Posted: Sep 20, 2019 9:15 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I put back in italics what you said, that gave context to my reply.


Except, of course, that it doesn't give context to your reply. You castigate others for noting YOUR argumentative deceit. You know, what I wrote.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


No problem except that they completely contradict your spiel of 40+ pages.


Jayjay4547 wrote:What I claim is that origin narratives in terms of sexual selection involve only actors of the same species;...


Ahh here's the revisionism we've all come to expect.

This is a) untrue of what you've said b) untrue of what is factually the case, so basically, it's about as untrue as one could manage with just a dozen words.

What you've actually pretended is that the evil atheist consortium has perverted the human origins narrative since the inception of the idea of evolution by doing away with natural selection, instead focusing on sexual selection, which you have described nonsensically as 'self-creation'.

As sexual selection is not actually distinct from natural selection, as is shown by those quotes you supposedly have no problem with, then your argument is clearly nonsensical, as in, possesses no coherent sense whatsoever. This is because you don't comprehend what you're talking about due to a lack of relevant knowledge and a surfeit of overblown confidence in your interpretation of your motivating religious ideology.

Sexual selection, of course, occurs with other forms of natural selection, and all these competing factors interplay in the survival of genes into the population in the next iteration. These multi-dimensional tugs of war produce 'infinite variety' because there's no absolute directionality to it - another of your endless series of bullshit babushkas. Instead, genes which may result in a little extra hair growth that may be beneficial in a given environment, compete with genes that may result in less hair growth which may be less beneficial in a given environment... and those given environments could be climatic or social in either case, or in both cases concurrently. At the same time, there are other genes vying for their ticket into the next generation, and these may influence, negate, or promote those previous genes, in turn hampering or improving the fitness and the survival of the organism bearing them.

But of course, you pretend it's all so simple. As I've said, it's only simple when you have a simple understanding of it. When you start conceiving of billions of genes engaging in this interplay and the statistical shuffling involved in the representation of variety across a gene pool from one iteration to the next, then you could no longer pretend to yourself that it's simple.


Jayjay4547 wrote: it forms a closed system.


No, this is completely wrong. This is only an indication of how little you know. A closed system would simply repeat itself, there'd be no variation, and therefore no evolution. Why do you pretend to know what you're talking about?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Whereas the creator...


Sorry, you don't get to smuggle in unevidenced entities while bullshitting about science.


Jayjay4547 wrote: is expressed in the actions of external actors.


Gibberish. Moronic gibberish at that.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Indirectly in the case of peacock tails, directly in the more creative case of human speech and our symbiosis-like relationship with objects.


Nice assertions you got there. Must look pretty on the church altar. Tawdry counterfeits in reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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 :


You seem to think you're some kind of magician, JJ.

Citing a 150 year old book cannot, in any serious way, be taken as 'evidence' for a 'consistent trend' can it?

Further, given you acknowledged that Darwin and modern biologists disagree, then you're obviously not even trying to make sense as this would be diametrically opposite to a 'consistent trend'.


Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


This looks more like a mental health issue than a serious discussion: apophenia. You're throwing assorted scraps at a wall and pretending to yourself they make coherent pictures. In reality, they're a) mutually contradictory and b) irrelevant. The former, as is clearly the case, your interpretation of Darwin's quote is inconsistent with the position of modern Biology, ergo it is evidence contradicting your contention. The latter, ratskep posters have absolutely fuck all to do with anything. Really, the latter is just an indication of the prejudice motivating your posts here. I concur with Hermit insofar as this is clearly a deeply unhealthy obsession on your part.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.


That is indeed careless misdirecting rubbish evading how valid my point was. You're trying to appeal to Darwin to claim that atheists and modern scientists must necessarily believe it, whereas that makes no sense in terms of science or atheism... it's only religious fundamentalists who engage this form of mental subordination to doctrinal authority.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.


Like you'd ever acknowledge it even if I went through word by word. Of course you don't acknowledge it, JJ. That's because you're a bullshit artist blagging moronically about things you clearly are poorly equipped to deal with.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: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.


And your arguments in this thread were written in 2019, and the subject of your arguments was never about what was understood in 1872, but always about what's supposedly the case now. To succeed in pulling the wool over my eyes, you're going to need at least some wool JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.


Oh I could, could I?

Yeah, and so what's happened in the past when I've done exactly this? Did you acknowledge your errors and change your argument?

Of course you didn't, you either spin, misdirect and quote-mine, or ignore it if you can't fathom a way to blag it.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


Uh where do I suggest I didn't notice you'd cited Darwin, JJ?

I absolutely noticed you cited Darwin, which is why I referred to the quote you cited by Darwin and said that your argument doesn't remotely follow from anything you've quoted.

I even spelled out what you would need to do, but of course, why would you expose yourself to specifics when you thrive in ambiguity? We all know how well it's worked out for you in the past when you're pinned down to something.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Your claims to having predicted my responses and that I squirm to avoid your points, are both crocks.


Because you're going to be the judge of that? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are so predictable, JJ. That's only because your M.O. has been thoroughly exposed here over the last few years. My prediction was perfectly accurate. You went hunting for a quote, misrepresented a tiny sliver of it, and now you're going to pretend you've attained an unassailable position. Spot on. Wanna take a poll among the others here? Oh wait, we're all a faceless heathen mass to you, mass indoctrinated by our shared ideology, so that protects you from any such notion of community feedback, eh JJ?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.


Ever since, except that all the quotes shown expressly contradict everything you've written on the topic over the last 60 pages.

You keep pretending that modern Biology (as part of the atheist ideology starting with Darwin) ignores natural selection in favour of sexual selection, i.e. what you call 'self-creation'. Whereas the citations I provided state that modern Biology doesn't see sexual selection as being something distinct from natural selection.

That is to say that your entire argument of dozens of pages is categorically false.

Which of course, you will never acknowledge, and will keep repeating the same bullshit for the next 10 years, which is why you're held in such high regard here JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:That stopped them from even seeing what kind of animal our ancestor Australopithecus was...


Ahh we're back to your magical vision.

That magical vision of 'seeing' what baraminological KIND (you frothing creationist) of animal "Australopithecus" (the genus) was... that special power you possess which somehow also lets you fail to know the difference between an afarensis and an africanus, a male and a female, and a juvenile and an adult...

And you STILL THINK YOU'RE CREDIBLE! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote: (fully adapted into hand weapon use),


The Goebbels School of Argumentation.

Go learn how adaptation works.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and from seeing even the basics of the creative path our ancestors adaptively followed (exaptation). These weren’t small mistakes.


There are no mistakes, JJ, because there's no plan, no oversight, no goal, no intended outcome... just differential survival according to a suite of genes and a concurrent environment, with a healthy dollop of sheer chance involved. I make sure to add that last one as I know it will send you into paroxysms of anxiety. It's ok: once you've regained control of your motorneurons, you can soothe yourself by intoning the 'atheist ideology' mantra.


Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


Or in other words, completely contradictory to hundreds of repetitions of your previous argument. Babushka, babushka, babushka!


Jayjay4547 wrote:
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?


Uhh because Tuesday? I have 3 non-sequiturs in the morning? Do you like anvils on toast?

How would you making it and it being on this forum obviate it being a conspiracy delusion?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Who could I be conspiring with?


Umm well, I mean, nice try at equivocation, I guess... but a conspiracy theory isn't a conspiracy and doesn't mean the conspiracy theorist is engaging in a conspiracy; understandably confusing for you as it does unhelpfully possess the word 'conspiracy' which seems to have thrown you there! :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5] Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.[7][8]


Any suggestion of a conspiracy theory requiring other people to conspire?

An individual can concoct a conspiracy theory JJ, i.e. just like your conspiracy theory above. The conspiracy, of course, being that modern biologists take care to deny something that Darwin said... remember? That original non-sequitur you're still grooving from?


**cont**