Posted: Jun 20, 2019 5:20 am
by Cito di Pense
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.

So 1) you're not aiming your tripe at an audience who appreciates Irather than despises, as you so clearly do) scientific expertise, and 2) while it's important for you to correct your text, it's a little too late, and doesn't offer any hope that you will ever have a fucking clue about the subject matter you've decided you're competent to address.

Jayjay4547 wrote:What was unexpected was that hominids with such small brains had existed so recently and so far from the most similar hominids.

You've already been instructed that brain size is not useful as an absolute measure of anything, but rather, is relevant in terms of ratios of brain weight to body weight. What I wouldn't give to know your cranial capacity, JJ, because it is almost surely near the average for modern humans. Microcepahlic humans with severely impaired cognition lack the capacity to engage in your verbal gyrations. If I knew that your brain weight was nearly normal, I would be even more puzzled about your apparent learning disabilities, which I take to result from emotional issues you're having about what you call the story of human origins.

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.

I guess you're just going to stick to the way things look to you. Strangely and sadly enough, that's just the way you wish things were.

Jayjay4547 wrote:No that's not good enough, it could explain why there could seem to be more complete info about dinosaurs, because paleontologists clump their categories more broadly than paleoanthropologists. But it can't explain the more complete fossils of dinoaurs. In terms of RS scavenging, Could it be that as prey species, our ancestor's relatively fragile bones were regularly crunched up and totally destroyed by predators. Like RS is saying? I remember in a nature reserve where lions had brought down a zebra on a tarred road, finding the next morning just a wet area in the tar and a single little gland. The preservation of post-cranial bones in sediba could be because when alive, the animals crawled so far into the cave that their predator could get to them. And the Taung child skull might have just been dropped into a limey lake by the eagle carrying it, maybe a bigger eagle swooped down on it, that successive stealing is common amongst raptors?

Well, JJ, you have an unseemly obsession with bones and what crunches them, so much so that you want to make this the entire story of the history of life. If you really knew anything about biology, rather than just how biology looks to you, there might be a possibility that someday you would learn something useful to you in discussing biology and the history of life.

Scavengers have been around longer than predators, because dead organic matter is less of a hassle to eat than meat on the hoof. The scarcity of intact fossils is confounded by the fact that in the relevant epochs, scavenging is not unknown. Your conclusion that predation is so important in human and proto-human history is not a foundation. It's what you've concluded from your premise, which is defective.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Palaeontologists Good. Palaeoanthropologists Bad.

Competence and solid data, good. Fabrication and fantasy, bad. Unless you're merely trying to entertain. For all I know, that's what you're doing, in the limited hope that someone willing to expose so much blinkering, bigotry, and fabrication as you are might be watching. Such people look at losing and think it looks like winning.