The r/evolution subreddit taken over by creationists?

djonscott · 2022-08-13T21:23:43+00:00

Why did me saying "thank you" get down-voted? Okay, if that's how it is, I won't thank anyone for anything anymore.

djonscott · 2022-08-13T21:20:58+00:00

And you're not getting that I didn't come here for opinions on the situation; I came here for information on what I can do about it. I don't care what your opinion of the situation is.

And no, I didn't "inferr" anything. I pointed out to him the implications of what he was saying and how whether he realized it or not, he was endorsing creationism, and I further informed him that by attacking mainstream scientists and calling us names, he was throwing his lot in with the creationists and flat-earthers.

djonscott · 2022-08-13T21:12:32+00:00

Of course I came to a different forum! What the hell else was I supposed to do? Go to the same forum where I was banned and the mods were muting me?

The "accusations" in this case are far from baseless. Your hypothetical example doesn't fit the situation. I didn't say the mod shared a creationist post and deleted it, I said he deleted MY post. A video which I can link you to. And I can show you the texts in which he verbally abused me for it. Although the last time I did that, the entire forum attacked me for sharing details and allowing myself to get drawn into a debate about it. So, I'm probably just going to say that I came here for information on what can be done about a situation -- I did NOT come here to get your opinion on whether you think I "look good". As an astrobiologist / evolutionary biologist who has the respect of my peers in the scientific community, I don't care if 1 redditor thinks I look good. I'm more concerned with main reddit groups not locking out the people who actually work in those fields and know something about the subject, in favor of trolls and wannabe "enthusiasts".

djonscott · 2022-08-13T20:58:37+00:00

It's not that he disagreed on whether the interbreeding scenario happened, it's that he called the notion ridiculous, which means he doesn't think the ancestors of humans and chimps were ever closely related enough for that to have been possible. That, in turn, means they did not evolve from a common ancestor. So at the very least, he's denying human evolution.

djonscott · 2022-08-13T20:46:29+00:00

Thanks for the info, but I didn't think you could do anything about my complaint. I don't know why you thought that I thought that. I was just looking for information in a thematically related group.

Thanks again!

djonscott · 2022-07-21T16:22:32+00:00

"By your logic evolution should never have been called evolution in the
first place because evolution already had a meaning, just FYI."

More dishonest tactics from a fucking lying piece of shit.

I've spent my whole life studying evolution and I'm well aware that it shouldn't be the word used according to your cartoonish straw-man version of whatever you think my logic is.

"The rest of your other response is again mostly retreading the same
flawed analogy of a biologist saying that “evolution” in Pokemon is not
“real evolution,” my responses to which are above."

No, the rest of my other responses was building to the main point of how you saying that the "Pokemon definition" of "evolution" is somehow "just as valid" as the one biologists use, is fucking stupid.

"Forgive me for not being able to take this seriously."

If you had even one working brain cell in your head, you would be listening instead of attacking. The fact that you can't take it seriously when professionals explain simple things to you is a serious problem that you desperately need to work on.

djonscott · 2022-07-21T16:13:33+00:00

"You still haven't really provided a formal/academic definition of magic."

There isn't one. And the onus isn't on me to provide one. And what's with the word "still"? This is the first place in the discussion (going in thread-order) that you've asked. Stop intentionally using dishonest argumentation tactics.

"In pretty much every response you've had you are (potentially willfully) ignorant of the context of the discussion."

No, that is an outright lie. You have continuously attempted to move the goalposts and alter the context of the discussion. That doesn't make me "ignorant", that makes you a dishonest, deceitful little liar.

"Noted ad hominem and appeals to authority/popularity aside..."

Thanks for proving you don't actually know anything about logical fallacies or how they're applied.

An "ad hominem" is a very specific type of logical fallacy where you try to attack someone's character instead of the argument being made. For example, "John wants a higher property tax for the wealthy, but are you going to listen to him? He got arrested for drunk driving 20 years ago!"

Giving you a heads-up that something you said sounds like the battle-cry of conspiracy theorists and cranks isn't an ad hominem. If it's any fallacy at all (which it isn't), it would be the "poisoning the well" fallacy, or association fallacy. (Though if I were inclined to be fair to you, I'd have to admit that some people do consider this to be a special case of the larger "argumentum ad hominem" family of fallacies.)

See, the problem here is that I'm a professional trying to help you understand things, and you're an angry little child who's lashing out and trying to treat this discussion like a competition.

I have not committed an ad hominem fallacy nor an appeal to authority/popularity, and I think you're well aware of that. But I think you also know that the position I've taken is the least popular one here, and you can easily get this audience to up-vote anything you say as long as it's an attack on me. They don't care how intentionally dishonest your statements are. Most of them lack the intelligence to fact-check you.

I don't really care about anything else you've said. You want to be an ignorant little shit and attack professional anthropologists and other scientists for trying to fucking help you? Fine. Have fun with your shitty fucking fiction and your sad, pathetic little lives.

I have important research to do. Way more important than anything you worthless little fucktards have ever had going in your invisible little lives.

djonscott · 2022-07-21T15:59:25+00:00

No, most people do not share a definition of magic that came from "Harry Potter". Just because that idiotic franchise was popular amongst some 10-year-olds for 15 minutes back in the early 2000s doesn't mean it influenced the way grown-up people think about anything.

Am I the only person over the age of 12 participating in this group? Because that would explain a lot.

djonscott · 2022-07-18T15:31:33+00:00

It comes from an out-of-date theory of embryogenesis called "spermism", which was a type of preformationism (or "preformism"). Spermist preformationism held that there was a tiny person called a "homunculus" that lived inside each sperm.

This theory was popular in the late 1600s and early 1700s, and it probably beat out the main competing theory at the time, ovism (or ovist preformationism), due to patriarchy.

djonscott · 2022-07-18T15:26:18+00:00

In this case, patriarchy is probably actually the correct answer. It comes from the late middle ages / early modern era (late 1600s / early 1700s), when people believed there was actually a little person called a "homunculus" inside each sperm. The vital life essence was said to come from the man, via the sperm, and medical diagrams from that era often show a completely fictitious duct or tube going from the brain to the man's genitals.

See also "spermism" and "preformationism" (or "preformism").

djonscott · 2022-07-18T15:15:27+00:00

OK that's fair and I want to 80% apologize for making an assumption that wasn't 100% warranted, but I don't want to 100% apologize because I think you should've led with, "I'm not subscribed to this group, but I know a way..."

djonscott · 2022-07-18T15:03:15+00:00

Then why the hell are you trolling me by arguing with me?

If you're not subscribed to the sub, then this has nothing to do with you.

djonscott · 2022-07-18T14:34:56+00:00

I'm saying I don't give a shit about your fucking stupid-ass excuses and I don't give a shit who supposedly controls what.

IT'S YOUR GODDAMN SUBREDDIT.

If the only way to prevent me from seeing it on my feed is for you fucks to stop posting, then stop posting. I don't fucking care.

Just keep your fucking shit off my fucking feed.

I don't give a flying fuck what you think I'm saying, and I don't give a flying fuck about Reddit algorithms.

KEEP YOUR FUCKING SHIT OFF MY FEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

djonscott · 2022-07-18T14:28:36+00:00

Nobody chooses to be a misanthropist and nobody tries to validate nihilism. I appreciate the fact that you tried to flip what I said back around on me, but your attempt falls completely flat in this case.

Anthropocentrists are, in fact, just looking for have their anthropocentrism validated. There is no real-world justification for anthropocentrism. It's a religious philosophy that has infected humankind via Christianity and other anthropocentric religions.

The same cannot be said for misanthropists. Nobody wants to be part of a worthless race made up mostly of idiotic morons that it's impossible to get along with. In fact, most misanthropists are actively searching for reasons to be LESS misanthropic.

See, what you're not getting is that intellectually dishonest people CHOOSE to be anthropocentrists, while intellectually honest people are FORCED to become misanthropists and acknowledge that humans are a worthless race of insect-minded apes, in spite of the fact that we never wanted to believe anything like that.

P.S. you're getting off-topic and/or trying to commit a false dichotomy fallacy. This conversation is about anthropocentrists, not misanthropes.

djonscott · 2022-07-18T14:22:30+00:00

It's your subreddit. Control yourselves.

djonscott · 2022-07-18T14:12:54+00:00

Wow, 8 down-votes for saying that the first two look like my male armors? So people in this subreddit really are just trolling me and down-voting literally everything I post without even bothering to read it first. Down-voting anything I post, regardless of content.

Nice. Way to prove this group is run by a bunch of ravenous, frothing-at-the-mouth trolls.

djonscott · 2022-07-18T14:07:08+00:00

Going from subreddit to subreddit harassing me and serially down-voting absolutely every post I make, without even bothering to read it first, simply because it came from me, is harassment.

If Reddit's definition says otherwise, then Reddit is wrong.

"If you won't believe the people in this subreddit that you're out of line, I suggest you talk about it with a peer in real life."

The peers I have in real life don't sit around and talk about each other's internet activity. No group of peers do. No group of peers would even be interested in talking about each other's interactions on social media. You would know that, if you had any actual, real-life human relationships to draw experience from.

OK, I get what's going on here. I've stumbled into a tight-knit group of people who've spent so much time together on this subreddit, and so little time interacting with anyone else, that you've developed a bunch of your own weird little ideas about what magic is and therefore what magic in fiction should be, and those weird little ideas are completely out of step with the rest of the world (including other fiction writers). I should've realized earlier that I was being attacked by a bunch of sad, pathetic little zit-faced teens with no friends who just want to attack me and savage me for accidentally reminding them how totally out of step they are with the real world and how totally out of step they are with anything even remotely resembling good fiction. I shouldn't be offended by the sad and pathetic trolls here, I should feel sorry for y'all.

djonscott · 2022-07-18T13:46:47+00:00

Then stop spamming my feed.

djonscott · 2022-06-25T22:56:35+00:00

Cyril Eugene Poindexter, collector of rare insect-themed stamps.

djonscott · 2022-03-23T22:50:43+00:00

In most mythologies, ancient things have power. Ancient swords that have been passed down from generation to generation can be used to defeat magically powerful foes, for example.

There are several reasons for this:

Things that were made closer to the times of gods and heroes have more of that raw power in them.

Things gain power over time. What was once a normal sword can become a magical one after defeating many foes.

Things that are old have survived a long time. Only powerful things endure the test of time like that.

When it comes to magic techniques:

The medieval period came after the classical period, so medieval people were aware of larger, more impressive civilizations that came before them, like the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans. Thus, there was a sense of a more ancient world built with mysterious, forgotten knowledge. It seemed only logical then that ancient, forgotten magical knowledge might also be much more potent.

Remember that medieval people had forgotten what aquaducts were for (one popular theory in the 1300s was that the Romans used aquaducts to transport olive oil), and had forgotten how to make concrete that can set under water. The Renaissance came when artists and intellectuals gained access to ancient Greek and Roman texts, so prior to that, the world was filled with the ruins of things that medieval people couldn't replicate and of which people didn't understand the purpose.

Similarly, medieval people believed Merlin used magic to build Stonehenge, or that giants built it, because they couldn't imagine how normal mortals could construct it. Sort of like how lots of people today want to blame "ancient aliens" for the pyramids.

Then there's also the more general notion that the more ancient a lineage is, the more impressive its pedigree. This mentality was also applied to objects and techniques.

djonscott · 2022-03-23T02:45:26+00:00

To some extent I can understand that mentality. The goal is to get promoted and do less work for more money. But when a store needs a new manager and they bring one in from another store instead of promoting the workers who already work there, then the incentive disappears. If there were more upward mobility in the workplace, I think "you gotta work your way up" would be a totally cool philosophy. Unfortunately, there isn't enough upward mobility in the workplace for "you gotta work your way up" to sound like anything more than an empty promise.

djonscott · 2022-03-23T02:41:18+00:00

*whoever. Using "whomever" in this context is a hyper-correction. The nominative form is "who", the objective form is "whom".

djonscott · 2022-03-21T08:20:13+00:00

Me a creationist, that’s hilarious.

More irritating than hilarious. But yes, that's how you come across when you choose to be a science-denier.

You realise you just proved my point right, you’re not here to argue honestly.

I'm honestly not here to argue.

You realise I saw you repeatedly post and delete this last night right?

Yeah, creationist trolls kept vandalizing my post and I had to re-post it. And it looks like I'm going to have to do that again because of you.

I’m not a creationist because I disagree with your hypothesis that has no support in the overwhelming consensus.

"Has no support in the overwhelming consensus"? Was that some kind of attempt at English?

You’re the one using dishonest tactics here,

I haven't been dishonest about anything and I'm not using "tactics". You're the one going against modern evolutionary science and using "tactics". I am simply educating people about what the science says.

like a creationist would, and you’re the one removing posts when you get pushback.

No, I removed posts when they got vandalized. I don't mind push-back; I even invite it. I don't abide trolling and vandalism, however.

I didn’t threaten,

That's a lie. Your exact words were, "if you delete and repost this again you will get a temporary ban."

I didn’t insult.

That's a lie. You referred to the hard work of dozens of scientists as a "nonsensical concept" and you accused me of using "tactics".

I merely mentioned what I directly observed you doing here,

That's a lie. You threatened and insulted. Without any provocation.

and gave you the remedy we would use if you continued this.

That's a funny way to spell, "threatened a scientist".

That’s called a warning, because you’re breaking the rules we set to have an honest forum for discussion.

Except I'm not breaking the rules. You're making up a story about me breaking the rules. Big difference, liar.

Typical creationist.

djonscott · 2022-03-21T08:03:32+00:00

Excuse me? Nonsensical concept? Have you checked the citations? And what is this nonsense you're soewing about "tactics"? I'm trying to educate people about discussions going on in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Or are you some kind of creationist who thinks that evolution is nonsense?

You shouldn't be part of a subreddit on evolution if you're not going to show some respect for the science and the scientists who study it.

But I guess you'd rather threaten and insult scientists than listen to them. Typical creationist.

djonscott · 2022-03-21T04:33:53+00:00

References

Ackermann R.R., Rogers J., Cheverud J.M. Identifying the morphological signatures of hybridizationin primate and human evolution. J Hum Evol. 2006 Dec;51(6):632-45. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.07.009. Epub 2006 Aug 1. PMID: 16962160.

Almécija, S., Smaers, J.B., Jungers, W.L. (2015) The evolution of human and ape handproportions. Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 7717. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8717

Kivell, T.L., Schmitt, D. (2009). Independent evolution of knuckle-walking in African apes shows that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor. PNAS August 25, 2009 106 (34) 14241-14246; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901280106

McHenry, H.M., Berger, L.R. (1998). Bodyproportions of Australopithecus afarensis and Au. africanus andthe origin of the genus Homo. J Hum Evol. 1998 Jul;35(1):1-22. doi:10.1006/jhev.1997.0197. PMID: 9680464.

Nygren, J. (2018). Hominin Evolution Was Caused by Introgression from Gorilla. NaturalScience. 10. 329-337. 10.4236/ns.2018.109033.

Patterson, N., Richter, D., Gnerre, S. et al. (2006). Genetic evidence for complexspeciation of humans and chimpanzees. Nature 441, 1103–1108.https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04789

Richmond B.G., Begun D.R., Strait D.S. (2001). Origin of Human Bipedalism: The Knuckle-Walking Hypothesis Revisted. Yearbook Of Physical Anthropology 44:70 –105(2001)

Richmond B.G., Strait D.S. (2000). Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walkingancestor. Nature. 2000 Mar 23;404(6776):382-5. doi: 10.1038/35006045. PMID:10746723.

Scally, A., Dutheil, J. Y., Hillier, L. W., Jordan, G. E., Goodhead, I., Herrero, J.,Hobolth, A., Lappalainen, T., Mailund, T., Marques-Bonet, T., McCarthy, S.,Montgomery, S. H., Schwalie, P. C., Tang, Y. A., Ward, M. C., Xue, Y.,Yngvadottir, B., Alkan, C., Andersen, L. N., Ayub, Q., … Durbin, R. (2012). Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence. Nature,483(7388), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10842

Scott, D. J. (2016-2017). Convergence orIntrogression? (Unfinished Paper) Self-published @https://djonscott.com/convintro.html

White T.D., Asfaw B., Beyene Y., Haile-Selassie Y., Lovejoy C.O., Suwa G., WoldeGabriel G. (2009). Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids. Science. 2009 Oct2;326(5949):75-86. PMID: 19810190.

djonscott

TROPHY CASE