Posted: Sep 20, 2019 7:49 am
by Jayjay4547
Spearthrower wrote:
Finally, he will simply pretend it never happened and continue repeating the same falsehoods while protesting his perfect innocence, castigating everyone else for noting the argumentative deceit, and pretending it all ultimately - through some serious contortions - underscores what he's been saying all along about teh atheists


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t go in for castigation or accusing others of “argumentative deceit”. Is that lying?


Spearthrower wrote:
You have no reason to castigate others for argumentative deceit so obviously you can't go in for it whether you want to or not... in fact, given your following sentence, I am not sure why you thought to write all these words just to express this non-sequitur. Why would not going in for castigating others be lying? Only, you didn't mention - perhaps you could've thrown in a line about the variety of goods at your local supermarket, or what your shoe size is at the same time just to ensure that no sense was conveyed at all?


I put back in italics what you said, that gave context to my reply.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Thanks for all those quotes giving modern consensus in general biology on the relationship between natural and sexual selection:

Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection[/b b]Sexual selection is a form of natural selection]Sexual selection is a "special case" of natural selection.
Sexual selection can be thought of as two special kinds of natural selection
The concept of sexual selection as a special form of natural selection
Sexual selection is a special kind of natural selection
Sexual selection is a concept that has probably been misunderstood and misrepresented more than any other idea in evolutionary biology, confusion that continues to the present day.While in some ways less intuitive than natural selection, [b]sexual selection is conceptually identical to it
.


So now we have a few data points on the human origin narrative in terms of TofE


These aren't data points on anything other than how, despite your frequent assertions to the contrary, sexual selection is not something distinct from natural selection, and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with any 'human origin narrative'. Unless, of course, you're under yet another erroneous notion that sexual selection only occurs in humans. If so, think peacock. If not, think peacock anyway because it would help to get you in the habit of thinking.


Rubbish. I have no problem with these viewpoints. What I claim is that origin narratives in terms of sexual selection involve only actors of the same species; it forms a closed system. Whereas the creator is expressed in the actions of external actors. Indirectly in the case of peacock tails, directly in the more creative case of human speech and our symbiosis-like relationship with objects.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:1859 Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)
In chapter 4 he mentioned sexual selection:

And this leads me to say a few words on what I call Sexual Selection. This depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural selection.

1871” Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, about two thirds of which was devoted to sexual selection, which he justified on the grounds that natural selection could not account fr racial differences.

At about the same time (1872) Darwin added to his description of sexual selection in the 6th edition of Origin: : This leads me to say a few words about sexual selection. This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is therefore less rigorous than natural selection”


Are you really trying to claim that a book from 150 years ago is meant to be considered the last word on evolutionary theory?


No, I’m offering evidence of a consistent trend in how human origin stories have been told : Taking general biology as a bench mark reflected in the first edition of Origin of Species and the modern presentations from your quotes, compared with the human origin story as reflected in Descent of Man, Darwin’s addition to his original definition, The Naked Ape, Maslin’s article and the denial of external actors evidenced by ratskep posters.

Spearthrower wrote:
Oh what am I saying? You think the Bible is the last word on everything, so of course you're under this utterly foolish impression.


That is careless misdirecting rubbish.

Spearthrower wrote:
Further, thanks for confirming one of my stated predictions:

Spearthrower wrote:After that, JJ will go find some other source, which will be either distant and abstracted from the argument and thus perhaps be less specific in its use of language to leave room for quote-mining, or else find something that completely confounds his argument, but will include 3 words next to each other that JJ can appeal to ad nauseam as if he's struck gold.


So here we go with your endless squirming to refuse to ever acknowledge your errors.


I don’t see this other source, quote mining or something that confounds my argument. Confounds MY argument? And what 3 words? You aren’t making sense.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:2019: Spearthrower quoted a number of sources showing that in modern biological understanding, natural and sexual selections are basically the same thing.


Indeed he did, and of course we live in 2019, not 1872, and our discussion has occurred in 2019, not 1872. So are you trying to claim that you were right all along.... if this was 1872?


The theme in modern origin story telling has a historical origin; its development can be traced from 1872, as I traced in the post you are commenting on. And as I have tried to explain before.

Spearthrower wrote:
How about acknowledging your frequently repeated error, JJ? See how this works? When you refuse to do so, when you've spent dozens of pages making a false assertion then you finally can no longer pretend otherwise, it's time for you to dig out a little residual courtesy and acknowledge your mistake. Failing to do so just adds gravity to the accusation of you refusing to engage honestly. You make your own bed, JJ... then whinge about how badly it's turned out.


You could show that my argument is wrong by pointing to a TofE human origin narrative that isn’t all about our supposed sociality, male competition for the possession of females, female choice, “strategies” or male hunting.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:So, Darwin, who introduced both concepts, actually adapted his presentation in the wrong direction, to emphasise a distinction that modern biologists take care to deny.


Nope, that doesn't remotely follow from anything you've quoted. You're going to need to actually cite the part you're talking about and attempt to render it into your own words, because I know what you're trying to do, having predicted exactly this.


I did cite Darwin’s words, in double bold above. Maybe I should have used caps and big font as well to draw your attention to the point I was making. Your claims to having predicted my responses and that I squirm to avoid your points, are both crocks.

Spearthrower wrote: Further... :lol: ... do you even listen to yourself as you write? You're trying to argue that Darwin started something that has continued through to today - you know, the atheist ideology perverting the narrative of human origins... but here you are saying exactly the opposite - that modern Biologists expressly contradict Darwin, ergo it can't be the same ideology if it's wholly in contradiction. No better example of how veneer thin your 'argument' is and how much it's motivated by your need to express you vacuous prejudice.


Darwin started a style of telling the human origin story in terms of human actors, and that style has been followed by human origin story tellers ever since. That stopped them from even seeing what kind of animal our ancestor Australopithecus was (fully adapted into hand weapon use), and from seeing even the basics of the creative path our ancestors adaptively followed (exaptation). These weren’t small mistakes.

In the meantime, general biologists, not seeing the point of differentiating between natural and sexual selection, have classified the latter as just a special case.

Spearthrower wrote: Oh and let me go grab my tinfoil hat for your latest erected conspiracy delusion. Modern Biologists don't really give a rat's hoot about what Darwin did or didn't say because it's ancient news. The chap didn't even know about genes, ffs JJ.


How could it be a conspiracy delusion if I have just made it and on this forum? Who could I be conspiring with? You are just throwing mud around in the confident hope that whatever you throw around will be taken here as sticking.

Not that it’s important, it seems to me that modern biologists give much more than a rat’s hoot about what Darwin said about natural vs sexual selection. If Darwin had known about genes, I don’t see what he would have changed in what he wrote.

Spearthrower wrote: Over the years, you've become ever more the Creationist to the point you're now at the lowest common denominator where you pretend that Darwin is authoritative gospel which modern scientists must conform to. Inane.


Where do I “pretend” that? But it’s true that I have become more creationist in that I’m seeing real benefits in using that word, which previously I was shy about. Creation embodies the notions that we were formed by something greater than ourselves and that we cannot wrap our minds around it. The concept now seems to me more enduring than I had expected. Earlier, I used words like “environment”, “biome” “Africa” “Gaia” to point to the thing that appear to have the power of creation and was slow to appreciate that the old word “creator” points directly to that power.

One could argue that in the Mediterranean societies, a recognition of the human status as created beings, led to them painting this creator through myth in more concrete detail than warranted by what they could prove. As a Christian, I try to manage the problems involved in using the same word for a useful secular concept and one member of the Trinity, by not capitalising the former.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s pointless to speculate on why he did that,...


Says the guy doing exactly that.


There could be several explanations. Maybe Darwin needed to present a fat book on human origins and without his digression into sexual selection it would have been a slim volume. Maybe he was just fascinated with sexual selection as a biological phenomenon and shoe-horned it into his human origin narrative. Maybe he deeply intuited the ideological needs of his allies. These are all Maybes.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:... but the objective result was to set the style for human origin narrative in which the actors are all within the same species.


Ignorance restated. The quote you cited says exactly the opposite. It quite clearly says that natural selection is more rigorous, so you can't spin it to mean the exact contrary position.

Ergo, you're misrepresenting written records. Ergo, more argumentative deceitfulness.


Nonsense. Exactly what Darwin meant by natural selection being “more rigorous” isn’t clear and in any case is irrelevant. If an animal dies or just doesn’t procreate, the results in the gene pool are the same. That’s a sense in which sexual selection can be said to be a special case of natural selection.
I’ve always suspected that Darwin meant it’s tougher on a guy to be killed than just to not have kids.

Spearthrower wrote:
Further, as laughably inept as it is, you've just argued the opposite - that modern Biologists specifically deny what Darwin said in this regard. Are you even going through the motions of making sense, JJ? Do you just want to call us all evil cunts and be done with it?


I have zero interest in calling you evil cunts. Please don’t put filth in my mouth. You don’t seem to understand the model I have presented which is, a consistent trend in the human origin narrative, set against the backdrop of general biology that is less subject to the influence of atheist ideology.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: And that style has been followed up till today, demonstrably on this ratskep topic where every effort by me to discuss relations involving other species, is routinely ridiculed.


1) You've made yet another nonsensical leap. You've gone from the false claim that Darwin set up a human origin narrative in which the actors are all within species, to this producing some ridicule in people 150 years later on a web discussion forum. You don't even try to link the 2, you're just throwing stuff out to express your routine prejudice yet again.


It’s not prejudice to see a pattern in story telling. The trail of evidence goes from Darwin through Desmond Morris and as I cited as more authoritative than on this forum, Maslin. It’s monotonic.

Spearthrower wrote:2) Your argument is so tangled up now you don't even know what you're saying any more. That 'style' you pretend exists originating in Darwin is supposedly about sexual selection which you've just stated modern Biologists wholly contradict Darwin on... ergo, no 150 years of ideology driving the narrative, ergo your entire thread has just been shown false by you! :lol:


The influence of theist ideology, associated with the dialectic developed in the CvE debate, is a tangled and large topic but the thread I’m exploring here is pretty simple: Darwin showed how to tell the human origin story in terms of humans only, you-all copied that slavishly, so you get the story wrong. Biologists in general, haven’t been so stupid.

Spearthrower wrote:3) The reason your inane assertions are ridiculed has been spelled out so many times. Your assertions are provably wrong, provably ignorant of the topic matter, you refuse to amend those assertions even when the contrary evidence is beyond compelling, you repeat the same demolished assertions over and over again, and when you find yourself pinned you slink off to another crazy assertion before coming back a few pages later pretending that this latest one goes onto the pile with the previous ones you refused to amend or failed to defend. It's not YOU who's being ridiculed, it's your absurd behavior.


That narrative is no closer to the truth than the one you get from telling the human origin story only in terms of humans. At the same time as smudging the distinctions between humans and other humanoids. Both driven by sterile ideology.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:This place is a great laboratory for exploring that bias.


Your bias in motion. You are motivated wholly by hostility and prejudice to an obsessive level that makes you come back week after week to sling shit at people who don't genuflect to your belief system, you sad little man.


That is personal ridicule and it’s inaccurate; I’m not sad. It’s you who carelessly slings shit around.