Posted: Jun 19, 2019 3:41 pm
Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.
You're badgering no one, JJ. You're posting idiotic bollocks and demonstrating deep ignorance of the topic you purport to be commenting upon.
But JJ, the morphology of one skull isn't all there is to it. "How it looks to you" does not produce a scientific statement, but rather, a description of how something looks to you, deep in your caverns of subjectivity. It's just you telling stories to yourself. Don't forget, JJ, Australopithecus is a genus, so you're back to spewing dullwitted crap.
Anyone can swap a circuit board without ideology getting in the way. The only requirement is that the circuit board function according to specs.