrote: not the clear signals to be read from the Australopithecus genus.

The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell a male from a female, JJ?

The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell an actual fossil from a make-believe model, JJ?

The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell one species from another, JJ?

The same 'clear signals' that results in you being unable to tell a juvenile from an adult, JJ?

Yeah, I think I'll pass on the 'clear signals' and just do the hard work of learning about them from direct observation and peer-reviewed literature, thanks all the same.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That shows just how malleable the human origin story told in the name of evolution is.

What it really shows it that you're still terminally incapable of establishing the validity of your thesis statement so you simply latch onto every non-sequitur and scrap of nonsense you can to pretend to yourself that you're doing well.