Posted: Jan 31, 2020 3:45 am
by Jayjay4547
Fenrir wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I'm not sure I can be entirely exhaustive without spending some considerable effort on it, but looking at this picture JJ cited:


I can confidently say that I can see dozens of anatomical features that are shared between the Chacma baboon and the A. afarensis skeleton that are not shared by the dog... in fact, in comparative terms, the similarities between the two primates are only comparable in number to the anatomical differences between the primates and the canine.

So we're clearly in need of a detailed conversation about anatomy if JJ - with his special magical sight - 'sees' more similarity between the baboon and the dog than between the baboon and A. afarensis. Perhaps we can settle once and for all whether naive eye-balling of pictures really does indicate that scientific specialism is defunct as JJ has previously argued.

Anyone want to bet whether JJ's going to rely on the supposedly 'self-evident' quality of a picture to supersede any substantive discussion? I guess the only way we might be able to tell is if JJ is conspicuously coy about getting into specific details here. :)

Yebbut both the dog and the baboon are quadrupedal.

So they look more similar from a distance.

The greater the distance the betterer the similarity.

From the moon they look fucking identical.

And that's what bauplan means amirite or amirite.

Checkmate athiests!!1!

Never mind what that pic would look like from the moon, look at it on the monitor where I meant it to be viewed. It came from a post that I accidentally destroyed by pressing <Edit> instead of <Quote>,where I meant to show the benefits of comparing body plans, in the face of Spearthrower’s strenuous efforts to stop me from using “bauplan”.

Your trademark scoffing misdirection following Spearthrower’s efforts are a first reason to carry on sniffing.

Secondly, pics that compare body plans are more useful than words like “quadrupedal”, which have provoked hypothetical answers to questions like “Why are humans bipedal?” When you compare baboon bauplan with hominid, considered as competing species in the same environment, then you are looking at real data. And the comparison matches what happened in the world: the African biome effectively compared these contrasting body plans and found that both worked.

Ideology comes in with that word “special”, whose status in ideology is revealed by atheists intentionally spelling it wrong, to imply that people who think humans are special are too stupid to spell.

I added a couple of elements to that pic and shuffled it. The primitive chordate bauplan (a) below shows how the scheme of mouth at the front, anus at the back has been retained (except in hominins (f)). As the animal moves forward it meets the environment at the front end, eats what it needs, and shits out what it doesn't at the back. And near the front part of the mouth of the dog and primates are the canines, whose use is to turn live things into dead things.

Spearthrower said he could see “many” anatomical differences between baboon and canines. As is typical for him, he didn’t tell us of any of them. Well for me, the striking difference is in what lies behind the canines of baboons and dogs. I once kept a male chacma skull on my desk, When I first looked at the molars behind the massive canines the impression was so strong I felt for an second like crying; they were like human molars, but smaller. Strikingly different from dog carnassals. That showed me that whereas the dog eats what it kills, baboons kill and then eat quite different things. And what baboons eat isn’t much different from what we eat.

There has been a lot of talk here about how those baboon canines don’t signify much, and they are the outcome of between-male competition for the possession of the females. I argue that view is just part of a drive to tell the human origin narrative where the only actors are other humans. What I want to bring up now is that if I consider myself as part of the environment, then it’s very striking that I react strongly to those canines, whether in a dog or in a baboon. If it’s a dog I will scratch around for a stick to threaten it with. Because I am a hominin: that faculty to use a hand held weapon is what makes sense of the apparent divergence in bauplan from proconsul to hominin as distinct from the path from arboreal monkey to baboon.

Compare the images above: what made it adaptive for proconsul to adapt to hominin rather than to baboon? (Though I’m not confident about that proconsul image).