Posted: Jun 19, 2019 5:37 pm
by Spearthrower
So now JJ's blown his wad, let's pull back the curtain a little and take a glimpse of non-contrived reality. ... l#p2700980

Jayjay4547 wrote:It is useful to view some images here: The pics of two species of Australopithecus (a) and (b) show that quite different looking animals have been classified into the same genus. Comparison of the sediba (b) and floresiensis(c) skulls and the skeletal comparison (d) and (e) gives a visual idea of the similarities found in the Bayesian analysis cited in the Wiki entry, and how little appearance there is of Spearthrower’s “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features”.


Now, there's a fair few problems with this image, but there are two main problems with respect to the argument JJ was making (I'm still saving one for later), but one big fucking glaring one given JJ's repetitious appeal to his special knowledge and insight into knowing what kind of animal it was... an instinctive grasp of the very essence of the being which thereby justifies all JJ's many claims which otherwise are contradicted by all the evidence.

Well, that little conceit was already blown apart when he couldn't tell the difference between a male and female afarensis, but now we have a much more amusing insight into the truth behind the confidence trick that's going on here.

Picture b isn't Australopithecus sediba.

Australopithecus sediba looks like this:


As reported by Berger et all in 2010 here:

Instead, what picture B shows is ironically (given JJ's continual reference to Raymond Dart) the type specimen of Australopithecus africanus.

So this amazing special insight into knowing the deep nature of being encapsulated in the animal is just a bit problematic when it doesn't also give you the special insight to recognize you're looking at a completely different species that lived half a million years apart.

So let's remember the many pages JJ has produced about the lay person fighting back against the tyranny of scientific experts by employing the powers of the internet and freedom of information...

Beyond that narrowness of outlook, the internet resources have in the last decade so broadened what is available to all, that lay persons can figure some things out for themselves and if putative authorities try to bully them into kowtowing to their authority, we can put up a bit of an argument.

the dramatic unbundling of specialist authority since the arrival of the internet which has given access to academic articles (at least, abstracts), millions of vivid images, incredibly powerful search engines and Wikipedia. Scientific authorities now have to accommodate themselves to the fact that the lay public feels it need only accept authoritative views when these are supported by clear signs of good faith.


All good stuff, however the availability of pictures is one thing, but you still need to know what you're fucking talking about.