Posted: Sep 20, 2019 9:15 am
by Spearthrower

Jayjay4547 wrote: You are just throwing mud around in the confident hope that whatever you throw around will be taken here as sticking.

Alternatively, you're talking a load of bollocks and have no recourse once you're called out for it. Go on: wave your hands some more.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Not that it’s important,...

Ahh so it's not important now.

So it's unimportant misdirection, which is why you've spent so many words addressing it. Good to know.

Jayjay4547 wrote: it seems to me...

Well that's a poor start, isn't it? We've long experience of how distant from any shareable reality the things that seem to you are.

Jayjay4547 wrote: ... that modern biologists give much more than a rat’s hoot about what Darwin said about natural vs sexual selection.

Well, that would be because you're basically entirely ignorant of modern Biology. At best, you've read a scattering of popular books over the last few decades, and then you've run them through your Creationist sieve to sort out the doctrinally acceptable parts.

In reality, modern biologists simply don't talk much about Darwin at all. It's not like anything he said is really relevant to any knowledge today aside from having been the first to publish the idea. As I've already pointed out to you: Darwin was wholly ignorant of the unit of inheritance, he didn't know about genes. You might as well claim that modern Biologists natter endlessly about Mendel. Of course, modern biologists are just a tad too busy doing modern Biology to be worried about history and Creationist revision of reality.

Jayjay4547 wrote: If Darwin had known about genes, I don’t see what he would have changed in what he wrote.

And? Again, you think you're a yard-stick. A guy with no formal training and clearly very, very little knowledge about Biology doesn't see what would've changed.


Jayjay4547 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?

In the above which I cited and you must've read in order to reply.

Jayjay4547 wrote: 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.

Awww JJ. And now it's so empowering to be counted among the scientifically illiterate reality deniers for doctrine.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Creation embodies the notions that we were formed by something greater than ourselves and that we cannot wrap our minds around it.

Evolution also embodies the notions that we were formed by something greater than ourselves that you cannot wrap your mind around.

It just has one less entity. Really, it's that entity which is the important thing to you; nice story though bro.

Jayjay4547 wrote: The concept now seems to me more enduring than I had expected.

Right because when you started believing in Creation you thought to yourself, you know this isn't likely to endure, but I'll believe in it for a while anyway just because.


Jayjay4547 wrote: 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.

Earlier you tried to sneak the concept of your preferred divine entity into the discussion by employing different labels but were called on it each and every time because, regardless of what you call it, a pile of shit still stinks.

Jayjay4547 wrote:One could argue...

One could argue many things, the motivation for so doing might be of more interest at this point.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... 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.

Oooh Mediterranean societies.

Are we plumbing some new layer here, JJ? Were these Mediterranean societies perhaps comprised of some compelling genetic characteristic that helped them in their formidable recognition?

Jayjay4547 wrote: As a Christian,...


You're not a Christian anymore, JJ. You're a Creationist.

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.

Translation: I try my best to smuggle in my pet god concept through the back door and never understand why people still spot it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.

It would only be pointless for someone else to speculate, amirite JJ? You with your special powers of seeing, well that's a different story, right?

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.

Indeed, like maybe you've acquired an adaptation to your speech anatomy that now functions from the alternate end of your digestive tract.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.


That's EXACTLY what occurred: it's still written right there.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Exactly what Darwin meant by natural selection being “more rigorous” isn’t clear...

LOL you cited it, you referred to it, and now you want it to lack clarity?

Who the fuck do you think you're talking to JJ? Some 13th century illiterate peasant?

Jayjay4547 wrote:... and in any case is irrelevant.

Wasn't irrelevant when you were citing it and pretending it meant exactly the opposite of what it says. Funny that, eh?

Jayjay4547 wrote: If an animal dies or just doesn’t procreate, the results in the gene pool are the same.

Does not follow. All animals die, JJ... well, with some potential exceptions, fringe cases.

For them to be the same, the animal who dies needs to have not procreated prior to dying, in which case, you've just erected a tautology.

Jayjay4547 wrote: That’s a sense in which sexual selection can be said to be a special case of natural selection.

No, it's just normal natural selection.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’ve always suspected that Darwin meant it’s tougher on a guy to be killed than just to not have kids.

You intuited that did you? Special sight again?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.

You do it over and over, just without those words.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Please don’t put filth in my mouth.

And yet more fatuous blagging.

Where did I put words in your mouth?

I asked you a question: Do you just want to call us all evil cunts and be done with it?

Nice try again, but these are not working out well for you, are they?

Jayjay4547 wrote: You don’t seem to understand the model I have presented...

a) it's not a model, it's just a silly assertion b) it's internally inconsistent c) you disproved it yourself d) you're either full of shit or have forgotten what you argued for dozens of pages - guess which one I think is most likely?

Jayjay4547 wrote:...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.

None of the component pieces you've ever established as existing outside the confines ff your obsessively bigoted mind.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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.

See? Logical challenge to your claim. You simply restate the claim.

This is why you're still here 10 years later having made no headway at all. You're the internet equivalent of a foam-flecked soap box demagogue who's not interested in engagement, or conversation, or dialogue... he just needs his words to be heard! They don't agree? Then SHOUT LOUDER!

Jayjay4547 wrote:
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,...

Ummm no. Not only did Darwin not do that, Biology has never done that either.

Jayjay4547 wrote: you-all copied that slavishly,

You're breaking up, JJ... you need to take your meds.

Jayjay4547 wrote: so you get the story wrong. Biologists in general, haven’t been so stupid.

You wouldn't know a Biologist if it bit you on the arse.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.

Literally no one ever has told the human origins narrative in terms only of humans. It's another of your inane strawman attempts.

Recall, I studied Biological Anthropology, so I was actually immersed wholly in human origins - not much on the narrative front, but that's another of your babushkas we can ignore for a moment - and we repeatedly looked at interspecific competition in the evolution of humans, ergo, your ignorance is showing pet.

Jayjay4547 wrote: At the same time as smudging the distinctions between humans and other humanoids. Both driven by sterile ideology.

Sorry, I speak English. There's no word 'smudging' that's relevant here, and you've erected the notion of 'ideology' without establishing any ideology.

In other words, stop repeating your inane bullshit that's been spanked back to the Bronze Age a dozen times, JJ.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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;


It's personal ridicule and it's wholly accurate.

You are ridiculous. A perfectly ridiculous figure.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not sad.

Oh sorry, I forgot you're from 1872. Another meaning of the word 'sad' typically used in such sentences as 'you sad little man' would be 'pathetically inadequate'. Welcome to 20th century vocabulary; enjoy your visit.

Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s you who carelessly slings shit around.

Wouldn't need to if there wasn't a rabid, deranged bigot manically obsessed with expressing his hatred of me because I don't genuflect to his antiquated magical myth.