Get out a barf bag before you hit play.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw6ZiDbineE[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d66lf2b-glM[/youtube]

Why isn't he in a padded cell yet?

I can see just from the first video still shot that he's full of shit as the differences between the two skulls are fucking obvious. I'm not going to watch the vid because I'm at work and my boss probably won't take too kindly to me bursting out laughing.

1) Welcome to the forum.

2) Please tell me this: will watching these videos rape my mind? I just ate lunch, so if these are so idiotic that it will cause me to vomit, I would like to wait until after my food has digested to watch them.

Nautilidae wrote:1) Welcome to the forum.

2) Please tell me this: will watching these videos rape my mind? I just ate lunch, so if these are so idiotic that it will cause me to vomit, I would like to wait until after my food has digested to watch them.

1) thanks

2) It's not easy to watch, but I got through most of it. Hearing his voice through my speakers makes me want to take a sludge hammer to my laptop. At least you don't have to look at his face though.

dionysus wrote:I can see just from the first video still shot that he's full of shit as the differences between the two skulls are fucking obvious. I'm not going to watch the vid because I'm at work and my boss probably won't take too kindly to me bursting out laughing.

What he's claiming is that the skull of the chimpanzee dramatically changes throughout it's life. As a child, it looks more "human like", and as an adult, it looks more "ape like". So basically Sediba, is just an immature chimpanzee.

The problem I have with it, is that they have more than one specimen, they have an exceptionally complete adult female, and they have Pelvic bones, which he ignores.

NephilimFreak Proves That He Is A Chump.

Adkinsjr wrote:

dionysus wrote:I can see just from the first video still shot that he's full of shit as the differences between the two skulls are fucking obvious. I'm not going to watch the vid because I'm at work and my boss probably won't take too kindly to me bursting out laughing.

What he's claiming is that the skull of the chimpanzee dramatically changes throughout it's life. As a child, it looks more "human like", and as an adult, it looks more "ape like". So basically Sediba, is just an immature chimpanzee.

Oh, I see. Well as I understand it the first specimen found WAS a juvenile however, the second one was most certainly an adult and it had a skull that was still dissimilar to that of a chimpanzee. But anyway, this claim is still not as bad as the common creationist claim that Neaderthal man was a Homo Sapiens with arthritis.

Adkinsjr wrote:The problem I have with it, is that they have more than one specimen, they have an exceptionally complete adult female, and they have Pelvic bones, which he ignores.

Not only that but we have other Australopithecines to use as a base for comparison, but like you said, he'll probably ignore that inconvenient fact.

Let's see...

1. Not very flat faced....

In comparison to a chimp yes it is.



As people can gather from the video, the angle of the face is far flatter than a chimp's.

2. Bullshit about racial features.

Now since I've discussed this at university I can say that this is a claim that I always take very, very cautiously. Looking at the features of the cranium and using it to identify a particular "race" is highly subjective and when I saw it proposed and demonstrated by a final year undergraduate in my second year, the methodology he used seemed extremely flawed. Furthermore, it has a hint of racism in it too.

I have no objections with limb proportions, which is taken into account in the osteological world, but craiofacial anthropometry can sometimes be misleading.

Some stuff on wiki I found which highlights my issues

Also I find it funny the photos don't match the stuff he discusses. Talking about the "oriental" race when showing a big blonde, blue-eyed man?

Furthermore, I think they would have analysed the foramen magnum to see if the skull was of a biped and also whether or not it fitted into the boundaries of the chimp skull features already. If NF had paid ANY attention to the raging debate on the Hobbit he would realise we don't make up new human species on the spot.

3. Comparison of skulls.

I hate the duplicity here. Despite what he says, it is clear the skull is far more orthnognathic than any chimp. Then he switches to an Orang Utan? Because a species living a few thousand miles away that looks completely different to a chimp should really be compared....

Anyone with any sense can tell the brain case is larger than any of the apes he presents. To my osteological instincts it screams out hominin.

4. Nothing like an ape.

Hmmm, let's see, same dental structure, same face structure, etc. The modern human face has undergone some radical changes since the LCA, but there are some still key features that place us within the hominidae category.

I've made 2:45 and I can't stand any more idiocy....

Largenton wrote:

I've made 2:45 and I can't stand any more idiocy....

I can't even bring myself to hit "play". Not after the last video.

There is just this massive difference between the skulls to me. Its like there is a voice over saying "fuck what this creotard says, I'm a fucking australopithecus! Look at my big brain! Look at my flatter face!"

And that of course is ignoring the teeth and the rest of the body.

I wouldn't have thought there would be any skeletal differences between 'races'

Limb proportions need to be taken into account as there is some differences depending on the adaptations required for the environment, but generally they overlap. I don't think any osteologist would dare use it though.

I assert that these videos would be greatly improved by the addition of a vuvuzela button.

MtD

Largenton wrote:Let's see...

1. Not very flat faced....

In comparison to a chimp yes it is.



As people can gather from the video, the angle of the face is far flatter than a chimp's.

2. Bullshit about racial features.

Now since I've discussed this at university I can say that this is a claim that I always take very, very cautiously. Looking at the features of the cranium and using it to identify a particular "race" is highly subjective and when I saw it proposed and demonstrated by a final year undergraduate in my second year, the methodology he used seemed extremely flawed. Furthermore, it has a hint of racism in it too.

I have no objections with limb proportions, which is taken into account in the osteological world, but craiofacial anthropometry can sometimes be misleading.

Some stuff on wiki I found which highlights my issues

Also I find it funny the photos don't match the stuff he discusses. Talking about the "oriental" race when showing a big blonde, blue-eyed man?

Furthermore, I think they would have analysed the foramen magnum to see if the skull was of a biped and also whether or not it fitted into the boundaries of the chimp skull features already. If NF had paid ANY attention to the raging debate on the Hobbit he would realise we don't make up new human species on the spot.

3. Comparison of skulls.

I hate the duplicity here. Despite what he says, it is clear the skull is far more orthnognathic than any chimp. Then he switches to an Orang Utan? Because a species living a few thousand miles away that looks completely different to a chimp should really be compared....

Anyone with any sense can tell the brain case is larger than any of the apes he presents. To my osteological instincts it screams out hominin.

4. Nothing like an ape.

Hmmm, let's see, same dental structure, same face structure, etc. The modern human face has undergone some radical changes since the LCA, but there are some still key features that place us within the hominidae category.

I've made 2:45 and I can't stand any more idiocy....

What he's trying to say is that the face of a baby chimp is flat, and as they age, the face starts to look more "ape-like." Therefore, the skull is just a younger chimpanzee.

Also I find it funny the photos don't match the stuff he discusses. Talking about the "oriental" race when showing a big blonde, blue-eyed man?

That sort of thing bothered me too. In the second video he goes to some length to point out how stupid scientists must be to continue to use strontium to date fossils long after strontium dating has been discredited ( ) while at the same time showing the front page of a paper explaining that strontium levels can't be used to distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets!!

Adkinsjr wrote:
What he's trying to say is that the face of a baby chimp is flat, and as they age, the face starts to look more "ape-like." Therefore, the skull is just a younger chimpanzee.

Well if the fossil has all the bones fused I highly doubt this....