EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies.

This is taken from the {Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.} thread to remove a side argument that is off topic and present it where the subject is lies and truth in posting. It should be a short topic at best, as IF I am wrong it should be easy to provide the evidence from the existing posts in one closed (cannot edit) thread.

On post http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. -->EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
Contracycle claimed:

You claimed there was no evidential support for the running ape model, and that sexual selection was therefore chosen by default.

this is false
anyone can disprove my claim by finding a post where I specifically state that, especially the "default" bit (and of course also ignoring all the posts where I don't dispute evidence of the running ape model, just that it is insufficient on it's own to explain the degree and pattern of bareness in the human ape).

contracycle was challenged to substantiate this claim and has not done so.

And:

No, you were hurling the insults, accusing me rather fatuously of not being an expert in the field.

this is also false
anyone can disprove my claim by finding a post where I specifically state that, including a list of supposed insults (of course in the process you will also have to wade through the numerous insults posted by contracycle ... as I truthfully claimed - here is a partial list contracycle ad hominums that substantiate my position:

Now you're playing dumb.
Stop playing silly buggers.
becuase RAZD cannot read
RAZD becomes possibly absurdist
displays startling ignorance
RAZD is therfore / quote: / Absurd /
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
And once again, I say unto you my child, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
I will not be lectured by a fuckwit

contracycle was challenged to substantiate his claim and has not done so.

On post http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. -->EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
Contracycle claimed:

you prposed that keys I saw 10 minutes ago are equivalent in their mystery to a god who has never been observed ever in human history.

this is false
anyone can disprove my claim by finding a post where I specifically state that specific equivalence.

contracycle was challenged to substantiate his claim and has not done so.

Also on post http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. -->EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
Contracycle claimed:

Your argument was destroyed.

this is another pathetic falsehood

but don't take my word for it, take contracycles -- this is the closest post where he might consider that he "destroyed" my argument, from {the evolution of clothes?} thread:

http://EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes? -->EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?

Now lets take another look at your "summary"

RUNNING:

* cannot explain long hair on head
... but does not contradict it

* cannot explain hair in high sweat armpits
... but does not contradict it

* cannot explain hair in high sweat pubic area
... but does not contradict it

* cannot explain hair on high sweat area of male only face
... explained through standard combat adaptaion, running model reinforced

* cannot explain greater variation of hairiness in males
... cannot explain varying height in either sex aither. Duh. Natural variation is sufficient.

* cannot explain greater average hairiness of males
... explained above, does not contradict model

* cannot explain virtual lack of sexiness of running stars
... but does explain the sexiness of dancers and leg/foot fetishism

* cannot explain why the larger and faster male is hairier than the female
... you're repeating yourself, this is twice answered above

* cannot explain actual sexiness of singing and dancing stars
... becuase RAZD cannot read. Rock stars are only sexy becuase of TV.

* cannot explain that singing and dancing stars do not look like runners
... becuase they are not directly relevant

* cannot explain actual sexiness of naked and shaved porn stars
... does, becuase hairlessness has survival value

* cannot explain that porn stars do not look like runners
... RAZD becomes possibly absurdist. They are sexy by standard running ape standards.

* cannot explain the virtual lack of any similar {hair\fur} trend in other species, even ones larger than humans that run in a hot environment, as should be predicted (or at a minimum, not be unexpected) if it is survival selection related to natural variation in {hair\fur} density.

... displays startling ignorance of the easily observed and much studied heat dissipation mechanisms in all ammalls, aquatic or terrestrial. the pattern of heavier fur toward the poles and thinner, lighter fur toward the equator is undeniable.

... RAZD is therfore

quote:
Absurd -

Notice that the best argument is "but does not contradict it" and where the evidence does contradict it what do you get? A list of insults.

Far from "destroying" my argument it is a pathetic example of clutching at straws with the mandatory contracycle ad hominum thrown in for good measure. A behavior that I complained to admin about at the time. Instead of addressing the issue they closed the thread.

(I won't answer all the failures in his post here, because that was already addressed by my reply
EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?)

He carries on in similar fashion for the rest of the thread, but of particular note is this further erudite and respectful comment:

http://EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes? -->EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?

I insisted that you acknowledge the running ape hypothesis, and you have grudgingly done so. Thats all there was; previously your argument asserted that there WAS no other theory.

And I will not be lectured by a fuckwit who cannot do something as simple as acknowledge a contrary position, and who then seeks to lie about their own statements to cover up this mistake.

Notice that we have another falsehood here:
"I insisted that you acknowledge the running ape hypothesis, and you have grudgingly done so . Thats all there was; previously your argument asserted that there WAS no other theory. "

Now notice that Contracycle in msg 121 of the {Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.} thread claims that my msg #87 of the {the evolution of clothes?} thread substantiates his position (this is the whole post):

http://EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. -->EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

contracycle, msg 121, {Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem} thread writes:

quote:
ote that to substantiate his claim all contracycle needs to do is quote one post where he can show I actually said what he claims I said. If his claim were true it truly would be easy to prove. If his claim is a misrepresentation then he cannot substantiate it, and then if he does not withdraw his claim, he intends to continue to misrepresent my positions.

You did so specifically in message 87 of that thread. You repeatedly asserted that sexual selection must be adopted in the ABSENCE of any conceivable functional benefit to hairlessness. And yet, substantive benefits to hairlessness HAVE been conceived, articulated, and researched.

This means that in fact you were in violation of:

quote:
2 Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

As you continually restated your initial assumptions and cavalierly dismissed any theory other than that which you personally favour. It remains the case you have never given a cogent rebuttal of the benefits that many people appear to see in hairlessness, as articulated in the running ape model. The fact that you disagree does not make your argument true; you did not debate in good faith.

The fact that this posting behavior description perfectly fits contracyles posts in the thread in question is an irony that should not go unnoticed by anyone familiar with reality.

But let's carry on ... what does my message actually state?

http://EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes? -->EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?

RAZD, msg #87,{the evolution of clothes?} thread writes:

a. variation within the population exists
b. significant advantage claimed for humans

see, I just don't see this as the major ne plus ultra reason for the reduction of hair size in humans.

I think it could well have been a contributing factor, but I think when push comes to shove that sexual selection trumps the running in heat model. your (b) is blocked by sexual selection ...

... I think the role of sexual selection is underrated in evolution as currently {taught\understood}

consider the working definition of species now pretty much accepts that two closely related species are still differentiated if the populations do not choose to interbreed: blocked by sexual selection.

consider the cyan warbler ring species at the northern overlap: males ignore males and females ignore males of the other {species\form}

the {running\hunting} model also does not explain why the males are still more heavily hairy than the females if they are the ones doing the {running\hunting} while the females are doing the {walking\gathering} ... of a typical sexist scenario ....

sexual selection on the other hand is capable of producing "run-away feedback" features even against individual survival needs (peacock, scissortail, etc, etc) and that several features of humans fit the categories of such "run-away feedback" systems -- bigger than necessary brains, unique in {taxa-family} body ornamentation, stong physical divergence from near relatives with little genetic drift to match ... etcetera, etcetera.

sex is what makes us human

First please notice the specific reference to the running ape model and "I think it could well have been a contributing factor"

And here is contracycles falsehood again: "I insisted that you acknowledge the running ape hypothesis, and you have grudgingly done so . Thats all there was; previously your argument asserted that there WAS no other theory. "

Now lets look at the next statement: "but I think when push comes to shove that sexual selection trumps the running in heat model. your (b) is blocked by sexual selection ..."

Sounds like what contracyle was claiming, but what is this "(b)" that is blocked?

My message was a reply to jars message #86 in that thread:

http://EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes? -->EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?

jar, msg #86,{the evolution of clothes?} thread writes:

Not sure we are saying anything different.

selection pressure that favors finer haired individual will allow them to take a more prominent role within the group, will allow their offspring to spread the characteristic into the general population

Agreed. But that does not seem to have happened within the hyenas.

similar pressure on similar species will result in similar (but not identical) reactions.

Only if the potential is there. There have to be finer haired individuals and in addition, the finer hair must actually provide an advantage when it comes to living long enough to reproduce.

the mutation that leads to finer hair is missing,
the finer haired individuals do not have a significant advantage when it comes to reproducing,

then you will not see the emergence of finer haired individuals.

Jar is talking about possible selection pressure for thinner hair and mutation in other species, and the (b) in question here:

(b) the finer haired individuals do not have a significant advantage when it comes to reproducing

here is my response again: "I think it could well have been a contributing factor, but I think when push comes to shove that sexual selection trumps the running in heat model. your (b) is blocked by sexual selection ..."

For comparison this is contracycle's claim that he is supposed to be substantiating again: "You claimed there was no evidential support for the running ape model, and that sexual selection was therefore chosen by default"

Looks like another false representation by contracycle.

This post is not to discuss the different theories here, I have started a new topic to do that, but to address the issue of the falsehoods and facts of misrepresentations.

I note that misrepresentations are violations of the forum guidelines as are failures to substantiate your claims when they are challenged.

4 online now:	DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/0