Posted: Jun 29, 2019 11:19 pm
***cont***
Sounds odd to you, does it?
That's nice.
As I mentioned before, you'd need to take that up with the sculptor - it's not me who decided to post a model of a skull rather than posting the fossils. Perhaps you should choose a more legitimate source in the future?
Clearly, it really does not compute, but yet you still are so full of yourself.
You don't seem to have a point there, aside from suggesting you're impressed by the technical explanation.
Are you going to tell me something about how you've eyeballed it and they look the same or something?
It looks to you... and? We've already established that what something looks like to you is a poor yardstick comparative to what it actually is. Remember? You couldn't tell a male from a female, couldn't tell an adult from a juvenile, and couldn't even tell one species from another?
THAT's how well your eyeballing methodology works, and it's right here recorded for posterity.
And all the above is just pointless misdirection, because the morphological descriptions I gave are still relevant and accurate.
Guilty as charged!
Fuck me JJ, you're on a roll tonight!
That is LITERALLY what I told you over and over and over again. I KNOW what fossils its based on, and therefore I KNOW that it is female, and I can see the female morphological characteristics in the dodgy model you posted and are STILL arguing about.
Either you're engaging in the most magnificent deceit yet, or you've lost your marbles JJ - which is it?
LOOK!
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699807
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699807
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699818
And that's only perhaps half or less of the times I expressly told you this amazing thing you've only just alighted on 30 fucking pages later!
Do you just ignore everything that other people write? That would go a long way to explaining why you keep repeating your errors after being corrected.
I told you over and over and over again that I know it's MEANT to be a female because I know what fossils it's based on (because as we've already established, there is a shit tonne of variation among afarensis finds, and so it's actually quite easy to the trained eye to spot what that model is based on) and consequently I knew what it was meant to be.
Similarly, I also know what's wrong with that model - the model you posted and the model which you're still appealing to now 30 or 40 pages later after having been shown you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Here's a tip JJ: don't post models any more. Post the fossils themselves and then you won't find yourself in such a contorted situation that you and you alone have put yourself in.
Non-sequitur. Knowing the fossils doesn't amount to 'shooting from the hip'. And factually, I didn't appeal to authority at all, in fact, in the quote you cited I expressly told you that the morphological descriptions weren't ones I had made up and were right because I said so, but because they were the ones described in the papers around those fossil finds.
Stop bullshitting eh, JJ? It's not helping you in any way.
You may know about the latter, but you're irrelevant with respect to the former, and have made it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that you wouldn't know scientific validity if it was fucking you up the arse! There you go; I've given you something to whine about so you can distract from your monumental failure.
No, it's just a factual description of the morphological features of a female afarensis which you were wholly ignorant of.
Numpty 'australopithecus' is back again, and consequently you're completely wrong. You'd be much closer to being right if you were talking about A africanus, as I've told you before, but you've ignored because you don't really know what you're talking about. But for afarensis, males factually had reasonably substantially longer canines than females.
And after this monumental voyage into embarrassing public idiocy, you're back with your thesis statement which is the only smokescreen here: for you to engage in self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.
Gosh, that would be useful for you if it were the case, wouldn't it JJ?
Unfortunately, it really is the case. You can count the number of people who know how to sex an australopithecine fossil in the hundreds. But even though you're one of the 7.7 billion people who can't, you still think you can simply decree your way onwards via assertion.
I think that's a very accurate description of your entire participation on this forum.
I couldn't agree more: Creationism is bad for your mind.
Case in point: you've just repeated an extremely elementary error even after you've had that error explained to you a dozen times. Your arrogance, your ego, your hatred of atheists has made a public fool out of you. You've become rational skepticism's village idiot, JJ.
Jayjay4547 wrote:So your picture of the “many skulls” being used as a guide by the sculptor, sounds odd.
Sounds odd to you, does it?
That's nice.
Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s even odder that a sculptor should use only female models and then not label his product a female.
As I mentioned before, you'd need to take that up with the sculptor - it's not me who decided to post a model of a skull rather than posting the fossils. Perhaps you should choose a more legitimate source in the future?
Jayjay4547 wrote: It just doesn’t compute.
Clearly, it really does not compute, but yet you still are so full of yourself.
Jayjay4547 wrote: In the three pics below, the two on the left are expert reconstructions of (a) Au.afarensis male and (b) female, for comparison with the sculpture (c) that you put such an effort into declaring was female, that it “just is” female, and then offering all that impressive sounding technical explanation. Followed by a stylistic flourish that I coloured blue, above.
You don't seem to have a point there, aside from suggesting you're impressed by the technical explanation.
Are you going to tell me something about how you've eyeballed it and they look the same or something?
Jayjay4547 wrote:It looks to me that the sculptor could have used both those reconstructions in his modelling; the male for the brows, maybe the female for the prognathous jaw, that he didn’t set out to sculpture a female, that you had poor grounds for insisting it was female,...
It looks to you... and? We've already established that what something looks like to you is a poor yardstick comparative to what it actually is. Remember? You couldn't tell a male from a female, couldn't tell an adult from a juvenile, and couldn't even tell one species from another?
THAT's how well your eyeballing methodology works, and it's right here recorded for posterity.And all the above is just pointless misdirection, because the morphological descriptions I gave are still relevant and accurate.
Jayjay4547 wrote:... that most of your technical explanations would only emerge from meticulous study of the originals, not from pics...
Guilty as charged!
Fuck me JJ, you're on a roll tonight!
That is LITERALLY what I told you over and over and over again. I KNOW what fossils its based on, and therefore I KNOW that it is female, and I can see the female morphological characteristics in the dodgy model you posted and are STILL arguing about.
Either you're engaging in the most magnificent deceit yet, or you've lost your marbles JJ - which is it?
LOOK!
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699807
You assumed the replica composite skull was male - and by assumed, I mean you didn't know your arse from your elbow.
I didn't 'assume' anything. I know what fossils were used in its compositing.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699807
I told you right away: because I know what fossils the replica was composited from.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699818
Rather as I told you right away, I knew it was meant to be a female skull because I know what fossils it's based on, and I know the morphological characteristics of those fossils (from many individuals, I might add) which went into the composite.
And that's only perhaps half or less of the times I expressly told you this amazing thing you've only just alighted on 30 fucking pages later!
Do you just ignore everything that other people write? That would go a long way to explaining why you keep repeating your errors after being corrected.
I told you over and over and over again that I know it's MEANT to be a female because I know what fossils it's based on (because as we've already established, there is a shit tonne of variation among afarensis finds, and so it's actually quite easy to the trained eye to spot what that model is based on) and consequently I knew what it was meant to be.
Similarly, I also know what's wrong with that model - the model you posted and the model which you're still appealing to now 30 or 40 pages later after having been shown you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Here's a tip JJ: don't post models any more. Post the fossils themselves and then you won't find yourself in such a contorted situation that you and you alone have put yourself in.
Jayjay4547 wrote:and that you were shooting from the hip while piling on the appeal to authority.
Non-sequitur. Knowing the fossils doesn't amount to 'shooting from the hip'. And factually, I didn't appeal to authority at all, in fact, in the quote you cited I expressly told you that the morphological descriptions weren't ones I had made up and were right because I said so, but because they were the ones described in the papers around those fossil finds.
Stop bullshitting eh, JJ? It's not helping you in any way.
Jayjay4547 wrote: One just can’t mix valid scientific authority with internet street fighting.
You may know about the latter, but you're irrelevant with respect to the former, and have made it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that you wouldn't know scientific validity if it was fucking you up the arse!
There you go; I've given you something to whine about so you can distract from your monumental failure.Jayjay4547 wrote: All that argument about the sex of a sculpture is a smokescreen to hide an essential message from our ape-brained Australopithecus ancestors:...
No, it's just a factual description of the morphological features of a female afarensis which you were wholly ignorant of.
Jayjay4547 wrote: Their males didn’t have long sharp canines and in that they were similar to the females.
Numpty 'australopithecus' is back again, and consequently you're completely wrong. You'd be much closer to being right if you were talking about A africanus, as I've told you before, but you've ignored because you don't really know what you're talking about. But for afarensis, males factually had reasonably substantially longer canines than females.
Jayjay4547 wrote: The impact of atheist ideology on the human origin story...
And after this monumental voyage into embarrassing public idiocy, you're back with your thesis statement which is the only smokescreen here: for you to engage in self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.
Jayjay4547 wrote: isn’t about subtle technical biases,...
Gosh, that would be useful for you if it were the case, wouldn't it JJ?
Unfortunately, it really is the case. You can count the number of people who know how to sex an australopithecine fossil in the hundreds. But even though you're one of the 7.7 billion people who can't, you still think you can simply decree your way onwards via assertion.
Jayjay4547 wrote: it’s about gross alignments at 90 or 180 degrees to the truth.
I think that's a very accurate description of your entire participation on this forum.
Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s how ideologies mess with our minds and the stories we tell.
I couldn't agree more: Creationism is bad for your mind.
Jayjay4547 wrote: In this case it’s about a 100% buy in to sexual selection as opposed to natural selection.
Case in point: you've just repeated an extremely elementary error even after you've had that error explained to you a dozen times. Your arrogance, your ego, your hatred of atheists has made a public fool out of you. You've become rational skepticism's village idiot, JJ.