Posted: Jun 19, 2019 3:47 pm
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:You don’t need to bother with technicalities,...


Uh no. YOU don't need to bother with the technicalities because YOU aren't expected to know the technicalities, YOUR vocation isn't connected to YOU knowing these details.

However, in terms of this conversation, you SHOULD be bothered with the technicalities: you can't claim to have a special insight into the ultimate understanding of a creature without knowing much at all about it.


Jayjay4547 wrote: just say where in that compilation (in my post above) are several images of australopithecus with long sharp canines.


:lol:

Are you incapable of phrasing this as a request?

Read it from my perspective. I've specifically countered your arguments and claims to knowledge by showing you're wrong.

Of course, you don't acknowledge your errors.

But worse, so much worse, rather than being interested in finding out information, you are playing a bluffing game where you can't admit you don't know. You can't 'ask' me a question because, it seems, you think that implies a weakness. Instead, you try to imply something is wrong then demand I perform some task to help you out.... and that really would be the only reason I would need to perform this: to help you out.

So tell me why I would want to do that, JJ?

Feel free to argue that the dentition isn't from an australopithecine if you want to. Feel free to stick your neck out however you like, but don't tell me I have to throw you a lifebuoy when I'm specifically putting you into a position where your floundering and drowning is meant to be instructional about your claims to being a competent swimmer.

Worry about your own argument, for example, that series of pictures you made supposedly showing scaling comparisons between australopithecines and floriensis.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
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...


Useful for what? Useful to whom?

That's not how they're marketed JJ. They're not being sold to universities. They're being sold to the general public as curiosities and paper-weights.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...and images of them, readily available to all on the internet can be legitimately used on this forum.


No one said you can't show them, but you're going to need to understand that the map and terrain may diverge substantially.


Jayjay4547 wrote:If you showed a boneclone of australopithecus with long sharp canines that sure would settle the issue discussed here.


No, it wouldn't because the bone clones shown so far haven't been anywhere nearly sufficiently accurate. Again, you really should know that if you wish to be claiming expertise in seeing the true animal, JJ. If the bone clones are not actually very good, then your special insight must be off too, no?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
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.


While it was a point I was making, it absolutely wasn't the key point at all. The key point is really going to be difficult for you to wave away. Also, this isn't the bone clones model you used recently, this is the original one you used to compare to a male gorilla.

And yeah, I am playing with you JJ. You deserve it. You might not think you deserve it, but then you're not the arbiter of your actions in a group of people, are you?


Jayjay4547 wrote: 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.


I know I didn't, thanks for telling me what I intentionally didn't do! :)


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's nice. Do they sell bridges too? You might get a good deal.

It doesn't 'bother' to define its sex?

Seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Missing rather an important detail if it were of 'museum quality'.

Of course, by museum quality they may mean the process they used to make it, the materials involved... and that may well be the case, I couldn't tell you much about differential qualities of casting as that's not my field.

I can tell you about the sex of the individual being shown though, just as I can tell you the features it has basically made up because there are no complete fossils which they could be drawing on. I could tell you the details about the fossil fragments they used to composite that skull, and what bits they were missing, and consequently where and what quantity of artistic license they've employed because that is my field... ok, it's actually just outside my very specific field (neanderthals and early sapiens), but comparative anatomy of hominids is something I spent many years studying at a very reputable university with quality professors well known in the field. I'm not making things up to win an argument, JJ. I'm telling you the truth, explaining the facts, and pointing out that these do not seem to correspond to your arguments.


Jayjay4547 wrote: 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.


There's a gaping logical gap between the first three words and the rest of everything being discussed. Male and female afarensis (not 'Australopithecus' - why don't you stop using these numpty terms?) are readily distinguishable even for a non-expert, so your argument now appears to be blind denial.

Essentially, this is becoming a circular argument: to support your contention that you have special insight into what X animal really was, you now invoke special ability to see things about them that manifestly aren't true.

You can, of course, convince yourself of all of this.... but that belief simply cannot work outside of your headspace.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t want to carry on badgering you on this particular issue.


I do. :)