Posted: Jun 26, 2019 7:15 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:Soearthrower's supposed rebuttal isn’t even on the issue I raised,..


Don't lie JJ, the written record is still there.


Jayjay4547 wrote: where he declined to post proof of what he claimed here
Spearthrower wrote:

As anyone can see, I haven't just posted a single picture of an australopithecine with sharp, pointy canines, I have posted several, and I did so within hours of JJ's initial claims that they did not possess them.


Spearthrower never did post the images to prove his allegaiton, but I put together images he had posted, here they are:
Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png


Yet those pics are still there, and I'm still not obliged to go round jumping hoops for you unless - at this point - you ask me very sweetly indeed.


Jayjay4547 wrote:As you can see, the only pic of a skull with long sharp canine (c), isn’t even a fossil, let alone a hominin.


What are you even yammering about? You keep digging your own grave deeper and deeper, don't you?

They're ALL hominins JJ. :doh: :lol:

Mann, Alan; Mark Weiss (1996). "Hominoid Phylogeny and Taxonomy". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Secondly, you keep asking for something that doesn't exist even after I've explained to you several times that it doesn't exist, which not only reiterates the fact you don't have an inkling of the topic matter, but also underscores how you simply refuse ever to acknowledge your errors.

Further, the only 2 specimens shown there which aren't fossils or representing fossils are the left and right side of the first picture (which you've labeled as 3 separate pictures for some reason) - they're not meant to be fossils, I never said they were fossils, rather they were included to show a comparison between those 3 species which directly contradicted and disproved one of your many failed confident assertions.

So actually, the fact - as you can see - is that of the 6 pictures, 5 of them have long, sharp canines. Only one doesn't. 4 of those pictures are basically your worst nightmare, because not only do they contradict your endless assertions but they're also in pictorial form which you've declared is the only form of discourse I'm allowed to engage in that can't be seen as a smokescreen! :lol:

Oh JJ - you do it to yourself me old fruitcake.

And just for fun: see how I managed to answer all of that still without giving you the information you're obviously fishing for while still not demeaning yourself by actually asking for the information you clearly don't possess? :lol:

We can play this game as long as you like, JJ. It's fucking hilarious.