Posted: Jun 07, 2019 7:05 am
Jayjay4547 wrote:Spearthrower wrote:
But go on then, tell me why I would be wrong (actually, it's not me, but the original publishing scientists) in describing it [the Australopithecus composite pictured on the right below] as a female given 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. I am sure someone who specializes in afarensis would be able to list a dozen more characteristics they could use to sex (and identify the species of, and the temporal distribution of) those fossils, and they'd almost certainly be able to point out examples of other afarensis fossils which still clearly fall within the type that don't exhibit some of those characteristics, which I am very nearly as ignorant of as you.
But anyway, you're still right because you say so, even when you don't know your arse from your elbow. You've taken Creationism to a narcissistic level of self-dogma, and you have the utterly nonsensical delusion that it's everyone else operating from within a blinkering ideology.
There’s pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently, has skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection that is,...
