rationalskepticism.org

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
More egregiously, you've gone from 'small canine teeth like other early humans' to 'lack of dental sexual dimorphism' - clearly the 2 aren't synonymous. They could have small canine teeth and yet still present dimorphism. That is actually the case, and it is more or less pronounced depending on the species of australopithecine. Even the species with the least pronounced dental dimorphism, A. boisei (i.e. best case scenario for you), still has some sexual dimorphism present, so your usage of the word 'lack' needs to be clarified because, as I am well aware, you are trying to hang far too much on it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2X05000478

Analyses show that A. afarensis is similar in size sexual dimorphism to gorillas in femoral variables, to humans in humeral variables, and to chimpanzees in canine variables. The results of this study are compatible with the hypothesis that the pattern of sexual dimorphism in A. afarensis is different from any that are observed in living humans or apes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8400904019

These results show that significant directional changes do occur in the A. afarensis mandibles and teeth, and in these elements, at least, the species is not static. Temporal variation is clearly an important component of overall variation in the A. afarensis lineage, even though other factors, such as sexual dimorphism, may also play a part.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8487900662

Based on this relationship and coefficients of variation of four species of the genus Australopithecus, we predict degrees of canine dimorphism for these extinct hominids. The estimates show that A. afarensis is as dimorphic as the pygmy chimpanzee, A. boisei slightly less dimorphic than the pygmy chimpanzee, A. robustus slightly more dimorphic than the lar gibbon, while A. africanus overiaps with the lar gibbon as well as a modern human sample.

Again, you are not respecting the data and drawing conclusions from it. You are making up the data to concur with your preconceived conclusion. But the evidence does not support your case, so quite how you're supposed to have alighted on 'what kind of animal' it was is perplexing when you're simply manufacturing details in the absence of evidence.

Your extracts from that article by Lockwood, Kimbel and Johanson seem to contradict the Smithsonian information that all later humans had small canines. That is, until one gets to the conclusion in their summary, which you didn’t give: