rationalskepticism.org

Jayjay4547 wrote:You did carry the burden of proof that the Australopithecus skull I posted, was a female.

Errr? JJ. Who are you trying to convince of this? Me? Yourself? Other people?

Why would you post the skull of a heavily dimorphic male and a female as a comparative? Why did you write a male of <species> and <species> unless you meant to indicate that both were male? Had you considered the other to be female, you would surely have specified, no?

Go on, explain yourself chap - stop playing these ridiculous games. Why not just freely admit you thought they were both male skulls? Being in error in comparative primate morphology when you lack the expertise is surely better than the alternative explanation?

Jayjay4547 wrote: Because you said it was. I just asked you, on a surmise, why you came to that conclusion.

I told you right away: because I know what fossils the replica was composited from.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I didn’t ask that as a trivial issue, but because it’s quite central to my understanding of our origins that the male australopithecus skull was relatively similar to the female, compared with that relationship in the apes.

What understanding is that, JJ? What does your understanding actually entail? You've looked at some replica skulls on the internet and read 2 dozen words on wikipedia?

Of course, a male australopithecus (which species?) skull is *relatively similar* to that of a female of its own species compared to that of a gorilla. But it was you who wanted to compare a male gorilla skull - a species exhibiting high levels of sexual cranial dimorphism, with the female skull of an entirely different species. The post is still right there:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699010

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then please explain the striking differences between these skulls of a male (plant eating) gorilla and Australopithecus.

There are only 2 things that can be drawn from that. Either you did it naively, or you did it in full knowledge that you were pulling a bait and switch. You're free to explain which it is. I've opted for ignorance, which is actually a lot fairer than you probably deserve given track records here.


And how did you actually reply? The reality is quite different from your supposed academic interest:

Jayjay4547 wrote:WHAT? Where do you find that Australopithecus males differed from females in having fangs like a male gorilla? I have read a lot of crap on this forum but seldom something as rubbish as that.

So it's not like you bothered to ask me how I know, because of course that would require you to acknowledge that you don't know, which is not something you seem capable of doing. As usual, you want to assert your way through a specialist topic.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The back-and-forth went like this:

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then please explain the striking differences between these skulls of a male (plant eating) gorilla and Australopithecus.

gorilla_australopithecus.jpg

Spearthrower wrote:Easy/The gorilla skull is from a male, the australopithecus is a female

Jayjay4547 wrote: wrote:On what grounds did you claim that this skull was of a female?

Spearthrower wrote:On the grounds that it is the skull (composite) of a female. Are you trying to say that you weren't aware of that? If so, perhaps try actually saying that rather than running through this song and dance?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Because you say so, then.

Spearthrower wrote:No... because it IS so./ Its amazing how your hubris wont even let you ask the natural question here./The simple fact is that you know fuck all as usual. You weren't even aware that the composite replica you were waving around was a female./I suppose that ignorance in this case is superior to mendacity.

What's remarkable is how your endless inclination to revise history. Of course, you edited out your little outburst to make yourself seem so much more reasonably than you actually communicated. Given how you cut out the bit where you called my reply the worst crap you've ever seen on the forum, one might well charge you with being manipulative, especially as your freshly edited version makes your response seem so much more reasonable.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That sequence was all the more remarkable for your having earlier said:

“But please feel free to question me more about this - comparative primate morphology is my specific area of expertise - so I will be happy to share my knowledge with you... who knows? You might even learn something!”

That sequence is missing the bit where you went into a meltdown though, isn't it?

The bit where you actually responded: 'I have read a lot of crap on this forum but seldom something as rubbish as that."

Forget that bit, did you? Expect me to ignore that bit, do you? You blurt out whatever you like - for example, when you liken everyone to a pack of wild dogs - then when people think that's shitty and consequently treat you as being a tool, you then suddenly play the victim card.

You might think yourself all sweetness and light, JJ... but from where I'm sitting, you are one of the most odiously conceited, arrogant and ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway I see you have finally in a recent post...

In reality, I posted a set of canines from afarensis within hours of your little outburst.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... come up with a skull that I am happy to take as proxy

And I should care that reality meets your standards for what reason?

Jayjay4547 wrote:for a male australopithecus skull,... and I will take the one I posted as female. ...I will get onto that.

Well, probably best start by pointing out where I supposedly did such a thing. A male australopithecus skull, you say? Well, fancy that! Best get right on that JJ, because more fun will inevitably ensue.