How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3961  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 24, 2019 1:53 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I explained during that interim, I had to focus on work. But also, after revealing how shallow the grounds were for your expert opinion that this was a sculpture of a female, I felt some disgust for the whole forum. Every now and then I have just taken a break.


You 'revealed how shallow the grounds were for my expert opinion' by revealing a shallow opinion from someone with absolutely zero expertise. You latched on naively to what you wanted to hear. You think a toy seller represents legitimacy! :lol:

We can go back and look again at those anatomical characteristics, if you like? Of course, you also lack any relevant ability and it's way over your head, but you still want to pretend you have some credibility.

Alternatively, you can stop hiding from all those citations to scientific journals I posted directly contradicting your assertions. You know, the dozen or more experts in the field which completely corroborate my position, completely contradict your claims, and which give you no more room for prevarication.

Isn't it a fun little game you're playing where actual experts, rank after rank of them, are somehow outweighed by a guy who sells replica tat.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
It just delighted me that the people who sold or had commissioned this sculpture from “master sculptor Steve Pinney” told me a different sex than the one Spearthrower had so long jeered at me for not recognising.


And again, you're lying.

They didn't commission it JJ.

24 websites - without even trying to be comprehensive - sell this sculpture. That's not a commissioned sculpture, JJ. The website you wrote to simply sells it.

The guy you quoted is supposedly an expert in dinosaurs, btw. Do you think a statement by an expert in dinosaurs about sexing hominids by crania is more legitimate than a statement, supported by detailed anatomical analysis and a dozen references to peer reviewed literature, by a trained palaeoanthropologist?

If so, do please continue expanding on your nonsense just to make sure everyone gets the opportunity to laugh at your transparent motivations.

It delighted you to have your ignorant argument corroborated by someone equally ignorant. Exactly what I happened to write about in the post directly before you so proudly shared your toy seller email.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: I provided a fairly complete list of characteristics which allows trained palaeoanthropologists to sex male or female Australopithecus afarensis' crania, I also supplied something in the region of 20 independent sources from expert palaeoanthropologists reporting in respectable peer-reviewed journals explicit anatomical descriptions which professionals in the field recognize as metrics for establishing the sex of afarensis... JJ has outright ignored each and every one of these - not even replying to those posts - his bar is a single email to a seller of Dinosaur replica items with no training whatsoever in anything relevant to sexing any hominid, let alone Australopithecines, let alone specifically afarensis... and now he actually thinks he can score back some credibility.

Is this knowing bullshit, or is he really this ignorant?


All that is just the next ply in a developing argument.


It's all just accurately rendering what's actually occurred in this thread. I know you have a problem with accurate renditions of history, but there it remains.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I don’t have any problem with the notion that suppliers of Steve Pinney’s work sexed it according to what they thought the enquirer wanted to hear.


Not 'suppliers' - supplier. You latched onto a single non-expert opinion and you're pretending it's more valid than the detailed anatomical descriptions and multiple sources of peer-reviewed experts which contradicts that opinion.


Jayjay4547 wrote:If it were a gorilla skull, that would be another matter.


It's not a gorilla skull, so it's not another matter.


Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s still unclear to me on what grounds Spearthrower flatly declared that this sculpture was intended as that of a female Au. afarensis.


:lol:

I like how you're talking to other people rather than me. Perhaps they've forgotten? Of course, you know I haven't forgotten. The grounds on which I flatly declared that the original picture of a replica you cited naively attempting to build an argument by comparison to a male gorilla's skull was, as I explained in detail, due to morphological analysis. Remember that JJ? Or do you think it's conveniently far enough back in the thread now that you're safe pretending it doesn't exist?

Exactly what's 'unclear' to you about these grounds?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... t#p2699837

Spearthrower wrote:...the small mastoid process, the biconvex prognathism of the maxilliary subnasal surface, the small mediolateral diameter of the manidbular condyle, the occipital condyle's articular surface, the narrow interorbital block, the very narrow canine breadth, the narrow extramolar sulcus, the steep inclination of posteroinferior facing nuchal plane, the proximity of the temporal lines to the superior nuchal lines, the low frontal squama saggital convexity, and the apparent scaling of occipital squama...


Do tell... are you going to engage this? Do you want to discuss it? Are you remotely capable?

As I've already told you; there are 11 characteristics listed there providing ample 'grounds' to sex afarensis crania. I bullshitted you a little - it was a test so you couldn't blag your way out of it as you usually do. Of those 12 listed characteristics, one is not actually observable from the picture (but could be used to sex afarensis crania), one is a real characteristic of afarensis but has no differentiation between male and female so couldn't be used to sex afarensis, and one is a valid dimorphic characteristic but there were no fossils incorporating this at the time this replica was made, so an artistic license fill was used which is not valid of any afarensis (which also helps date the replica itself).

Have you engaged with this anatomical analysis? Have you my hairy arse! You've tried to ignore it. You've tried to claim it was proof of atheistic ideology. You even tried to claim it was indicative of me pulling the wool over peoples' eyes... essentially, you've tried everything possible except for engaging with it. This shows who is actually motivated by ideology, it shows how unwilling you are to acknowledge your errors or to learn about a subject you are clearly ignorant of yet pretend to have special magical insight. This is what makes you a clown, JJ. This is why people treat you with contempt. It's because your behavior is contemptible.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The only direct evidence he offered was a cartoonish marking up of images I had supplied, and without explanation.


:lol:

And this is what makes you a liar, JJ.

You left it this many pages so that you can pretend the above doesn't exist, then you think you can fabricate a revision of history that somehow elides all the information above, pretending it never happened, rendering my response into a 'cartoon'. Again, this is why you receive the scorn and jeering - because your mendacious behavior more than warrants it. But there it is above again so you can ignore it... meanwhile, of course, anyone who happened to miss it before now knows your rendition is bullshit.

Also funny to note how you're talking about me, rather than to me, as if attempting to convince other people that I made cartoony images.

Again, in reality, what I actually did was perfectly normal for the field. I drew lines of planes for comparison between 2 pictures, I circled regions to highlight them, again in a comparative function. At the time, you actually tried to claim I was defacing the pictures (thereby evading actually addressing the points I made), like I had somehow destroyed the original evidence. Now you want to make it seem like I was drawing silly pictures and being a buffoon rather than offering solid, substantive, and expert criticism of your woolly make-believe blagging.

Once again, it's perfectly perplexing that you think you can pull off this deceit. It takes me all of 5 seconds to go and find that exchange and provide a link right here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... e#p2703866

There it is. You quoted my post in full, including the pictures I had drawn on which offer no support to your latest attempt at dismissing them for some contrived nonsense. Everyone can see that I made a series of solid points, gave some argumentation, and you responded by accusing me of 'defacing the evidence' :lol: and that I'd defaced the evidence because I had no basis for my position. And what exactly is meant to be 'cartoony' here? :what:

I don't know if you're stupid enough to find your own argument convincing, but do you really expect other people to be so gullible?


Jayjay4547 wrote:From the evidence so far, it may well be that the sculpture wasn’t intended to be that of either sex. Unlike chimps or gorilla, where no one could mistake the sex.


Great. Now you run along and get a basic degree in comparative primate morphology, then in 3 years after you've graduated, you can come back and have an opinion that's worth a wank.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: In terms of this thread, what actually occurred is that JJ tried to make one of his ever-retreating arguments that relied on comparing a male gorilla with a female Australopithecus afarensis, I took much amusement from this as he hung so much on in, and had been pounding his chest declaring his special ability to see what kind of animal Australopithecus (an entire genus of animals) truly was, yet he wasn't even able to tell a female from a male.


No problem, here are reposted images of undoubted MALE gorilla and Au. afarensis skulls, demonstrating that our male ancestors lacked the features that enable gorilla male skulls to both take and dish out punishment.


And back we go again. So now provide an image of a female gorilla skull to go with the female A. afarensis skull if you want to make comparative assessments about anything. It's ignorant to try and make comparisons between opposite genders of two species exhibiting such strong dimorphism.

Either that or continue to show how you're motivated solely by ignorant ideology and have zero interest in evidence, reason or logic.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I added a modern human skull. It looks to me that modern humans have this difference from gorilla, in more extreme form.


This difference? THIS difference? You realize that the word 'this' is used to specify the singular, right JJ? I don't think it takes someone trained in primate morphology to see that there are plenty of differences between gorilla and modern human skulls. Of course, knowing WHY they're different is quite another problem.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Other things being equal, enough people would get the same impression,...


An absurd appeal to popularity. Truth isn't decided on by what ignorant people agree on.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... ascribe this difference to Australopithecus using hand weapons...


Oh so now it's not your special little idea, it's something the general public would simply concur with.

Of course, there's no actual logical line from one to the other. Plenty of species possess no pronounced canine teeth at all, yet haven't developed ballistic weaponry. Does JJ grasp this? No, he's lost in his navel.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and associate its exploitation with the the human faculty for speech...


And all those other species without pronounced canines that haven't developed the human faculty for speech? Got a just so story to account for all those too?


Jayjay4547 wrote:... which seems to require a larger brain,


Citation, please.

Guess what? I know you're blagging again. Can you guess how I know you're blagging?


Jayjay4547 wrote:... for that to be a significant thread in human origin narratives.


I mean it could be, if it were true. Of course, none of it is true, and it's far from being the whole picture. That's rather an important quotient towards arriving at truth claims: accounting for all the available evidence, not just the scraps you fancy.


Jayjay4547 wrote:But I argue that it isn't, partly because atheist ideology focuses on origin human origin stories where the actors are other humans.


Liar. That's not atheism, that's your strawman you've failed to project onto atheism. Stop being a lying arsehole.


Jayjay4547 wrote: While the explanation for those skull differences involves other species as main actors, i.e. large African predators.


You don't know what you're talking about as has been more than firmly established.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: On top of that, we have hard recorded evidence in this thread of JJ being unable to tell the difference between a juvenile and an adult specimen, and most amusingly, unable to even tell the difference between an Australopithecus afarensis and an Australopithecus africanus!


I doubt whether I could tell afarensis from africanus...


Um no, there's no doubt. It's recorded in this thread. That 'special sight' you have doesn't extend to being able to tell one species from another, yet somehow you think you can convince us to believe that you have this special ability, above and beyond all experts, to see what type of animal it was! :lol:

Your god goggles actually offer no special vision, JJ. They're just equivalent to a comforter.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... but my argument is that those who can, including you and also the many posters who jeer at my argument without themselves being able to tell one from another, are all blinded by your group-think.


I jeer at your arguments because i) they are absurd; not just a little bit wrong, but abjectly ignorant of so many things ii) those ignorant arguments are stated so authoritatively, so confidently, so assertively iii) you refuse to stop blagging even when it is shown with direct observation and evidence that reality contradicts your claims iv) you lie, lie, and lie some more v) you're motivated wholly by your inane prejudice against people who don't fall down and genuflect to your preferred belief system.

As for blinded by group-think; that group-think appears to be well grounded in evidence that you simply pretend doesn't exist... because it's been provided by people you're hostile to. Essentially, you're running on group-think, it's just a group-think of one. Ego.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: And yet... he still wants to pose as someone serious and credible, and is still trying to sell his special ability to really see what kind of animal a... genus of animals that diversified anatomically over millions of years.... truly was. Clown.

This is why people laugh at Creationists.


All australopithecines and their descendants seems to have shared the characteristics I point out above.


Yeah, not really going to work bullshitting a trained palaeoanthropologist to his face, especially after he's already busted your false claims and provided ample citations to peer reviewed literate directly contradicting your absolutist decrees you plucked from your navel.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3962  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 24, 2019 3:21 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

The guy you quoted is supposedly an expert in dinosaurs, btw. Do you think a statement by an expert in dinosaurs about sexing hominids by crania is more legitimate than a statement, supported by detailed anatomical analysis and a dozen references to peer reviewed literature, by a trained palaeoanthropologist?


Help me out on a point of clarity: what ‘expert in dinosaurs’ are you referring to: the sculptor Steve Pinney or the Dinosaur Corp. spokesman who said his work was of a male Au. afarensis?

Thanks
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3963  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 24, 2019 3:56 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

The guy you quoted is supposedly an expert in dinosaurs, btw. Do you think a statement by an expert in dinosaurs about sexing hominids by crania is more legitimate than a statement, supported by detailed anatomical analysis and a dozen references to peer reviewed literature, by a trained palaeoanthropologist?


Help me out on a point of clarity: what ‘expert in dinosaurs’ are you referring to: the sculptor Steve Pinney or the Dinosaur Corp. spokesman who said his work was of a male Au. afarensis?

Thanks


Miroslav Moravec, and he's not a 'Dinosaur Corporation spokesman' - he's explicitly listed as the President, CEO, and Managing Director, yet it was he who answered a random email inquiry, which should suggest to you that it's a one-man organisation. He also claims to be a palaeontologist, and an artist; I am assuming these are true for the sake of the discussion, but it's obviously not verified. It's all listed on the website, JJ - do you not even spend 5 minutes researching your own links?

A quick search shows Linkedin and Facebook profiles, Twitter, and a slew of other similar companies he's been involved with (owned) over the years.

But let's just assume he's an accredited Palaeontologist specializing in dinosaurs. Does that mean he's meant to be a legitimate source of information for sexing hominid fossils?

What he actually does, JJ, is sell toys. Toys, paintings, t-shirts and other clothing, posters, books, gems, bedding, and other tat. Good luck to him, I am not criticizing him at all.

However, you've sent one email to him and because he's said what you want to hear, you've lent complete credence to it. He used one single word 'male' that made you believe him.

Comparatively, I have explained morphological details to you, the characteristics that experts in the field use to go about sexing afarensis cranial fossil - specifically afarensis, mind you; detailed anatomical traits. I have also cited a dozen peer-reviewed papers from credible scientific journals, by well known experts in the field which all have received multiple further citations meaning their work has had a significant impact on the field as it's cited by other experts. And how much credence do you lend all that? Bugger all because it doesn't conform to your ideologically motivated preconceptions. You don't want it to be true. You don't want me to be right. You don't want me to be knowledgeable about this. You want your argument to be taken as fact, you refuse to acknowledge when you're wrong, and you justify it all by pretending that I'm the one operating under a confining ideology that constrains me to believe in some garbled nonsense you've made up on my behalf, which I reject not just because it's untrue, but because it's patently fucking ridiculous and ignorant of real world information.

You keep whining about how you're treated. Are you really this blind to yourself? Regardless of the status of my belief in divine entities, if I acted this way in a science thread on a topic I know bugger all about, then I could expect the same jeers and mockery, especially if I persisted for months and years. Stop lying to yourself JJ - you're the one creating this scenario, you're the one engendering mockery, and you're the one with the power to stop it.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3964  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 24, 2019 4:04 pm

Oh and Steve Pinney's not an expert in any scientific field. He's a sculptor who also worked on a few films in the 90's and early 2000's. I found his email address and considered writing to him for a laugh and asking him about the history of that replica, but a friend in the film industry who worked with him years back on The Planet of the Apes says he believes Pinney died some years ago. I don't know if that's true, but given the triviality of all this, I thought it's probably not worth it all things considered.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3965  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 24, 2019 4:23 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Image



Here's my response, once again, to the claim you made about these pictures. You claimed "the sculpture uses elements from both the female and male skulls "

So what I've done there is show you explicitly what's different.

I did this because you outright ignored the words I wrote explaining the differences, and you tried to claim that I'd used those words as an attempt to mislead people.

Therefore, I elected to make fun of your silly response by not using words, instead drawing shapes that SHOW you the differences.

So how did you respond to that? You declared I was 'defacing the evidence' which proves I am making it up, no less. You've now declared I drew cartoons... no cartoons there at all, JJ.

I drew planes and shapes that provide a visual comparative function. The right hand replica clearly contains nothing at all of the specifically male characteristics of the left hand fossil. But that's irrelevant, of course it doesn't as no one would knowingly craft a 'museum quality' sculpture comprised of features from both a male and a female of a species exhibiting such distinct sexual dimorphism - it's inane, it's laughable, if you had any credibility at all, you'd have lost it at this point. It's like me pretending I know all about engineering while pointing at the 3 Gorges Dam and asserting it's a bridge, then posting up a picture of it next to a bridge and saying: LOOK, it's exactly the same! It's manifest ignorance. It can only indicate utter ignorance of this topic. Again though, so what? I AM ignorant of engineering - it's a fucking specialism that takes years of knowledge acquisition to become an expert in, I just don't pretend to possess sufficient expertise to argue with people who clearly know better. You, however, do... and that IS ideologically driven. You keep projecting your motivations onto me, pretending I am following an atheist script which no atheist seems to know about, and I've told you before, I no more consider myself an atheist than you consider yourself a Luciferian. Meanwhile, you ARE ideologically motivated, you are desperate to make space to insert your god belief; fuck the facts. It's just blind prejudice all the way down.

But back on point, the right hand replica is clearly not developed from the middle fossil of AL 822-1 - the dimensions are all off, the face is flatter, the proportions are different... I can explain in anatomical terms if you like? I already offered to but you refused to take up my offer, presumably on account of how me using words is inherently deceitful! :roll:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3966  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 25, 2019 5:55 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

The guy you quoted is supposedly an expert in dinosaurs, btw. Do you think a statement by an expert in dinosaurs about sexing hominids by crania is more legitimate than a statement, supported by detailed anatomical analysis and a dozen references to peer reviewed literature, by a trained palaeoanthropologist?


Help me out on a point of clarity: what ‘expert in dinosaurs’ are you referring to: the sculptor Steve Pinney or the Dinosaur Corp. spokesman who said his work was of a male Au. afarensis?

Thanks


Miroslav Moravec, and he's not a 'Dinosaur Corporation spokesman' - he's explicitly listed as the President, CEO, and Managing Director, yet it was he who answered a random email inquiry, which should suggest to you that it's a one-man organisation. He also claims to be a palaeontologist, and an artist; I am assuming these are true for the sake of the discussion, but it's obviously not verified. It's all listed on the website, JJ - do you not even spend 5 minutes researching your own links?

A quick search shows Linkedin and Facebook profiles, Twitter, and a slew of other similar companies he's been involved with (owned) over the years.

But let's just assume he's an accredited Palaeontologist specializing in dinosaurs. Does that mean he's meant to be a legitimate source of information for sexing hominid fossils?

What he actually does, JJ, is sell toys. Toys, paintings, t-shirts and other clothing, posters, books, gems, bedding, and other tat. Good luck to him, I am not criticizing him at all.

However, you've sent one email to him and because he's said what you want to hear, you've lent complete credence to it. He used one single word 'male' that made you believe him.


Like I said, it just tickled me pink when my hunch paid off, that the spokesman for Dinosaur Corporation would say that it was a male. And I could have guessed that you would then go on to denigrate that response. It doesn’t matter to me at all whether that sculpture was intended as a male or female because I can see the wood for the trees: male and female australopithecines, like all their descendants and unlike their hominoid cousins, lacked fang-like male canines.

Spearthrower wrote: Comparatively, I have explained morphological details to you, the characteristics that experts in the field use to go about sexing afarensis cranial fossil - specifically afarensis, mind you; detailed anatomical traits. I have also cited a dozen peer-reviewed papers from credible scientific journals, by well known experts in the field which all have received multiple further citations meaning their work has had a significant impact on the field as it's cited by other experts. And how much credence do you lend all that? Bugger all because it doesn't conform to your ideologically motivated preconceptions.


When you first said flatly that the sculpture was of a female: “it just is”, I worked on a hunch that you would shoot yourself in the foot. Two hunches in a row paid off. You failed to see the difference between what expert anatomists have gleaned from comparing male and female skulls, and what guided the sculptor (more than 20 years ago, according to you). At first you said you knew what skulls he had been guided by (without sharing that). Now you try to equate the sculpture to a toy.

Spearthrower wrote: You don't want it to be true. You don't want me to be right. You don't want me to be knowledgeable about this. You want your argument to be taken as fact, you refuse to acknowledge when you're wrong, and you justify it all by pretending that I'm the one operating under a confining ideology that constrains me to believe in some garbled nonsense you've made up on my behalf, which I reject not just because it's untrue, but because it's patently fucking ridiculous and ignorant of real world information.


You take it too personally. I didn’t choose you to argue with. You go on and on about your education in human origins but you don’t seem aware that the field of origin stories is inevitably entangled with messages about what we are. I bring that to your attention and offer a critique of the message in the "scientific" view, that we are not created beings.

Spearthrower wrote: You keep whining about how you're treated. Are you really this blind to yourself? Regardless of the status of my belief in divine entities, if I acted this way in a science thread on a topic I know bugger all about, then I could expect the same jeers and mockery, especially if I persisted for months and years. Stop lying to yourself JJ - you're the one creating this scenario, you're the one engendering mockery, and you're the one with the power to stop it.


It’s not whining to comment on your vicious and endless personal attacks. Like other posters I know more than bugger all about human origins and a lot of what I don’t know I can find on the web. The topic of the influence of ideology on human origin narratives is larger than I can cover in months and years. You bear responsibility for your own words as I take responsibility for mine.

I’m intrigued by your post about an eagle having taken the Taung child, which I have raised before as evidence that the australopithecines were prey species. What point do you want to make? If the troop had seen the eagle in time, (as doubtless happened many times in our past) what do you think would have happened? Everyone hide!?
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3967  Postby Fallible » Sep 25, 2019 7:27 am

Ugh, how tiresome.
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49275
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3968  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 25, 2019 8:41 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Like I said, it just tickled me pink when my hunch paid off,...


Your hunch being that you'd ask a toy seller to sex a replica of A. afarensis, then you'd lend complete belief to their statement.

Yes, that's quite funny. I just don't know why you're laughing.



Jayjay4547 wrote:... that the spokesman for Dinosaur Corporation would say that it was a male


See? You've been handed information on a plate that challenged your narrative, yet here you are once again reiterating that same faulty notion. Not a spokesman, it's most likely a one-man company, unless of course you think it's typical for the CEO, President and Managing Director (all one person) to also answer random inquiries about the details of one of their huge product range?

Given how far abstracted from reality you're willing to go to engage your little fantasy, I shouldn't really be surprised how little you're interested in any detail that even suggests a conflict to your motivated reasoning.

Of course, he's wrong. The only problem with that is he should've been honest and told you he doesn't know.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
And I could have guessed that you would then go on to denigrate that response.


Please stop your incessant bullshitting and revising of history. I did not denigrate his response. If you wish to accuse me of doing so, cite where it occurred.


Jayjay4547 wrote:It doesn’t matter to me at all whether that sculpture was intended as a male or female...


Which is why you've spent several dozen pages and thousands of words arguing about it, used it as the basis to claim I am intentionally deceiving others, called into question my qualifications and profession, and even went to the trouble of emailing the toy seller.

Whether it matters to you or not is, of course, irrelevant. What matters is that one of the cornerstones of one of your endless argumentative screeds was shown wrong. You were shown wrong. Have you changed your argument accordingly...


Jayjay4547 wrote: because I can see the wood for the trees: male and female australopithecines, like all their descendants and unlike their hominoid cousins, lacked fang-like male canines.


Of course you haven't.

You're wrong. But you're not just wrong: you refuse to amend your argument in light of evidence contradicting your position. That's what makes you a Creationist.

You've offered nothing to support your claims, whereas I've cited at least a dozen papers. How have you responded to those papers? Well, there's the thing; you've ignored them. It's as if you think that ignoring evidence which contradicts your assertions means your assertions still stand. They don't still stand: they've been shown wrong, and you've been shown to be close-minded and disinterested in the truth.

Among those papers and sources I've cited and you've ignored:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2703172

Kimbel et al. wrote:Nevertheless, the A.L. 444-2 maxillary tooth size is larger than the mean values for comparable teeth assigned to A. afarensis (with the exception of the MD dimension of I1). In fact, the MD dimensions of the P4, M2, M3, and La (B)L dimensions of the I1 and P1-M3 define the high end of the range for these teeth in the hypodigm. As a result, and because the A.L. 444-2 canine size is not unusually large (it is matched or exceeded in LaL breadth by A.L. 333-1, A.L. 333w-2, A.L. 333x-3, and LH 3), its canine:postcanine tooth size is lower than in the few other A. afarensis specimens in which the ratio can be calculated. It is, of course, nothing like the extreme disproportion seen in later Australopithecus dentitions (Robinson, 1956; Tobia 1967; White et al., 1981; Suwa 1989).

Although little useful morphology remains on the A.L. 444-2 dentition, the new Hadar collection includes maxillary dental elements that amplify previous descriptions of A. afarensis dental morphology, especially that of the more diagnostic anterior teeth (White et al., 1981). Four adult maxillary canines have been added to the Hadar hominin sample as a result of the fieldwork. Two of these are fairly heavily worn (the teeth associated with the A.L. 444-2 and AL. 417-1d maxillae) but two isolated specimens (A.L. 487-1c and A.L. 763-1) are relatively unworn permitting comparative evaluation. Crown dimensions suggest that A.L. 487-1c is from a male individual (which is also indicated by the size of the associated lower canines, postcanine teeth and jaw fragments); morphologically it compares favourably with the canines from A.L. 333-2 (worn) and LH6 (relatively unworn). The A.L. 763-1 canine is smaller and is most likely from a female individual.



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2703180

Spearthrower wrote:And a 2010 paper by Ward and Plavcan has pictures, which is the only way I'm supposedly allowed to present information, but sadly not pictures of the fossils, but rather a chart:

Dental dimensions for mandibular canine crowns and roots
Image

Dental dimensions for maxillary canine crowns
Image



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704556

Spearthrower wrote:Excerpt from a book entitled 'Men: Evolutionary and Life History' by this chap:

https://anthropology.yale.edu/people/richard-bribiescas

Richard Bribiescas is Professor of Anthropology, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology


Afarensis canine teeth were also very sexually dimorphic, with males having much larger canines than females. Moreover, afarensis males' canines were smaller than those of chimpanzees, but much larger than those of humans.



http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704633

Spearthrower wrote:YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Boaz wrote:TABLE 2. A nonexhaustive list of plesiomorphic or primitive characters of A. afarensis'

Occipitomarginal sinus
Shallow mandibular fossa
Postglenoid process anterior to tympanic
Extensively pneumatized temporal squama
Flat shallow palate
Pronounced subnasal prognathism
Weak flexion of cranial base
Lateral concavity of nuchal plane
Posterior temporalis larger than anterior
Temporal lines diverge below lambda
Weak articular eminence
Foramen magnum anterior to tympanic tips
M3-temporomandibular joint distance long
Compound temporonuchal crest
Asterionic notch present
Tubular tympanic
Sagittally oriented petrous temporals
Asymmetric P3 outline
Large relative canine size
Canines project in wear
Mesial and distal contact facets on C-
Low masseteric origin
Canine jugum separate from margin of nasal aperture
Canine jugum prominent
Steeply inclined nuchal plane
Medially inflected mastoid processes
Posterior origin of zygomatic arch
Anterior mandibular corpus receding bulbous partly lateral to nasal aperture margins
Maxillary posterior tooth row convergence
Transverse buttress from canine juga to zygomatic arch
Long pedal phalanges
Curved proximal pedal phalanges



Dentition

Grine (1985) discerned four characters of the deciduous dentition that he considered unique to the Hadar and Laetoli samples, which he assigned to one species, A. afarensis. The deciduous canine in this group has a distal apical edge that is elongated and more steeply inclined than in other australopithecines. Three distinguishing characters give a “nonmolariform” aspect to the A. afarensis deciduous molar dentition: the dml (also termed dp3) has a thin distal marginal ridge, the dml and dm2 (also termed dp4) have strongly beveled lingual surfaces on their protocones (mesiolingual cusps), and the dm2 has a protoconid (mesiobuccal cusp) set strongly mesiad of the level of the metaconid (mesiolingual cusp). Johanson (198513) discussed five traits of the adult dentition that have proven “most diagnostic” for A. afarensis. The canines were generally large, both in absolute dimensions compared to other hominid samples and relative to the teeth in the same jaw.



https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0064

Yohannes Haile-Selassie wrote:Image

Dental remains from Woranso-Mille. (a) Occlusal (top row) and mesial (bottom row) views of ARI-VP-3/80g (LM2), ARI-VP-1/90 (LM3), ARI-VP-3/80d (LM2) and ARI-VP-1/462 (LM1). These molars show the lingual slope on upper and buccal slope on lower molars like Au. anamensis. (b) MSD-VP-5/50, ARI-VP-3/80a and ARI-VP-2/95, P3s from the Woranso-Mille showing variation in P3 occlusal crown morphology. (c) Comparison of lower deciduous canine root length relative to crown height. KNM-KP 34 725 (Au. anamensis), ARI-VP-1/190 (Woranso-Mille) and A.L. 333-35 (Au. afarensis). Like Au. anamensis, the Woranso-Mille specimen has longer root relative to the crown height compared with Au. afarensis. Image of the Au. anamensis specimen was obtained from Carol Ward and A.L. 333-35 was made from cast.



John Hawks wrote:Early hominins do not have the same extent of canine size dimorphism as other hominoids, but the males do tend to have larger canines than females. In early hominins like A. afarensis, this dimorphism is marked in both projection and diameter of the canines, and the lower third premolars also vary in shape and orientation between males and females. In later hominins, who accentuate the large chewing teeth, the canines still have some size dimorphism in their diameters, but this loses its utility in the robust australopithecines.



For everyone else, JJ - your intentional ignoring of these sources which contradict your claims, written by legitimate professionals in the field communicating with other legitimate professionals in the field, tells us all we need to know.

You're a bullshit artist.

But your scam's failed. Run along and try it with someone more aligned with your competence.

***cont***
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3969  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 25, 2019 8:42 am

***cont***

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Comparatively, I have explained morphological details to you, the characteristics that experts in the field use to go about sexing afarensis cranial fossil - specifically afarensis, mind you; detailed anatomical traits. I have also cited a dozen peer-reviewed papers from credible scientific journals, by well known experts in the field which all have received multiple further citations meaning their work has had a significant impact on the field as it's cited by other experts. And how much credence do you lend all that? Bugger all because it doesn't conform to your ideologically motivated preconceptions.


When you first said flatly that the sculpture was of a female: “it just is”, I worked on a hunch that you would shoot yourself in the foot. Two hunches in a row paid off. You failed to see the difference between what expert anatomists have gleaned from comparing male and female skulls, and what guided the sculptor (more than 20 years ago, according to you). At first you said you knew what skulls he had been guided by (without sharing that). Now you try to equate the sculpture to a toy.


Ooh you and your hunches! Brilliant how you've backfilled these hunches now months later, just brilliant! Shame neither of your examples of 3D chess stand up to scrutiny.

I am not remotely trying to equate the sculpture to a toy, stop lying through your lying fucking teeth.

I told you I know why the replica looks like it does because I know what fossils it was based on. When it was created, there were no complete cranial fossils of A. afarensis... consequently, I knew which bits of the cranium were known at the time and which weren't - this is clearly exhibited in that replica. The bits which were known are accurately modeled, whereas the bits that weren't known (a significant chunk) were made up, as in there was just no information to attain any accuracy - a best guess fill was used, and when later fossils were discovered of more complete crania, it is then apparent that those best guesses were wrong, and consequently these additions/omissions can be used to date when this replica was made.

So while you're busy patting yourself on the back, all you're doing is showing once again that you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

But what's vital to recall here is that you lied in your previous post, pretending you didn't know the grounds on which I called the replica cranium female, whereas I had given you detailed morphological analysis. You lied JJ - it's not something you can squirm your way out of... you didn't just lie, but you lied in a very stupid way. In fact, given this website's rules on misrepresenting other users, and knowing how they've treated such scenarios in the past, I am also confident that if I alerted the mods to your post and to what actually occurred, you'd be in for some smartly slapped wrists. I'm not going to, because you're a clown and you're making us all laugh, but I just want to remind you that there can be real world repercussion for bullshitting. At least one of those repercussions is that people stop believing you, then eventually start mocking you. Next time you appeal to pathos with your poor widdle me, I will remind you how you lied here.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: You don't want it to be true. You don't want me to be right. You don't want me to be knowledgeable about this. You want your argument to be taken as fact, you refuse to acknowledge when you're wrong, and you justify it all by pretending that I'm the one operating under a confining ideology that constrains me to believe in some garbled nonsense you've made up on my behalf, which I reject not just because it's untrue, but because it's patently fucking ridiculous and ignorant of real world information.


You take it too personally.


I take you evading my substantive post by declaring that I am trying to deceive others, and you calling into question my professional qualifications and vocation simply on the grounds of you desperate to evade facts contradicting your bullshit... too personally? :lol:



Jayjay4547 wrote: I didn’t choose you to argue with.


You chose to bullshit about my field. I thereby held your assertions to account with real world information. You then wriggled, writhed, squirmed, lashed out, and generally acted a total fucking berk desperate to pretend that your arguments were legitimate despite the evidence to the contrary.

You choose to come to this forum because you are motivated by deep hostility towards the membership, I happen to be a member.


Jayjay4547 wrote: You go on and on about your education in human origins but you don’t seem aware that the field of origin stories is inevitably entangled with messages about what we are.


Either that, or being vastly more educated than you on the science of human origins, I know you're talking out of your sphincter.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I bring that to your attention and offer a critique of the message in the "scientific" view, that we are not created beings.


Go get a slot at your local church and declaim it to the congregation. You should be ok there, assuming you've got no one educated in any biological field who consequently knows you're blagging nonsense.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: You keep whining about how you're treated. Are you really this blind to yourself? Regardless of the status of my belief in divine entities, if I acted this way in a science thread on a topic I know bugger all about, then I could expect the same jeers and mockery, especially if I persisted for months and years. Stop lying to yourself JJ - you're the one creating this scenario, you're the one engendering mockery, and you're the one with the power to stop it.


It’s not whining to comment on your vicious and endless personal attacks.


See? Poor widdle me!

You're an incessant, unapologetic liar.

This is how obsessive liars are treated JJ. In the real world, I'd either have walked away from you or punched you in the nose long ago, but here online you have a captive audience, so you keep coming back to be a shitty little manipulative liar.

Thus you've made your bed, this is what you get in response to your behavior.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Like other posters I know more than bugger all about human origins...


The difference between what you know about human origins and a spoon full of monkey jizz is that the spoonful of simian semen actually possesses some information and is much easier to swallow. Your incessant bullshit is not even wrong - you refuse to amend your ideas even when mountains of evidence contradicts you, so you can't claim to know anything at all - this thread shows otherwise.


Jayjay4547 wrote:and a lot of what I don’t know I can find on the web.


:lol:

And we all remember how well that worked out last time when you went on your cute little rant about the democratization of knowledge, then posted a picture of afarensis that was actually africanus. You clueless muppet! :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:The topic of the influence of ideology on human origin narratives is larger than I can cover in months and years.


Whereas, I know you just mean that you can blag indefinitely because it's not your repeated thesis statement that motivates you, it's your opportunity to express your prejudice and hostility to the membership here.


Jayjay4547 wrote: You bear responsibility for your own words as I take responsibility for mine.


Good: go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt. I take full responsibility for those words, and I stand by them. I would happily stand an inch from your face and say exactly the same thing. You're an obsessive liar, you're an object example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and you need psychological help to deal with your obsessive hostility.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m intrigued by your post about an eagle having taken the Taung child, which I have raised before as evidence that the australopithecines were prey species.


:lol:

You mean the evidence reported by the same scientific enterprise that you claim doesn't acknowledge the role of other species in the evolution of humans?

Yeah, why am I even expecting you to make sense anymore?


Jayjay4547 wrote:What point do you want to make? If the troop had seen the eagle in time, (as doubtless happened many times in our past) what do you think would have happened? Everyone hide!?


It's another one of your babushkas shown wrong. Not that it wasn't already shown completely false, and not that you ever even came close to establishing it as having an ounce of merit, but the fact is that the evolutionary history of our species is replete with interspecific competition, as you'd know if you ever peeked out beyond the confines of your navel.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3970  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 25, 2019 8:46 am

Richard Bribiescas wrote:Afarensis canine teeth were also very sexually dimorphic, with males having much larger canines than females.


https://anthropology.yale.edu/people/richard-bribiescas

Richard Bribiescas is Professor of Anthropology, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology


At Yale... yeah, that poorly know, low education, lacking legitimacy institution. I mean, compared to JJ the internet Creationist who knows he's right and isn't afraid to tell you repeatedly that he's right even when everything shows he's wrong... how can a Yale Professor hope to compete?


Game Over JJ. You can stay on the court throwing a tantrum demanding others acknowledge that you scored the point, but literally everyone knows you were actually rummaging around in your shorts playing with yourself when the ball flew past you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3971  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 26, 2019 6:48 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Richard Bribiescas wrote:Afarensis canine teeth were also very sexually dimorphic, with males having much larger canines than females.


https://anthropology.yale.edu/people/richard-bribiescas

Richard Bribiescas is Professor of Anthropology, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology


At Yale... yeah, that poorly know, low education, lacking legitimacy institution. I mean, compared to JJ the internet Creationist who knows he's right and isn't afraid to tell you repeatedly that he's right even when everything shows he's wrong... how can a Yale Professor hope to compete?

Game Over JJ. You can stay on the court throwing a tantrum demanding others acknowledge that you scored the point, but literally everyone knows you were actually rummaging around in your shorts playing with yourself when the ball flew past you.


You can tell when someone is throwing a tantrum, by their using extreme words, such as your earlier:
go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt. I take full responsibility for those words, and I stand by them. I would happily stand an inch from your face and say exactly the same thing. You're an obsessive liar, you're an object example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and you need psychological help to deal with your obsessive hostility.


I don’t throw tantrums. And far from demanding agreement, I’m content, based on experience, to expect no one here to appear to agree with me.

You lift the bar here, I hesitate to contradict a Yale professor about his own field. Is he comparing Au. afarensis with later australopithecine species? Compared with other hominoids, the pics below show that male Au. afarensis lacked the fang-like canines of male gorilla and chimps.

Afarensis_Gorilla_Afarensis_M-F.jpg
Afarensis_Gorilla_Afarensis_M-F.jpg (28.93 KiB) Viewed 172 times


Edit: added tantrum by Spearthrower
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3972  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 26, 2019 8:01 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t throw tantrums.


Very impressive, JJ. Keep spitting on the stone, and believing it's in your power to wear it down. But with what? Your capacity not to throw tantrums? That's all you have. You've been at this for years, and now for months, you've been trying to put something past someone with actual expertise in paleoanthropology. Anyone with any experience in scientific literature can see that Spearthrower has expertise which you lack. That leaves you spitting on the stone, back in your passive-aggressive mode.

I'll leave Spearthrower to address your comically inept tactic of comparing dentition of modern chimps and gorillas to modern and ancient humans and expecting this to throw even a little doubt on what you call the "human origins story" and what we call a scientific theory. Well done, you.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3973  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 26, 2019 8:39 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
You can tell when someone is throwing a tantrum, by their using extreme words, such as your earlier:


You're undecided whether to appeal to poor widdle me pathos, or to go on the attack, aren't you JJ? Which would serve best as a diversion, I wonder? Of course you need a diversion as always, because your entire argument has been shown to be bullshit.

So evocative, isn't it? Tantrum... like your behavior doesn't merit the strongest imaginable criticism.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t throw tantrums.


As you've just defined what tantrums are, it's rather convenient for you, isn't it?

Let's say for the sake of the argument, you don't show any emotional outbursts (clearly untrue, and I'd be happy to furnish examples of you doing exactly that), it's easily explained by the fact that you're here trolling, expressing your prejudice against a group of people in a manically obsessive fashion that sees you returning multiple times a week to take your bigotry out against people here. Given all your recorded lies, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to tell you to go fuck yourself.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And far from demanding agreement, I’m content, based on experience, to expect no one here to appear to agree with me.


Bollocks. You don't care about agreement because you're not actually making reasonable points as can be seen how you repeatedly ignore facts contradicting your claims. You use the members here to vent your hostile prejudice against those who don't conform to your precious anti-scientific religious ideology.


Jayjay4547 wrote:You lift the bar here, I hesitate to contradict a Yale professor about his own field.


No, I cited this a dozen pages ago - you ignored it as usual... just like you're also currently ignoring all the other citations to peer-reviewed papers and unambiguous statements made by expert palaeoanthropologists directly contradicting your objectively false assertions.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Is he comparing Au. afarensis with later australopithecine species?


No, why would you think that? Nothing in the sentence remotely suggests he's making a comparison between species whereas it is quite clear he is making a comparison between male and female afarensis, but no doubt you think making that up might give you a bit more leeway. Very quickly, you'll go from - [i]oh I don't want to disagree with a perfectly credible professional in an expert field - to - he clearly agrees entirely with me - before dropping the point altogether, pretending it never happened, then repeating the same bullshit you keep trying to foist off.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Compared with other hominoids[/i], the pics below show that male Au. afarensis lacked the fang-like canines of male gorilla and chimps.

Afarensis_Gorilla_Afarensis_M-F.jpg


You are delusional - none of the pics shown any comparison of canines whatsoever. You're now appealing to things that literally don't exist; either that, or it it's gaslighting. Not that it's even clear what you could hope to achieve even if the canines were visible given the 3 million year gap and evolutionary distance between these species.

But go on: point to the canines in the male afarensis, JJ. :roll: Show how much bullshit you're prepared to engage in.

And of course, we've gone from you supposedly not wanting to contradict a Yale professor whose statement buries 40 pages of your vacuous crap, to you trying to contradict a Yale professor by appealing to a couple of photographs exhibiting incomplete afarensis' crania and some replica chimp and gorilla skulls.

Game's up, JJ, and you know it.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Sep 26, 2019 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3974  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 26, 2019 9:01 am

Incidentally, anyone want to guess who it was that first identified AL444-2?

It was William H Kimbel, the Director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University:

https://iho.asu.edu/

And of course, I am sure that everyone who has been paying attention - naturally thereby discluding JJ - will immediately recognize that name because I cited him several times in this thread, only just having requoted an earlier citation that JJ ignored the first time, and of course, has ignored again this time.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2703172

Yes, that is right.... JJ ignored it 17 pages ago, and he has ignored ever since! :naughty2: But yeah, isn't it cute he wants to appeal to a fossil while contradicting the professional who first described it.

WH Kimbel et al. wrote:Nevertheless, the A.L. 444-2 maxillary tooth size is larger than the mean values for comparable teeth assigned to A. afarensis (with the exception of the MD dimension of I1). In fact, the MD dimensions of the P4, M2, M3, and La (B)L dimensions of the I1 and P1-M3 define the high end of the range for these teeth in the hypodigm. As a result, and because the A.L. 444-2 canine size is not unusually large (it is matched or exceeded in LaL breadth by A.L. 333-1, A.L. 333w-2, A.L. 333x-3, and LH 3), its canine:postcanine tooth size is lower than in the few other A. afarensis specimens in which the ratio can be calculated. It is, of course, nothing like the extreme disproportion seen in later Australopithecus dentitions (Robinson, 1956; Tobia 1967; White et al., 1981; Suwa 1989).

Although little useful morphology remains on the A.L. 444-2 dentition, the new Hadar collection includes maxillary dental elements that amplify previous descriptions of A. afarensis dental morphology, especially that of the more diagnostic anterior teeth (White et al., 1981). Four adult maxillary canines have been added to the Hadar hominin sample as a result of the fieldwork. Two of these are fairly heavily worn (the teeth associated with the A.L. 444-2 and AL. 417-1d maxillae) but two isolated specimens (A.L. 487-1c and A.L. 763-1) are relatively unworn permitting comparative evaluation. Crown dimensions suggest that A.L. 487-1c is from a male individual (which is also indicated by the size of the associated lower canines, postcanine teeth and jaw fragments); morphologically it compares favourably with the canines from A.L. 333-2 (worn) and LH6 (relatively unworn). The A.L. 763-1 canine is smaller and is most likely from a female individual.



All these references to the comparative size of male and female afarensis canines, to the diagnostic characteristic of male afarensis canines being of a specific, large size, to the point no doubt too subtle or too inconvenient for JJ to notice that later afarensis fossils actually exhibited comparatively larger canines than these early specimens... all these references are an aside for the moment, because what's absolutely relevant to the latest little foray of JJ's are these 2 sentences:

- little useful morphology remains on the A.L. 444-2 dentition

- Two of these are fairly heavily worn (the teeth associated with the A.L. 444-2...)

So now we have JJ attempting to appeal to the canines of a photograph of a fossil that doesn't even show any associated canines at all, plus the specimen exhibits extreme wear on its dentition to the point of it being one of the most intriguing fossils for afarensis sociobiology expressly because of what this suggests for the specimen's age and clues towards its diet. If only JJ first learned enough to know what he was talking about prior to making such obtuse assertions indicating only the paucity of his comprehension.

It's amazing how rich in information the world is when you're not blinkered by a need to have things conform to your ideologically motivated preconceptions. This is why Creationists are not present at all in the advancement of knowledge and the discovery of new information.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3975  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 27, 2019 6:14 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Image


Here's my response, once again, to the claim you made about these pictures. You claimed "the sculpture uses elements from both the female and male skulls "

So what I've done there is show you explicitly what's different.

I did this because you outright ignored the words I wrote explaining the differences, and you tried to claim that I'd used those words as an attempt to mislead people.

Therefore, I elected to make fun of your silly response by not using words, instead drawing shapes that SHOW you the differences.

So how did you respond to that? You declared I was 'defacing the evidence' which proves I am making it up, no less. You've now declared I drew cartoons... no cartoons there at all, JJ.

I drew planes and shapes that provide a visual comparative function. The right hand replica clearly contains nothing at all of the specifically male characteristics of the left hand fossil. But that's irrelevant, of course it doesn't as no one would knowingly craft a 'museum quality' sculpture comprised of features from both a male and a female of a species exhibiting such distinct sexual dimorphism - it's inane, it's laughable, if you had any credibility at all, you'd have lost it at this point. It's like me pretending I know all about engineering while pointing at the 3 Gorges Dam and asserting it's a bridge, then posting up a picture of it next to a bridge and saying: LOOK, it's exactly the same! It's manifest ignorance. It can only indicate utter ignorance of this topic. Again though, so what? I AM ignorant of engineering - it's a fucking specialism that takes years of knowledge acquisition to become an expert in, I just don't pretend to possess sufficient expertise to argue with people who clearly know better. You, however, do... and that IS ideologically driven. You keep projecting your motivations onto me, pretending I am following an atheist script which no atheist seems to know about, and I've told you before, I no more consider myself an atheist than you consider yourself a Luciferian. Meanwhile, you ARE ideologically motivated, you are desperate to make space to insert your god belief; fuck the facts. It's just blind prejudice all the way down.

But back on point, the right hand replica is clearly not developed from the middle fossil of AL 822-1 - the dimensions are all off, the face is flatter, the proportions are different... I can explain in anatomical terms if you like? I already offered to but you refused to take up my offer, presumably on account of how me using words is inherently deceitful! :roll:


The fat red lines you drew on my pics don’t reflect a serious attempt to show anyone that the sculpture on the right is inspired by the female A.L. 822-1 in the middle and not the male on the left. Not that sculptor Steve Pinney could have used this female if he made it as you said “to the best of my knowledge, 22 years ago”, seeing that A.L. 822-1 was only discovered 19 years ago and that image dates from 2010
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981961/

You originally said flatly that the sculpture was of a female, to contradict my point that Australopithecus genus didn’t have fang-like canines. All your later pics and graphs, (without explanations) and now your open appeal to authority via a Yale professor, fail to touch the point I made long ago: if any Australopithecus male had fang-like canines, then somewhere among the hundreds of sculptures and reconstructions, there would be at least one creditable pic, showing an Australopithecus male with fang like canines. Like I said, if I am shown one, that will so upset my understanding of human origins that I will leave this forum. I won’t leave it because you call me a lying little runt:

Spearthrower wrote:go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt. I take full responsibility for those words, and I stand by them. I would happily stand an inch from your face and say exactly the same thing. You're an obsessive liar, you're an object example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and you need psychological help to deal with your obsessive hostility.


My emphasis.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3976  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 27, 2019 8:17 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The fat red lines...


I wonder what is left for you to complain about?

First I was "defacing the evidence" - a transparently ridiculous accusation given that a) the pictures you first posted remained unchanged b) the actual evidence is a physical specimen located completely outside the remit of my paint program and c) drawing lines on a picture to convey information cannot be described as 'defacing'.

Undaunted by such inanity, you next tried - after many pages had conveniently passed - to claim that my only response was 'cartoonish' - there's nothing cartoony about it.

Now, the problem is that the lines are too fat?

Are you actually physically wiggling around in your seat as you write these things?

The reason they're 'fat' red lines is because I happened to write that post at a computer which possessed only the most elementary paint program. But the thickness of the lines is, of course, completely irrelevant to the information they convey.


Jayjay4547 wrote: you drew on my pics...


Not your pics.


Jayjay4547 wrote: don’t reflect a serious attempt to show anyone that the sculpture on the right is inspired by the female A.L. 822-1 in the middle and not the male on the left.


Well, to address the most obvious stupidity in that: I am not trying to show anyone that the sculpture on the right is inspired by the other two - that's your ridiculous argument, not mine. Quite the contrary, the lines convey information showing that this *cannot* be the case, which was the point I'd made both in words and in that picture. Was this a Trumpian slip of the tongue, have you completely forgotten your own argument, or is this another example of JJ's unplumbed capacity for deceit?

And why is it I was drawing lines rather than writing it out in detailed form? Hmmm? It seems a bit unfair of me not to have specified exactly why in the very same post in which I posted those 'defaced cartoony fat lines', doesn't it?

Oh wait a moment... I did.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... e#p2703701

Spearthrower wrote:Remember how well JJ responded to me explaining in technical terms the characteristics of afarensis cranial morphology?

Yeah, ignored it for a dozen pages, then sought to claim it was a smokescreen.

Which is all very convenient for him, isn't it? Because how I am I supposed to show him how abjectly fucking clueless he is being yet again if he can't understand the words I use, and spins technical explanations as being bullshit?

Well, we all know how amazing he thinks his ability to 'see' things is... and yet he's posting a comparison of 3 pictures, a male afarensis fossil cranium, a female fossil cranium, and a replica afarensis female I've already said is at least 50% artistic license, and declaring they look the same to him.

Ok, I guess I will draw in crayon, as that appears to be the only permissible form of communication.



So once again, you are caught attempting to revise history to suit your argument. And you wonder why people consider you an compulsive liar.

The fact is that after carefully ignoring the detailed anatomical analysis I wrote of the original replica, you then attempted over the course of 4 pages to claim I was trying to deceive people with what I had written:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... e#p2702447

Jayjay4547 wrote:Your technical description above sounds impressively expert but it establishes nothing about the relative canine lengths of male and female hominins. It wasn't even clear whether your description was to distinguish male from female, or afarensis from other Australopithecus species as you imply in your post now. .And what those pics show is how closely the male hominin skulls resembled the female. A pictures is worth a thousand words, at least when the words are meant to put up a smokescreen.


Yes, it was yet another transparent evasion of ever addressing information which doesn't conform to your screed, this time by pretending that words weren't worth anything, and that pictures tell the story. So after laughing at how obvious this was, I then called your bluff and posted a substantive response to your contentions in pictorial form.

And now, a convenient dozen or so pages later, you're complaining that I am using pictures!

It's almost as if you don't want there to be any way at all for me to respond to your claims, JJ. Wouldn't that be the most convenient way possible, if someone qualified in comparative primate morphology wasn't permitted to challenge your claims about comparative primate morphology.

Perhaps you should demand I respond in experimental dance next? :)



Jayjay4547 wrote:Not that sculptor Steve Pinney could have used this female if he made it as you said “to the best of my knowledge, 22 years ago”, seeing that A.L. 822-1 was only discovered 19 years ago and that image dates from 2010
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981961/


Oh my god, you are so confused and lost, it's amazing how you still sound so confident.

Yes, he COULD NOT HAVE USED THAT FOSSIL... that was EXACTLY MY POINT. You were trying to claim the opposite, I was showing you wrong.

Pinney didn't know about that fossil, which is why so many of the fill-in details in his sculpture are so wrong. I drew planes for comparative purposes so you can see with your own eyes where he's made up details where he possessed no reference to draw from.

This is becoming gob-smackingly obtuse now. You don't seem to remember what you were arguing, let alone having even a passing grasp of the conversation.

Those paying attention, however, will note that even 25+ pages ago, I was already saying the same thing: that 40% of the female A. afarensis cranial replica you posted was artistic license.



Jayjay4547 wrote:You originally said flatly that the sculpture was of a female,...


The adverb 'flatly' there is doing nothing.

I said the sculpture was female because it IS female. You, of course, couldn't lower yourself to ask me how I knew it was female, so I poked fun at you for a page or two before posting up a detailed anatomical analysis of the replica showing how it was certainly female. I then followed that up by citing peer-reviewed literature from credible experts in the field confirming the key elements supporting that, including canine length and breadth.


Jayjay4547 wrote: to contradict my point that Australopithecus genus didn’t have fang-like canines.


Yes, and you know, the other citations to peer reviewed scientific literate from professional anatomical anthropologists.


Jayjay4547 wrote: All your later pics and graphs, (without explanations)...


Your arguments are funny. You claim that you can magically see things from photographs, that pictures speak a thousand words, and that written language is deceitful... yet you can't even read a graph? The graph doesn't need an explanation, JJ - it's a graph, they already contain all the information you need. The pics I drew lines on contain the information necessary to establish my point: I could of course write it out, but we've seen how you try to spin my written replies as being deceitful.

You've rather cornered yourself here, haven't you? Another example of how you refuse to permit information which won't conform to your ideologically motivated presuppositions.


Jayjay4547 wrote:and now your open appeal to authority via a Yale professor,...


Nice try, but I cited a dozen papers directly addressing your totally unsubstantiated assertion, and you've determinedly ignored them all. So I went for the pithy one-liner route you couldn't really hope to evade.

A current summary of the standing between our two positions.

You possess a declaration with no evidence whatsoever, plus you've shown how incompetent you are at judging anatomical characteristics of hominids.

I've cited a dozen professionals in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals expressly corroborating my own detailed morphological analysis; I've cited fossils with detailed accounts of their anatomy; I've cited comparative dental analysis of all known fossils up to 2010; and I've cited several experts writing simply summary sentences which directly contradict your assertion.

Yet you think there's an equality to our positions? :lol:

All we're seeing here is you adamantly refusing to acknowledge reality while stupidly believing that you can convince people to accept your declarations of reality. You have no case, just a lot of chest-beating.


Jayjay4547 wrote: fail to touch the point I made long ago: if any Australopithecus male had fang-like canines, then somewhere among the hundreds of sculptures and reconstructions, there would be at least one creditable pic, showing an Australopithecus male with fang like canines.


Ahhh so you're going to appeal to absence of evidence as evidence of your claim? :lol:

Of course, there's a logical gap in your 'reasoning' there. You might be hyper-excited about photographs, but in reality, written reports is where the majority of information resides.

In reality, I have actually posted pictures of male A. afarensis canines, but of course, they weren't attached to the maxillary bone as long, thin, sharp things tend to break under pressure... the kind of pressure that results in fossils.

Instead, there are associated canines. I'll help you out here as I know you're abjectly ignorant about this entire field. What happens is that a field researcher finds some pieces of cranium in a particular location, on a particular strata, and nearby (maybe even jumbled up together in the rock) are the pieces of the original skeleton which have become disassociated. That's the case with all these fossils which is why you see fragmentary crania with 'fills'. If you want to see pictures of all their bits stuck together, that's called a 'reconstruction' JJ. Reconstructions tend to be only used to awe the general public because computers allow far more flexibility when it comes to viewing anatomical geometry.

Regardless, let's turn it back the other way. If A. afarensis (or any Australopithecine) male possessed small, flat canines, then somewhere along the dozens of fossils and photographs of fossils, you'd be able to find and present a picture showing that. Why can't you? Well, first of all because you're wrong, and secondly because it's not even certain that you'd know what an afarensis canine looks like given how you've failed so many times in that regard in this very thread.

So go ahead and appeal to no evidence for your claim. That suits me perfectly as it's exactly what I've been saying. You have no evidence for your contention, meanwhile I have reams of evidence for mine.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Like I said, if I am shown one, that will so upset my understanding of human origins that I will leave this forum. I won’t leave it because you call me a lying little runt:


Like I said: what a silly reason. You're pretending you have some credibility that would be damaged by being shown wrong in a field you manifestly know fuck all about.

This is MY field and as such there is a reasonable expectation for me to maintain standards of accuracy, yet if I was shown wrong, I'd say 'oops' and learn from it, not flounce off into the horizon.

Your refusal to learn, your refusal to acknowledge your errors, your refusal to accept evidence which contradicts your claim is what you SHOULD be embarrassed about, but your intransigence and close-mindedness is not a badge of honour. If you want a reason to scarper off in shame, they're the reason... not being shown wrong about something you obviously lack any real knowledge about. If you were motivated by truth, you'd have been lapping this up, and quite possibly even extending some gratitude to me for correcting your previously held erroneous notions.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt. I take full responsibility for those words, and I stand by them. I would happily stand an inch from your face and say exactly the same thing. You're an obsessive liar, you're an object example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and you need psychological help to deal with your obsessive hostility.


My emphasis.



Yes, go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt.

You can't cite it every post. I'll go grab the post where you called everyone rabid dogs, shall I?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3977  Postby Fenrir » Sep 27, 2019 9:01 am

They were red too.

Red lines!

Will that be the next mortal sin worth gormlessly whining about?

Or does JJ have some till now unseen point he'd like to make?
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3383
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3978  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 28, 2019 1:29 am

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: fail to touch the point I made long ago: if any Australopithecus male had fang-like canines, then somewhere among the hundreds of sculptures and reconstructions, there would be at least one creditable pic, showing an Australopithecus male with fang like canines.


Ahhh so you're going to appeal to absence of evidence as evidence of your claim? :lol:

Of course, there's a logical gap in your 'reasoning' there. You might be hyper-excited about photographs, but in reality, written reports is where the majority of information resides.

In reality, I have actually posted pictures of male A. afarensis canines, but of course, they weren't attached to the maxillary bone as long, thin, sharp things tend to break under pressure... the kind of pressure that results in fossils./Instead, there are associated canines. ....If you want to see pictures of all their bits stuck together, that's called a 'reconstruction' JJ. Reconstructions tend to be only used to awe the general public because computers allow far more flexibility when it comes to viewing anatomical geometry.


To AWE the public? Good science tries rather to engage the public. On this topic, you have been an appalling spokesman for science.

There is no shortage of reconstructions of sabretooths with fangs. In the pics you showed of long sharp canines, the long sharp parts were the roots.

Spearthrower wrote:
Regardless, let's turn it back the other way. If A. afarensis (or any Australopithecine) male possessed small, flat canines, then somewhere along the dozens of fossils and photographs of fossils, you'd be able to find and present a picture showing that. Why can't you? Well, first of all because you're wrong, and secondly because it's not even certain that you'd know what an afarensis canine looks like given how you've failed so many times in that regard in this very thread.


Image

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: Like I said, if I am shown one, that will so upset my understanding of human origins that I will leave this forum. I won’t leave it because you call me a lying little runt:


Like I said: what a silly reason. You're pretending you have some credibility that would be damaged by being shown wrong in a field you manifestly know fuck all about.


Read my words. If it turned out that some Australopithecus had fangs, that would mean they weren’t in fact fully adapted into kinetic weapon use and my whole model of the influence of atheist ideology on human origin stories would be wrong.

Yesterday, once my Windows update had quite finished, I did feel a little anxiety. I was quite relieved to see no skull pic in your response. Was i going mad? Turned out, I wasn't.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt. I take full responsibility for those words, and I stand by them. I would happily stand an inch from your face and say exactly the same thing. You're an obsessive liar, you're an object example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and you need psychological help to deal with your obsessive hostility.


My emphasis.


Yes, go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt.

You can't cite it every post. I'll go grab the post where you called everyone rabid dogs, shall I?


Friendly advice to other viewers, don’t by mistake say something that could possibly be taken negatively, even if you are on the same side of the fence. You could get bitten. Not by rabid dogs, just over-excited promoters of scientific authority.

Edit: "scientists" to "promoters of scientific authority"
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3979  Postby Fenrir » Sep 28, 2019 1:52 am

JJ wrote:Read my words. If it turned out that some Australopithecus had fangs, that would mean they weren’t in fact fully adapted into kinetic weapon use and my whole model of the influence of atheist ideology on human origin stories would be wrong.


Read my words.

No.

It.

Would.

Not.

Lrn to logic.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3383
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3980  Postby Jayjay4547 » Sep 28, 2019 5:34 am

Fenrir wrote:
JJ wrote:Read my words. If it turned out that some Australopithecus had fangs, that would mean they weren’t in fact fully adapted into kinetic weapon use and my whole model of the influence of atheist ideology on human origin stories would be wrong.


Read my words.

No.

It.

Would.

Not.

Lrn to logic.


If a scrap like that is "logic" then thanks I'll stay away from it.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests