Posted: Jun 18, 2019 3:15 am
by Jayjay4547
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Contrary evidence? All Spearthrower (or any other poster) needed to present was a pic of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines. He didn’t present that. Instead he actually agreed that a Smithsonian note that Australopithecus like all later humans, had small canines.


And another lie! Fantastic!

As anyone can see, I haven't just posted a single picture of an australopithecine with sharp, pointy canines, I have posted several, and I did so within hours of JJ's initial claims that they did not possess them.

Actually, anyone can’t see that. Show that you posted several pictures of australopithecus skull with long, pointy canines, by posting those several pictures again.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Actually, anyone can’t see that. Show that you posted several pictures of australopithecus skull with long, pointy canines, by posting those several pictures again.



YES, SIR, SIR!


Oh wait, did you mean to ask me politely to go to the trouble of finding pictures in this thread that I already posted?

And the observant will, of course, notice that the requirement you've set is not what I said I'd done, and those educated in the topic matter will also notice that the requirement is impossible to achieve - that being one of the troubles JJ himself is having.

All I can observe is that YOU changed my “long, pointy” to the redundant “sharp, pointy” and my “Australopithecus” to “australopithecine”. Why can’t you just come right out and say what I changed.

After evading the challenge I put to you, you went on to change the subject by posting pics I had put up. That’s one of several options you could have taken:

(b) You could have actually re-posted these “several pics” of australopithecines with sharp [long] pointy canines. That would have simply ended my career on the ratskep forum and you would have got a deal of approval from your peers. There was every incentive for you to do that, if those pics existed.

(c) You could have withdrawn your accusation that I had lied. I don’t see that happening but like (b) above, it is on the face of it a theoretical possibility.

(d) You could have re-posted the pics that you actually had posted, from which I made this collation:



Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png


Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png (795.84 KiB) Viewed 200 times





Then you would have had to make out that several of these pics were indeed of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines. In the first place, that would have been difficult because the only skull there with long pointy canines, doesn’t seem to even be a fossil.

What is really bothering me here, is my growing suspicion that you are playing me and I have been ludicrously falling for it. I just can’t square your behaviour over those pics, with that of someone who as you say, has spent his adult life studying human evolution and teaching it to undergraduates. In my experience, professional teachers are all over their material and eager to explain it; to take and own the role of mentor. But here you put up a series of pics of clearly different provenance, without explaining any of them more than just saying “Ding Ding”. Then you claim they have told a story that they clearly don’t. And then you decline to re-post them for discussion, making out that to do so would be to “obey" (YES, SIR, SIR!) a layman. It just doesn’t compute.