Posted: Jun 19, 2019 10:57 am
by Jayjay4547
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Then you would have had to make out that several of these pics were indeed of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines.


What's fascinating here is how you appear to have willfully forgotten what happened the last time I explained to you in technical terms the morphological characteristics of an australopithecine skull. Remember how you abjectly failed to engage in discussion about said features, instead simply waving it away while declaring that it represented evidence about how you're completely right?

You may find such games amusing, but given your willingness to tell me what I am supposed to be incentivized by, you haven't explained to me what's in it for me to go into technical detail that you seem both unwilling and unable to engage with.


You don’t need to bother with technicalities, just say where in that compilation (in my post above) are several images of australopithecus with long sharp canines.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


Which is pretty funny coming from the guy who relies wholly on casts apparently comprised of substantial artistic creativity, and which you don't seem to realize aren't really representing the thing you think they are. :)


Well casts are marketed because they are useful and images of them, readily available to all on the internet can be legitimately used on this forum. If you showed a boneclone of australopithecus with long sharp canines that sure would settle the issue discussed here.

Spearthrower wrote:
That's one of MY points here JJ! :naughty2:

I think you are referring to this image (top right] of an Australopithecus Afarensis skull s that you insisted was a composite of a number that you knew but didn’t identify, as if you were making some major point. Here it is, for comparison with an image you provided of a male (I suppose) skull. I supposed that from the context of your posting, not from what you said about it. Indeed you didn’t say anything about your image.



Gorilla_Australopith_M-F.jpg


Gorilla_Australopith_M-F.jpg (24.39 KiB) Viewed 127 times





The image I put up came from Dinosaur Corporation and the metadata on it doesn’t bother to define its sex although it declares it to be of “museum quality”. That all supports what I claim to be of major importance in the story of human origins which is that the male skulls of Australopithecus looked notably like those of the females.

I don’t want to carry on badgering you on this particular issue.