Posted: Jun 20, 2019 3:43 am
by Jayjay4547
Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Here's a little clue for you, JJ.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It took 20 years for science to acknowledge the position of Australopithecus in our ancestry and another 70 to air brush out the gestalt that Dart had seen, sitting in his office in a new university he hadn’t wanted to go to, in a strange country, holding the little Taung skull in his hand. Truly that was an epiphany.

Does that help you attain an epiphany? :)

I take it that's a no then?

So you've posted a series of pics and made an argument on the basis of those pics, right. Part of your claim that you have special insight into what these animals really were, and that I was all wrong about scaling differences between floriensis and afarensis.

Here is how this thread started:

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: The island of Flores was even further away and was reached by animals with similar brains and body plan.

Similar insofar as they're both hominids, sure. But that would leave a rather large swathe of distinction untracked. Among the glaring factors is that the flores apes were from the genus Homo, that they lived millions of years apart from australopithecines, left vastly more sophisticated material culture, and had different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features.

In that passage you demonstrated the unerring bias of authoritarianism in science, away from signal and towards noise. The discovery of the Floris hobbits was arguably the most unexpected discovery in human origins since the Taung child. It was so unexpected that there were several attempts to make out that the fossils were one or other kind of sports of nature. What was unexpected was that hominids with such small brains had existed so recently and so far from the most similar hominids. That went against the preconceptions of human origins. What is unexpected, is signal. And what you were doing in your original passage above, was denying that signal; you were expressing distance between early ancestors and the Flores hobbits. And you did so partly by using the scientific sounding language “had different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features.”

So, the comparative pics I put up were aimed at questioning the extent of that scientific sounding language. Look you, it’s not insolent for a layman to post images, nor is it to pretend to special expertise. I do it in the hope that the viewer will think to himself “Well Floris hobbit does look to have had a similar body plan to Australopithecus, maybe that 'different scaling' Spearthrower was on about, was pretentious bullshit”.

In one of your later posts you pointed out that what I had labelled as Australopithecus sediba was actually the Taung child. I apologise. Here is a revised copy of that pic, with a valid image of A.sediba and corrected labelling in red.


Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg (34.36 KiB) Viewed 145 times

The point I wanted to present using those images is if anything strengthened by that revision because according to Wikipedia, africanus is regarded as an ancestral species to sediba, so the older species looks more like the Flores hobbit than does the later (admittedly, juvenile) Australopithecus.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:The Wiki entry on Homo floresiensis doesn’t support your claim a about different scaling in essentially all the anatomical features

In 2015, the results of Bayesian analysis were published, which used more than 300 morphological characteristics of fossil hominins; the analysis was unable to distinguish between the different early hominin trees, but the greatest similarity of H. floresiensis was with Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis and Dmanisi Man, raising the possibility that the ancestors of Homo floresiensis left Africa before the appearance of Homo erectus, possibly even becoming the first hominins to do so and evolved further in Asia.[21] (Wiki Homo floriensis)

Great. So can you now explain how that contradicts what I wrote?

I added the emphasis to show where that passage addressed the signal not the noise you were trying to cloud the story with. Where you claimed difference between Flores hobbits and Ausstralopithecus, it points to similarity. And it dares (”possibly”) to suggest my inference that a small brained bipedal hominins with short canines (body plan) were able to trek so far from their African creation. That would show that they were darn good at defending themselves using hand held kinetic weapons.

Spearthrower wrote: You also talked about the wonderful democratization of knowledge the internet provides us, whereby we no longer really even need experts, so even some random dude on the internet's pontifications have just as much value as, say, someone with actual accreditation and academic and field experience, because you know, all the information is just waiting there to be hoovered up by anyone.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're trying to change the topic JJ, but it's not going to change. I am going to have fun with this because your arrogance is outstripped only by your ignorance of the topic matter.

I have no interest in changing the topic. There has indeed been a wonderful democratization of knowledge via the internet. It doesn’t mean we can do without experts but it does mean that people who rely on their expertise and the ignorance of people who disagree with them, can expect some concrete blowback.

The discussion could move forward if you could present some data to support your claim of “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical feature” between A. sediba (not afarensis as you said at the top of this post, above) and Flores hobbits. Here is an image of A. sediba compared with modern human and a chimp (?) skeletons, seemingly aimed at showing actual differential scaling.

[edit: typos]