Posted: Jun 19, 2019 5:52 pm
by Spearthrower
I can only surmise that this amusing error occurred because JJ typed 'australopithecus sediba' into the internet, picked a picture he quite fancied, then imported it here.

Here's the problem writ large.

Type australopithecus sediba into Google yourself, go to the images tab and see what you get.

My search has a confusing mix of actual fossils, some imaginations of what the species might have looked like with skin and fur, a picture from Harun Yahya's website with the word FALSE written over it in red letters.

But oh lookee here!!

The 4th picture in my Google images search for 'australopithecus sediba' is the very image JJ chose.

So let's take a look at that link. ... us-sediba/

So it's an article from the Australian Museum; seems perfectly legit, all the information is clearly presented and seems at first glance to be completely correct.

But there on the right side of the page is the picture of the Taung Child... well, isn't that odd?

So here's JJ's layman approach. The internet provides. This page is authoritative. Therefore, because I know bugger all relevant, I will simply acknowledge this as fact.

Problems? Yes, problems. Any spooky quote expert would only need to glance at the picture to know it's not sediba.

Also, there appears to be a problem of sheer laziness in terms of research even of one page.

The picture on the right hand side has two little widgets. Click the bottom one which gives more info on the picture...

The Australian Museum wrote:A partial skull and brain endocast of an Australopithecus africanus child. Discovered: 1924 in Taung, South Africa Age: approximately 2.3 million years old This skull of a young child is the ‘type specimen’ or official representative of this species. It was the first fossil of a human ancestor ever found in Africa and was also the first to be classified in the genus Australopithecus. We know this individual was a young child because its first molar teeth were in the process of erupting from the jaw. Image: Stuart Humphreys
© Australian Museum

(my bold)

That's how well this layperson did in overcoming the tyranny of expertise using the power of the internet. He couldn't even click a fucking button and read the dialogue therein.

Jesus there's simply not enough room in this thread to contain JJ's hubris.

Edit: *shudder* awful grammar