Atheism vs. Theism

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
24,123
16,873
24d 21h 52m
You should hear Peterson talk about that line. He says 'meek' is not the proper translation.

He says it's more something like "those who walk softly and carry a big stick" shall inherit. So basically the opposite of SJWs.
Meek has changed meaning since the translation. Prevent, also. Prevent was a cavalry tactic which meant to charge forward into the enemy.

It's why a study of history is important to the reading. So much th of language is contextual.
 

AngryGerbil

Speech Mythologist
<Donors Crew>
14,786
19,285
Okay, when I'm done with my current hopper of books I'll do Pilgrims Regress. I still have 2 Dostoyevsky's (Crime and Brothers), my second Tolstoy - War and Peace (I read his Anna Karenina first on lurkingdirk lurkingdirk 's advice), and then there is the almighty Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. So... it'll be a while. But after that I'll do Lewis. Some time in late spring I hope. Maybe summer.

Atlas was better than Fountainhead, but even it had it's flaws. If I could, I would rewrite Atlas and completely remove the John Galt character and the entire third Act of that book. Not only are they unnecessary to her making her grand point, they are also utopian sci-fi nonsense, and they are the main source of the stupid cult. She said in later interviews that John Galt was supposed to be her idea of the perfect man but to me, Dagny Taggart is the true hero of Rand's entire literary career. Dagny is the one that made an impression on me and it was her that taught me the lessons that I so cherished from that book. Still, Dagny is an executive of a shipping company so really not much more thrilling than an architect but then again, that was never the point.

In totality all Rand was ever trying to do was to revive Aristotle so as to use him as a bulwark/inoculation against Rousseau and Marx. I respect her ultimate goals and the sincere depth of the effort she made, I just think it could have been done slightly better and she certainly became too indulgent near the end of Atlas and the end of her life.

As far as the cult, in her defense, she didn't actively create it rather she just passively allowed it to form around her. Still a sin in my book but not as great as that of say Hubbard. And she did ultimately renounce it.

Anyway, Atlas was better and I'll get to Lewis when I'm done with the Ruskies. Thanks for the advice.

edit* Oh and if Kotkin ever release's the third volume of his biography of Stalin, then that gets immediately subbed in no matter what's next in the hopper.
 
Last edited:

Lunis

<Donors Crew>
1,266
3,046
10d 10h 8m
View attachment 183001

When you guys claim that these two beautiful creatures (yes, chimps are beautiful in.. umm... their own way :) ) have a common ancestors several hundred thousand years old (or more) with no living relatives (3rd branch of evolution) between them and claim that that's the pinnacle of intelligence to subscribe to that but completely ridiculous to claim that an all powerful and loving God created us... well... I'm happy for you, honestly. Heh~
You're totally right. We only have dozens of hominid fossils that were neither human or modern ape.



(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
 

AngryGerbil

Speech Mythologist
<Donors Crew>
14,786
19,285
Now you've done it. Instead of filling in the gaps between ape and man you've only just created 14 new ones! ;)

Where is the transitory species between H and I? You don't have one??? Darwin BTFO, checkmate atheists!!!
 

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
24,123
16,873
24d 21h 52m
Brothers took me about 6 months to read. I still can't entirely wrap my brain around russian naming conventions. I had to mark the shit out of my book and rename his characters just so I could follow it. So I've got a copy with a lot of pen marks of "Bud said" and "Cleetus replied".

Have you read House of the Dead? I think that might actually be my favorite Doestyevsky. It doesn't have the heft of Crime, Notes from the Underground, or Brothers... but there was something about that book that really struck a personal note. It's just so tragic.

Rise and fall will also take about 6 months, I bet. It is so meticulously detailed. Pretty sure that will remain the definitive historical text for that war. Pretty sure it was intended to be. It's basically a textbook.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos

AngryGerbil

Speech Mythologist
<Donors Crew>
14,786
19,285
Have you read House of the Dead? I think that might actually be my favorite Doestyevsky. It doesn't have the heft of Crime, Notes from the Underground, or Brothers... but there was something about that book that really struck a personal note. It's just so tragic.
I have not done House of the Dead, but Demons is probably in my top 5 all time books.

 

Feanor

Golden Baronet of the Realm
5,331
23,286
19h 20m
You should hear Peterson talk about that line. He says 'meek' is not the proper translation.

He says it's more something like "those who walk softly and carry a big stick" shall inherit. So basically the opposite of SJWs.
This.

Know how to fight, when and when not to, the sharpest ones will live to see another day.

Crusaders screech loudly with their righteous sticks of justice but really it's a floppy, progressive, purple ass piece of shit dong.



My bad. [Redacted] with their [redacted] but [inappropriate use of a color] piece of [redcated] non-gendered appendage.
 

Vanessa

Uncle Tanya
1,523
4,909
40d 15h 3m
You're totally right. We only have dozens of hominid fossils that were neither human or modern ape.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
That lineage looks good and pretty uniform. The maxilla (yes I had to google that!) recessed dramatically and the overall cranium ballooned impressively.

So help me understand this then (anyone welcome to join in): Which one is the common ancestor which we and chimps kinda "split" in our evolutionary branches? Because (A) is listed as modern and (B) is listed as 2.6 million years ago. So it's very safe to assume that A is just a recently dead chimpanzee skull and B is a dig extraction carbon dated as 2.6 million years old, yes?

Is it that Chimps themselves were at the Y intersection branch and the, say, Chimp branch didn't evolve at all during these 2.6 million years and the other branch (the human branch) evolved greatly to come to where we are now? If yes, what process (for lack of better words) stopped or inhibited the Chimp branch from evolving further into something "different" than Chimps 2.6 million years down the line? If no, do we know what our common ancestor was and do we have that skull?

When you guys claim that these two beautiful creatures (yes, chimps are beautiful in.. umm... their own way :) ) have a common ancestors several hundred thousand years old (or more) with no living relatives (3rd branch of evolution) between them and claim that that's the pinnacle of intelligence to subscribe to that but completely ridiculous to claim that an all powerful and loving God created us... well... I'm happy for you, honestly. Heh~
I supa-sized the part that I particularly wanted to focus on in my statement with your retort.

The way I wrap my head around evolution is that it is VERY possible that sometime between (B) to (N) during these 2.6 million years there would be many other living branches of these in-between transient species of homo XXX. I get that evolution has no "aim"; no "bullseye" it shoots for and that randomness is the name of the game MIXED with beneficial traits that help to propagate (in some way) the species as a whole but I'm still shaky on when / where / how new "branches" in the evolutionary tree are formed.

I guess what I'm asking is why isn't homo habilis here with us now but chimps are? What is the current chimpanzee branch of evolution "evolving to" so to speak? They're not just, in almost grade-school-speak, primitive humans... I get that... they're their own branch, but why? I also get that extinction is a thing too, don't assume that that isn't in my mind at the moment, but the questions of "why" are an endless itch for me on this, but I'm really enjoying this journey to understanding these things better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
24,123
16,873
24d 21h 52m
Well this gets back to classification and the traditions of biology. It's easiest to explain these contortions in straight lines, but the truth is adaptation is not nearly so neat a process as that. instead of a straight generational line it is more like an amorphous, roiling, multigenerational puddle of goo.

Distinctions get made in classification which are useful and meaningful but arbitrary.

You're kinda living proof of that concept. Platypus.
 

Lunis

<Donors Crew>
1,266
3,046
10d 10h 8m
Is it that Chimps themselves were at the Y intersection branch and the, say, Chimp branch didn't evolve at all during these 2.6 million years and the other branch (the human branch) evolved greatly to come to where we are now? If yes, what process (for lack of better words) stopped or inhibited the Chimp branch from evolving further into something "different" than Chimps 2.6 million years down the line? If no, do we know what our common ancestor was and do we have that skull?
You're thinking about it the wrong way. No species is ever working towards anything. The only question you have to ask is whether (x) change increases the gene frequency in a population. Depending on the environment, or change in environment, evolution can happen very rapidly or be at a near stasis. Chimpanzees fit their particular niche very well which is why they didn't go extinct. When a species reaches it's optimum state they tend not to change very much.

 
Last edited:

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Donor All-Stars>
4,224
3,115
21d 6h 13m
So help me understand this then (anyone welcome to join in): Which one is the common ancestor which we and chimps kinda "split" in our evolutionary branches?
None. We split around 4.5-5 million years ago. The first hominid listed may look like a chimpanzee, but it already had nearly half the time to evolve into that primitive form.

The reason it's listed is that it is one of the first fossils we are pretty sure IS on our branch of evolution rather than possibly being an ancestor of chimpanzees. Without the help of DNA, it becomes very hard to distinguish them as we go nearer to the population split.

DNA would help: hominins split from the chimps because two of our chromosomes fused to make pair #2, the second largest chromosome in our genome, while the chimpanzee population kept the two separate. The fused chromosome is probably the basal distinguishing characteristic between primates/great apes and hominids. Alas, sequencing fossil DNA is... horribly hard. You need to be lucky to get usable DNA (the "fly in amber" popularized by Jurassic Park).
What is the current chimpanzee branch of evolution "evolving to" so to speak?
To nothing special. One of the reasons it is assumed that we evolved to be significantly more different from our common ancestor than chimpanzees is that we changed habitats. The chimpanzee line remained in their tropical forest and kept adapted to it, while the hominids moved into savannahs and adapted to that new lifestyle (upright pose, loss of feet agility, freeing of the hand for tool use rather than locomotion help, etc, etc).

Most of the striking evolution changes occur when a population changes habitat/ecological niches.
 

Vanessa

Uncle Tanya
1,523
4,909
40d 15h 3m
You're thinking about it the wrong way. No species is ever working towards anything.
I get that evolution has no "aim"; no "bullseye" it shoots for and that randomness is the name of the game MIXED with beneficial traits that help to propagate (in some way) the species as a whole
I don't think I'm thinking about it the wrong way at all; it's that I'm thinking of the reason WE changed so much and they didn't.

One of the reasons it is assumed that we evolved to be significantly more different from our common ancestor than chimpanzees is that we changed habitats. The chimpanzee line remained in their tropical forest and kept adapted to it, while the hominids moved into savannahs and adapted to that new lifestyle (upright pose, loss of feet agility, freeing of the hand for tool use rather than locomotion help, etc, etc).

Most of the striking evolution changes occur when a population changes habitat/ecological niches.
This definitely seems reasonable and you did a better job at understanding what I'm asking and delivering an answer but still, questions remain. Why did we shed our coat of hair IF we migrated north out of the tropics? Seems a VERY beneficial trait to keep that ol' body of fur if migrating to colder climes, wouldn't you agree? Why would our maxilla recess to such ridiculously dramatic lengths just because of a temperature / geographic change? The ballooning of our cranium seems logically obvious in the basic sense of "bigger brain = more intellect" (which science debated [another topic]) and yet what is the component / mechanism / "raison de etre" that starts that process at all? Again, I get that it's "no reason", no ultimate "aim" or "goal" and yet, with Lunis's picture, my question is answered and that it appears that chimpanzees haven't evolved or changed for 2.6 million years and you're saying during that time that we, the split hominid branch, went from:

Chimpanzee_(3265647592).jpg


...in that time just because we moved out of the tropics?

It's not just these basic structures you identify (upright pose, loss of feet agility, freeing of the hand for tool use rather than locomotion help) that distinguish us from chimps... you don't need a biology degree to look at that pic and see that the differences are absolutely enormous.

It's actually difficult to articulate some of my questions without sounding either too nitpicky OR too elementary... it's hard to describe. However, at the end of the day, I guess you could call me a Crowder with evolution. Just as he already has a preset bias toward an idea which I freely admit that I do (believer), he's willing to sit down and discuss this... a change my mind so to speak. I'm a tough nut to crack, I'll admit that, but... I'm here at least :p That's more than I can say for many of my Christian brethren, and unlike Lumie, am not here to merely piss on people, ruffle feathers, and pray for your death if you disagree with me.

I'm hungry for knowledge and the truth should never scare people. I think both sides would agree to that sentiment. So let's keep talking; I'll keep listening.
 

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
24,123
16,873
24d 21h 52m
The differences are actually surprisingly small though. They look enormous to us. But it's something like 98% similarity.

2% makes one hell of a difference. Also a few -million- years.

Millions.

The time scales are vast and truly beyond immediate comprehension. The only way you can think about something that big is in abstraction.

There's also some observational biases at work that you've got to think about. The chimps that are around today are still chimps because they never stopped being chimps. That sounds obvious and stupid... yeah, but it's not. There are MORE chimps that stopped being chimps that we don't see. So it might seem befuddling, but it's about as befuddling as walking past a rock and then two years later walking past that same rock and being amazed that the rock is still there. You might have expected it to move for some reason or another, and you might have even had good reasons to suspect it MIGHT move. But it didn't.

Chimps are well adapted to live in the environment that they do. As biological machines go they are quite soundly good enough. Good enough is all it ever takes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
24,123
16,873
24d 21h 52m
Look out at your yard. There's grass out there right? A nice yard.

Well, there's not a yard. Not really. There are thousands of little plants and you habitually conceptualize that as a yard. Because you have to do that and be able to do that in order to even get out of bed in the morning.

If you look at just your LAWN you will find that it is exceptionally difficult to arrive at a full comprehension of it. Possible, but difficult.

That's not mystical bullshit. It's just a natural bias in the way that we observe. We can't change that and I don't think we should even if we could. We should be aware that we possess it. It helps a whole lot when we want to figure out what a yard actually is. Because obviously your yard exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Donor All-Stars>
4,224
3,115
21d 6h 13m
This definitely seems reasonable and you did a better job at understanding what I'm asking and delivering an answer but still, questions remain. Why did we shed our coat of hair IF we migrated north out of the tropics?
We shed that coat of hair long ago. Remember that Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern man) is a population that emerged around 200k years ago within Africa, and its last migration out of Africa was 50k years ago. At that point, our ancestor looked more or less "normal". They might have been slightly exotic - the kind you'd notice in a crowd and wonder "where does that guy comes from?" - but nothing really more. We were already naked apes by then.
Why would our maxilla recess to such ridiculously dramatic lengths just because of a temperature / geographic change?
No real idea. My guess would be food change. If your feeding habits change, your mouth is going to adjust. But that's a guess, I've got no real idea what's the paleontologists common theory on this.

it appears that chimpanzees haven't evolved or changed for 2.6 million years and you're saying during that time that we, the split hominid branch, went from:

View attachment 185318

...in that time just because we moved out of the tropics?
Nope. Because we moved out of the forest into the savanna first. Then we moved north and got de-pigmented because getting more vitamin D was better than being exposed to melanomas from the sun rays.
It's not just these basic structures you identify (upright pose, loss of feet agility, freeing of the hand for tool use rather than locomotion help) that distinguish us from chimps... you don't need a biology degree to look at that pic and see that the differences are absolutely enormous.
And they reflect a mere 3% difference in genome. Look at great cats.

The lion, tiger, jaguars, leopards, look all strikingly different. But they are entirely interfertile. Unlike us and the primates, the species haven't even drifted enough to be sterile (they've diverged for 3.5M years).

And as an aside, the chimpanzee is a "white man" under that fur. We evolved dark skin first because we lost the protective fur. THEN some populations lost that dark skin later when we dispersed over the planet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos

Vanessa

Uncle Tanya
1,523
4,909
40d 15h 3m
The differences are actually surprisingly small though. They look enormous to us. But it's something like 98% similarity.

2% makes one hell of a difference. Also a few -million- years.
2% with DNA, I gotcha. I already mentioned that we share 60% DNA with a stalk of corn, so yes I agree that 2% makes one hell of a difference. But c'mon man use those peepers of yours... that's a helluva lot of change from top to bottom for just a migratory change of environment.

...I gotta go to work :/
 
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos

iannis

Chairman Meow
<Donors Crew>
24,123
16,873
24d 21h 52m
Yes, it is a lot of change. It's also of the course of hundreds of thousands of generations.

That's the trick to it. It really is. Getting a concept of the timescales involved.

You can get a feel for it just looking at the 3 generations available to us. You can see variations between them. Small physical differences. The differences mostly don't matter and they're just random little deviations, but there are differences and some of them become persistent. Take the japs, because you're probably familiar with japs being an EQ nerd. After WW2 they started to get bigger. They physically started, as a people, to get bigger. That's partly nutrition that's partly also social factors (fewer people means more room to grow quite simply). It's not at all a mystery.

That's two generations. Obviously there's a specific reason that happened to them and obviously it's a quirk that won't continue past this generation of them. But that happened.

So what if we have a population with similar pressures or opportunities but those pressures last for more than a generation and that physical change is not hindered or self-limiting. In fact it's the opposite... that physical change confers some sort of advantage. It doesn't have to be a large advantage, just an advantage. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of generations. How many generations do you think it might take (this isn't a trick question, I don't have a number for an answer) before you began to see dramatic and noticable changes within the population? Sometimes not very many at all -- and you can actually -see- that in fast generation life (bacteria and the like).

It's so very simple that it sounds stupid.

Small Change + Big Time = Big Change
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos

Lunis

<Donors Crew>
1,266
3,046
10d 10h 8m
2.6 million years is roughly 100,000 generations assuming a lifespan of about 25 years. We've seen a branch of wolves evolve into modern dogs in about 10,000 years which is only about 700 generations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chthonic-anemos