According to Creationists, the theory of evolution is always just about to fall, already been shown wrong, only being propped up by ideological quasi-religious behavior of the people involved.

Yet each year, evolutionary theory continues to be an extremely fertile area of study with tens of thousands of papers directly reliant on or testing some aspect of evolutionary theory; it still retains its place firmly as the foundation of modern Biology; and it's taught all over the world (except, tellingly, in nations where an oppressive religion holds political power) to students of every faith, creed, and nationality.

That's because, to those who aren't in ideologically motivated denial, it just offers the best explanatory model to account for the evidence by far. That strength is what makes Creationists not bother trying to argue for their own position, but instead try - albeit laughably ineptly - to undermine it, thereby thinking they can even the playing field.

Just another two-a-penny Creationist.

Thommo wrote:If she does provide examples of you lying, as you ask, I'm wondering how you think you'll respond. Will you admit error and change your posting habits? Apologise? Argue and obfuscate?

If the only one of those that's reasonably likely is the last, is there really any reason for you to ask for examples, or incentive for your critic to oblige by jumping through that particular hoop?

Speaking of providing an incentive for jumping thorough a hoop, here is where Spearthrower invited his allies to go to a source I had cited, where they would easily find something damning that he didn’t specify:

Spearthrower wrote:
Ferguson (1999)

Given JJ has supplied the link to the source above, can anyone find... with as little time investment as possible... what the problem is with JJ's citation of this paper in support of these contentions? I bet anyone with basic reading comprehension and zero knowledge of the topic could manage it as it's expressly talked about in the paper.

Assuming someone can (be bothered) then I think it will be time to pass this back again to JJ to ask why he couldn't, and it will also necessarily reflect on his arguments appealing to naive eye-balling as being superior to substantive, empirical expertise.

Now I have to go look for the source of my own unspecified guilt, like a prisoner in a Chinese re-education camp.

Thommo wrote:For some reason I just cannot find the place where you've done that Spearthrower.

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify Thommo... JJ's accusation of what I am supposedly doing changes every time he posts - I guess he's trying to find something that sticks.

But for the rest, I agree.

Asimov wrote:There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.

While palaeoanthropology is hardly the sexiest of specialist fields, nor does it confer societal status or great material benefits on its pursuers... it still gives us a small window of empirically-based insight into one of those long-standing questions our species has: how did we come to be? That's its only import, and it can safely be ignored by anyone who doesn't really care about that question.

But one cannot claim to be interested in that question *and* deny the empirical findings of this field.

For me, regardless of one's religious persuasions, it can never be sensible to deny evidence in favour of some particular interpretation of a narrative tradition: far easier and more sensible to acknowledge that stories change, that words are reinterpreted, and that our ancient forebears were simply unaware of the facts and thereby filled in the story in a way that was consistent with the greater cultural narrative of their experience. That adds a depth, sensitivity and nuance to our own story.

Despite being told otherwise many times, JJ still tries to pin 'atheist ideology' on me even though I don't consider myself an atheist. The actual relevance there is that I don't believe in the religious narrative he believes in, and that's sufficient really for him to bundle me up among the rest of the out-group he's here to express his hostile prejudice towards. Despite his protestations to the contrary, that is the one underlying aspect of this entire thread - JJ's Creationism-fueled hostility to those who won't conform to his beliefs.

My only motivation in terms of the palaeontological and archaeological record is to find true answers, not to shore up disbelief in divine entities... as usual, the Creationist projects their own motivations out onto others, so atheism/evolution becomes a religion, atheists become hidebound zealots, facts become articles of faith... when none of this is true and all of it reflects badly on the Creationist and that form of fundamentalist, literalist belief.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Ferguson (1999)

Given JJ has supplied the link to the source above, can anyone find... with as little time investment as possible... what the problem is with JJ's citation of this paper in support of these contentions? I bet anyone with basic reading comprehension and zero knowledge of the topic could manage it as it's expressly talked about in the paper.

Assuming someone can (be bothered) then I think it will be time to pass this back again to JJ to ask why he couldn't, and it will also necessarily reflect on his arguments appealing to naive eye-balling as being superior to substantive, empirical expertise.

Now I have to go look for the source of my own unspecified guilt, like a prisoner in a Chinese re-education camp.

Reading comprehension 101, JJ.

Where do I ask you to do anything at all?

I passed this over to other people as an example of the kind of error you make.

Of course, you also selectively edited out the words preceding this which gave it context you now want to suggest is somehow unfair for not being present.

You must have read those words in order to arrive at the last paragraphs, so you need to explain why the preceding words didn't already establish what I was asking for...

JJ also cited the paper.

In every single instance without fail so far in this thread, when JJ has cited a source, it's turned out that the source doesn't support what he's been citing it for.

In some cases that has proven to be an attempt to deceive people, but usually it's just because he's grasping desperately at straws and either doesn't bother reading any of the context, or simply lacks the ability to process the information.

I don't think JJ is lying in this case, I think it's that he's too lazy and basically ignorant of the subject matter which is why he hasn't realized, once again, that his proferred picture isn't doing any work for him at all.

Why does he want to cite this picture? To contest the dozen or more citations I've given to professional scientists in the field publishing their work in legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

His argument is that the picture is what really conveys information, that technical descriptions are smoke-screens, and that I am trying to deceive people by refusing to use pictures.

On top of that, JJ has spent many hundreds of words talking about the democratiztion of knowledge thanks to the internet, and how specialists no longer are necessary when the little guy with Google can find out all the information for themselves.

So you've apparently intentionally mischaracterized my post, and I suppose I am somehow meant to be obliged to extend the principle of charity? Why the fuck should I when this is standard behavior on your part?

I didn't ask you to do anything, let alone treat you in any way remotely equivalent to a prisoner in a re-education camp, but such language does indicate that you are engaging in your typical bullshit, spinning the pathos rhetoric about poor widdle you being badly treated by the meanies.

And the reason why I suggested people look at the paper was to see how easy it would be for someone else reading that paper to identify the elementary error you made while grasping desperately at straws.

If this post is meant to support your case about what a stellar individual you are in discursive legitimacy, I'm afraid you've just done gone shoot yourself in the foot again. Aren't you married JJ? I think you should ask your wife to monitor your internet access as you don't appear to be able to control yourself.

Spearthrower invited his allies

JJ, this makes you look demented.

The other members here are not my 'allies'. They are simply other members here just as you are. I invited the other members here to look at the source you offered in conjunction with your argument to see if they could spot the glaring error you'd made yet again.

The reason for this I clearly set out in the post. If other people without specialist knowledge of the subject could readily alight on that flaw, then I would turn it over to you to ask how you'd failed to spot it.

The good ship Jayjay's Atheist Ideology is long since sunk, JJ. Hanging onto the past isn't going to trawl it back up from the depths and make it sail again. Move on, do something useful with your remaining time here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Except that zoon is female,that all is just boiler plate abuse.

Poor little theist construes attacks on his behaviours as abuse. In other news, cows go moo. Why do you bore me with this? Why do you think I care to read another lie from you? Don’t you understand? I have no interest in your idiotic commentary on this, or anything else. Your behaviour has disqualified you. There was one single tame personal swipe in there. As predicted, you seized on it so you didn’t have to open your poor mind to the rest. You continue to underwhelm. Go and have another little cry, this time to people who might actually care for your particular brand of nonsense.

On reflection, I should have responded directly to your (49 000 posts) expression of exhaustion and not Fluttermoth's (200 posts) sharing your feeling. That was catty and even cowardly of me.

Earlier, you said of me: You are not ‘arguing’ anything…. You hold ridiculous views…. You lie…. You pretend…. You think that merely …You appear to not know…. You fabricate …You are a theist bore.… All your posts deserve is pity…. you making a complete fool of yourself.

None of that abuse was exampled. If you tell my I’m lying, you should at least identify the untruth and show that I (or at least a reasonable person) would have known I was saying something untrue.

I understand your exasperation that I have been turning Debunking Creationism, that used to be such fun, into a frustrating experience. It’s like June 1941: the Kampfgruppe Raus of the 6th Panzer division is smashing into Russia, creating lebensraum at pace. When suddenly in their rear along a vital supply road, appears a little Russian boy with a catty and a pocket full of seringa berries. Marshes all around. And he holds up your whole supply for nearly 24 hours. No wonder you are pissed.

What that shows is that your enterprise, that is assumed to carry immense momentum, is almost incredibly vulnerable at one particular spot. That being, the allegation that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story as told in terms of the theory you thought you owned.

Spearthrower presents that messed up story (admittedly, in caricature) when he goes on and on in various ways, about Australopithecine males not being distinguished from their primate relatives by their inability to damage their predators by biting. It’s usually creationists who get trapped into denial, which should be a warning signal. For at least 3 million years our ancestors related to other species in a fundamentally different way to other hominoids, by using hand-held weapons instead of biting and tearing out, and Spearthrower is intent on making a smokescreen over that. With some help from his allies

One of my difficulties is in going from that level of particularity, to showing how that modelling failure by ratskeps is part of an origin story where other species are mere shadows and the main actors are our ancestors in effect creating themselves. Darwin started that trope of self-creation by emphasising sexual selection and his lead has been followed slavishly up till today. I haven’t convinced you of that; not so much because of the failings you accuse me of, but through being pedestrian. I can’t help that, but I’m also not inclined to shut up because you tell me to.

Reread it 3 times and found 3 things to fix.

You have disqualified yourself from participation in reasoned discourse; you have disqualified yourself from the right to demand explanations, evidence or anything else, due to your behaviour. Just in this post alone you cannot help yourself, and have begun fabricating my supposed position. I no longer have time or patience for that kind of tedious busy work. Your invitation for me to participate in your turgid fapathon is therefore declined.

I too will be entirely unsurprised.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Ferguson (1999)

Given JJ has supplied the link to the source above, can anyone find... with as little time investment as possible... what the problem is with JJ's citation of this paper in support of these contentions? I bet anyone with basic reading comprehension and zero knowledge of the topic could manage it as it's expressly talked about in the paper.

Assuming someone can (be bothered) then I think it will be time to pass this back again to JJ to ask why he couldn't, and it will also necessarily reflect on his arguments appealing to naive eye-balling as being superior to substantive, empirical expertise.

Now I have to go look for the source of my own unspecified guilt, like a prisoner in a Chinese re-education camp.

Reading comprehension 101, JJ. Where do I ask you to do anything at all?

OK you might have been asking an unspecified person to ask me why I couldn’t find some unspecified problem with a link I had provided to a pic that demonstrated (in discussion with zoon) that as prey species, Australopithecine males lacked the scary canines possessed by male baboons who were alternative prey to the same predators.

Spearthrower wrote: If this post is meant to support your case about what a stellar individual you are in discursive legitimacy, I'm afraid you've just done gone shoot yourself in the foot again. Aren't you married JJ? I think you should ask your wife to monitor your internet access as you don't appear to be able to control yourself.

I don’t for a moment think I’m a stellar individual in any way, I just think your elliptical behaviour is ridiculous.

Come on Spearthrower, spit out this alleged problem with the link I provided to Ferguson’s picture.

You are out of line to suggest what I should ask my wife. My personal relations are outside of legitimate concerns here. As it is, I lost my dear wife recently. Please stick to issues of the relationship between human origin narratives and Creation.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
OK you might have been asking an unspecified person to ask me why I couldn’t find some unspecified problem with a link I had provided to a pic...

No, as is both clear from the original post itself, and from my follow up post, I didn't ask you for anything, nor suggest that anyone ask you anything.

Why do you bother with these shenanigans when it's still written right there in plain English?

Jayjay4547 wrote:... that demonstrated (in discussion with zoon) that as prey species, Australopithecine males lacked the scary canines possessed by male baboons who were alternative prey to the same predators.

But it in no way demonstrates that in the slightest. Your appeal to that picture is perfectly ironic in the context I've already talked about. It shows how little you know, and how little effort you put in to check your ideas... it shows how you grasp at anything which appears to you to confirm your beliefs, and how disinterested you are in what's actually true.

As for baboons, let's be clear here: you're actively selecting the baboon with the largest canines as fait accompli for your argument. However, you are of course thereby also attempting to sweep under the rug the robust rejection of your prior claim that baboons possess canines in order to fend off predators. This is one of your numerous babushka style arguments where you carry forward points that have already been successfully challenged and pretend that your already discredited argument now presents evidence towards another postulate. Of course, that's no remotely credible and your repetitive use of this 'strategy' provokes no obligation in me to apply the principle of charity: you know what you're doing, and so do I.

Instead of using your eyeballing approach, go and look into the dynamics of chacma baboon groups and see what those canines are predominantly used for. Then apply the same format of your argument. If human ancestors didn't possess X feature of these baboons and these baboons use X feature for Y scenario, then human ancestors didn't need that feature because that scenario wasn't present. Chacma baboon social organisation is well studied and it's notable for the extreme dominance hierarchy; it's the cornerstone of chacma baboon social organisation. Females in a group remain constant, whereas the dominant male changes through intraspecific conflict. Gangs of young males will attempt to ouster ranking males on a near daily basis, and threat displays and fights are common. So, using your own argumentation format, what we can tell from the difference in canine length here is that human ancestors didn't have this type of social organization, and given the decrease in overall sexual dimorphism in our lineage, this is a piece of confirmatory evidence to support the idea that either human ancestors were monogamous, or that violence in human ancestor society was coalitionary. I've already supplied citations supporting this argument from credible sources while yours remains your assertion.

As I've explained to you in the past, selection pressure is strongest in terms of the frequency in which some adapted trait is used to increase fitness and therefore continuation of one's genes (containing that trait) into future generations. You have, as usual, opted to ignore all of this in favour of your mindless caricature.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote: If this post is meant to support your case about what a stellar individual you are in discursive legitimacy, I'm afraid you've just done gone shoot yourself in the foot again. Aren't you married JJ? I think you should ask your wife to monitor your internet access as you don't appear to be able to control yourself.

I don’t for a moment think I’m a stellar individual in any way, I just think your elliptical behaviour is ridiculous.

There's no such thing as 'eliptical behavior' - are we in for another treat of your idiosyncratic declarations of supposed atheist ideology in action?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Come on Spearthrower, spit out this alleged problem with the link I provided to Ferguson’s picture.

I'll do what I like JJ.

I am not even talking to you, as is clear from my posts, and it's the very thing you're supposedly accusing me of pretending I am demanding something of you and treating you like a prisoner in a Chinese re-education camp.

You are not going to change your mind regardless of whatever I do - instead, I am using your failure as a case example for the other membership here to see how absurd the foundation of your assertion-building actually is.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You are out of line to suggest what I should ask my wife. My personal relations are outside of legitimate concerns here. As it is, I lost my dear wife recently. Please stick to issues of the relationship between human origin narratives and Creation.

Well, while I am genuinely sorry to hear that you lost your wife, I am not in the slightest bit sorry to say that you need to get a fucking grip and stop being such a hostile, bigoted asshole to people here. There's nothing out of line in appealing to you to have someone you trust review your manic obsessive behavior and prevent you from behaving in such harmful behavior. Stop pretending that people calling out your shit behavior is 'abuse' when you're the perpetrator. Introspection JJ - you need some to understand what your motivations are on this forum.

Did you even read the introduction of the paper you cited, JJ?

Did you notice the quote marks around A. afarensis?

I suggest you copy and paste the term with the quote marks and then search the paper for that term.

After that, I would also recommend you try to cite papers which a) you've actually read b) which are from within the last decade or so, rather than keep trawling back to papers from decades or even a century ago when current information was not available. That current information will always supersede claims made in the past which lacked the evidence we have today. This is particularly noticeable in this paper because, even though it's already 20 years old, it's actually talking about finds and discussion from 20 years prior to that, meaning your picture is 40 years old... that alone should have given you pause for thought if you knew what you were talking about.

Once you finally clock what your picture represents... are you going to sheepishly say "FUCK" again and then pretend that it didn't happen? Or are you finally going to realize that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but that it's bloody obvious that you don't to someone who does?

That is to say the image Jayjay used to show features (well, presumably just small canines) of A. afarensis was taken from an erroneously categorised composite, which (so the paper says) is actually a composite of pongids and A. africanus.

Exactly.

So JJ is once again citing a source as means of supporting his argument, but the source in no way, shape or form supports his argument, and he clearly hasn't even read the source otherwise he couldn't fail to notice that the paper treats "A. afarensis" (in quote marks as a label of this specific composite) as already having been shown (a decade before) to be a composite of different species. Not at all surprisingly given JJ's prior record, one of the key components of that composite is that its jaw is from a pongid, i.e. a chimpanzee ancestor.

The paper makes this clear repeatedly. There is no way one could read the paper without immediately realizing that the line drawing of the composite is not actually A. afarensis, but a particular composite collated from early finds ascribed to afarensis, but which had later been challenged.

Actually, the paper's focus is about a later find and whether it could be treated as the same species if the "A. afarensis" was meant to be the type model for afarensis, but it in no way argues that it should be so treated given the fact that its provenance has been challenged in the past.

Ironically, much of the content of this paper actually reflects back on the very first instance which led us down this merry path, it being a time prior to the discovery of any complete afarensis skull when only composites existed. The next 2 decades included not only discoveries of complete finds, but also made clear distinctions about afarensis morphology over time and geographical location, and between male and female morphology, one diagnostic of which - as already cited - is canine tooth length.

Regardless, the points are therein made.

Once again we have an actual way of measuring JJ's claim to have a special insight into hominid peculiarities wherein JJ shows that he does not understand what he's looking at. Not just misunderstands, but seems completely unable to parse information which is presented in clear language. The drawing is what JJ wants to believe, and he doesn't really care if its valid or not.

Once again we have an example of JJ appealing to a picture - it supposedly being superior evidence to written objective measurements recorded by professionals listing diagnostic characteristics - but JJ's naive acceptance of a picture as is, rather than indicating that there is an intrinsic value in pictures actually undermines it and instead shows that you still need to know what you're looking at with a picture.

Once again we have an object example disproving JJ's prior contentions about how the advent of the internet having democratized knowledge means that someone entirely uneducated can simply eyeball stuff and make declarations meaning we no longer need experts working in those fields.

Thommo wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:There's no such thing as 'eliptical behavior' - are we in for another treat of your idiosyncratic declarations of supposed atheist ideology in action?

To be fair:
(of a style of speaking or writing) tending to be ambiguous, cryptic, or obscure

Of writing, sure.

Of behavior, no.

And my writing wasn't ambiguous or cryptic unless we're meant to take JJ's elided version of my post wherein he cut out all the context I'd written.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2722278

JJ insists on using attachments for pictures, but I added back in above the picture in question here which JJ is appealing to and which has suddenly sparked his interest in the legitimacy of scientists and the authority they represent whereas he's done everything possible to ignore that whenever he can't spin a citation to suit him...

JJ also cited the paper.

In every single instance without fail so far in this thread, when JJ has cited a source, it's turned out that the source doesn't support what he's been citing it for.

In some cases that has proven to be an attempt to deceive people, but usually it's just because he's grasping desperately at straws and either doesn't bother reading any of the context, or simply lacks the ability to process the information.

I don't think JJ is lying in this case, I think it's that he's too lazy and basically ignorant of the subject matter which is why he hasn't realized, once again, that his proferred picture isn't doing any work for him at all.

Why does he want to cite this picture? To contest the dozen or more citations I've given to professional scientists in the field publishing their work in legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

His argument is that the picture is what really conveys information, that technical descriptions are smoke-screens, and that I am trying to deceive people by refusing to use pictures.

On top of that, JJ has spent many hundreds of words talking about the democratiztion of knowledge thanks to the internet, and how specialists no longer are necessary when the little guy with Google can find out all the information for themselves.

Given JJ has supplied the link to the source above, can anyone find... with as little time investment as possible... what the problem is with JJ's citation of this paper in support of these contentions? I bet anyone with basic reading comprehension and zero knowledge of the topic could manage it as it's expressly talked about in the paper.

Assuming someone can (be bothered) then I think it will be time to pass this back again to JJ to ask why he couldn't, and it will also necessarily reflect on his arguments appealing to naive eye-balling as being superior to substantive, empirical expertise.

JJ elided all the part in red then pretended I'd treated him like a prisoner in a Chinese re-education camp...? All that context is exactly the opposite of being cryptic or ambiguous. I explained what I asked people to do and why I asked them to do it.

To summarise my understanding of the core argument:
JJ: Most primates have large canines to fight off predators. Without this defence or an alternative those species would go extinct. Humans and some recent ancestor species do not have this defence, so they must have an alternative. The only possible alternative is weapon use, particularly spears.

Spearthrower: Primate canine size is not explained by the need to fight off predators. Sexual dimorphism shows that it is an evolved consequence of behaviour exhibited primarily among one sex. Both sexes have been observed to fight or ward off predators through group behaviour that is not limited to biting. Independent lines of evidence, both observed amongst extant species and from the fossil record of extinct primates provide alternative explanations for the size of canines and the methods of warding off predators. JJ is fundamentally incorrect to ignore the evidence instead of ground his arguments in it.

I think your summary of JJ's argument is accurate and fair. If anything, it probably veers further into charitability than is entirely warranted at this point - none of the gladiatorial imagery JJ likes erecting, for example - but it's your summary and you're a fair chap.

Your summary of my argument is lacking some key details, however, but that only stands to reason as I've offered a slew of information over the past 200 pages and summarizing it all would have taken a higher level of concentration and attention than I think is reasonable to ask of anyone.

Additional points of my argument are:

1) Primates factually employ other strategies to evade depredation which are not dependent on canine size. Fleeing, for example, is an obvious strategy against terrestrial predators given that primates are typically better adapted for movement in trees than most of their predators. Secondly, mobbing is a common and reasonably effective strategy social animals employ, and it can be quite effective but doesn't necessarily imply that the mob represents an actual threat of harm to the predator. This is particularly the case with predators which favour ambushes as merely being spotted can be enough to make them try elsewhere to conserve energy. Given our lineage's reliance on social grouping, it being one of those 'particular' aspects JJ pretends I wish to deny, it would seem particularly applicable here - the only other primates which come close to human ancestors in group size are baboons and chimpanzees, both of which routinely employ mobbing.

2) Numerous studies - and I do mean many, many, many studies - track the relationship between social dynamics and primate size in primates. In groups where there is a dominance hierarchy, where access to females is restricted to dominant males, where violence and threat displays between males confers either direct access to females or indirect access through controlling preferential feeding grounds, canine dimorphism and overall body dimorphism is significantly more pronounced. In primate species which are monogamous, or where intraspecific violence is coalitionary, then both canine and overall body dimorphism is either much reduced or non-existent. Canine size in primates is evidence of agonistic intraspecific social behaviors (and this is a falsifiable claim which tracks very well with direct observation) like sheep horns are evidence of agonistic intraspecific social behaviors, not evidence of sheep engaging in combat with would-be predators.

3) The reduction in canine size among the apes started millions of years prior to afarensis, way back in the Miocene, so if JJ's arguments are valid, then the same 'necessary' conclusions should be extended to those ancestors too.

4) There's a fundamental misapprehension between JJ's idea and reality; a 10, 20, 30, 40kg primate does not fight off with a sharp stick a predatory animal that weighs 4 or 5 times its size to a statistically significant degree to exhibit sufficient selection pressures to supersede other selection pressures on such crucial morphology. Appealing to rare occasions doesn't make a good case; one also is obliged to acknowledge that in all the other cases the prey animal died and consequently ceased being part of the gene pool.

5) Afarensis morphology does not support the idea of spear-wielding, particularly in the wrists and hand skeleton. The idea here is projecting modern human behavioral anatomy onto a (plausible) ancestor which didn't possess that anatomy.

6) Evidence of afarensis behavior and material culture does not support the idea of tool-making which is evident in later hominid species of the human lineage.

I am sure even I've missed some given how many lines of evidence I've raised which contradict JJ's eternally unsourced assertions.

My summation would not be that JJ is 'incorrect' to ignore this, but rather that his intentional and repetitive ignorance or dismissal of these points indicate that he's not motivated by what's true, only by what he wants to be true, and therefore the picture he paints is necessarily false.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2703202

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Ill be back later to deal with the later offal dumped confidently onto the forum but I couldn't resist laughing at the ongoing foolishness of this:

I looked up the prominent Google references dealing with A.L.822-1 (Lucy), the famously well preserved fossil of a female.

That's not Lucy, JJ. Why do you keep pretending you know what you're talking about when you so obviously don't know what you're talking about?

Lucy is AL 288-1.

The fossil you're talking about was found 25 years later.

What does 'famously well preserved' mean with respect to a fossil?

That was a stupid mistake to call A.L. 822-1 "Lucy". Fuck. It doesn't change anything else I said about A.L. 822-1, or the picture of the reconstructed skull.

What JJ had said before:

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s really clear from both of those articles that the diagnostic used to sex Lucy was was from size dimorphism just like the Smithsonian article said. In Lucy, they also had a large part of the rest of the skeleton to establish sex from size dimorphism. It also became clear to me that Lucy provides so far the most nearly complete female skull of that species. So your picture of the “many skulls” being used as a guide by the sculptor, sounds odd.

So confused.

The articles were actually talking about Lucy AL 288-1., which of course is wholly consistent with my point prior to this discussion about how a model made in the late 80's to mid 90's would have been made via compositing various finds together because there was no complete skull available.

JJ's entire argument against this was from his Googling of prominent references of a completely different find.

The problem?

Well, AL 288-1 Lucy is nearly wholly lacking any cranium - just a few pieces and a mandible. Whereas, AL 822-1 is just a cranium and was found 3 decades later. Consequently, EVERYTHING JJ had said before was complete gibberish, but even though he'd been exposed as not having a fucking clue what he was talking about, he still wanted to simply wave it away and pretend he had been right all along.

There's no actual sensible discussion to be had with someone this far up their own ego. JJ has never shown any interest in having facts lead him to conclusions, he wants to pick and choose facts which he can mold to support his presuppositions.

Naturally, after this abject failure of his special insight was shown, he stopped talking about it altogether, although he continued talking about how he's got this brilliant insight and people like me are willfully blind (ideologically motivated, no less) to his compelling and indefeatable vision.

I believe we're now up to 8 instances of JJ doing this in the last 200 pages. Citing sources which directly contradict his argument, or showing beyond any plausible excuse that he doesn't know what he's looking at.

The truth is JJ you just need to stop because you're not going to convince anyone here of your special insight. Drop the smokescreen and tell us how we're all going to burn in eternal torment for not accepting Jesus as our savior.

Thommo wrote:I'm a layman, my knowledge of biology is largely limited to what I did in a double science GCSE (I went to a shit comprehensive and was never offered the chance of even taking a full GCSE in it, and my A levels were focused elsewhere, what can you do?). Evolution is an interesting subject and I have full respect for the many people who know vastly much more about it than I do.

I went to a comprehensive that was so shit that the only reason it wasn't the bottom of the local league tables was due to schools for children with learning disabilities being included in that same table!

I was actually quite strenuously coerced into not taking Biology at A-level. My intended courses were: English, History, and Biology. The first argument was that they didn't go together well, 2 being 'arts' and the other a science. But really, it came out later that my school was playing a strategic game and needed to raise some grades in other areas and expected my grade in the other preferred courses to help effect that. Suffice it to say that given my eventual study at university, Biology would have been entirely suitable there, and would have worked perfectly well in coordination with the other 2 as English is good for writing regardless, and history was good for the material culture side of my undergraduate program. As it was, I didn't really help them anyway as the 2 alternative courses they pressured me into instead of Biology I got a C and a D in! It really shows how badly placed they were in teaching terms though that these were the highest grades in my year and for some considerable time.

I was lucky I got all unconditional offers except for from King's College London... so fuck them!

I had to change schools to do my A Levels, because my school didn’t even offer them. Now that’s shit.