Posted: Sep 22, 2019 5:37 am
by Spearthrower
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Ahh we're back to your magical vision.

That magical vision of 'seeing' what baraminological KIND (you frothing creationist) of animal "Australopithecus" (the genus) was... that special power you possess which somehow also lets you fail to know the difference between an afarensis and an africanus, a male and a female, and a juvenile and an adult...

Once again, either clueless or a bullshit artist. I am going to toss this out to the forum to see which you think it is.

JJ, of course, didnt ask the MANUFACTURER. He asked a SELLER of Dinosaur replicas. JJ's either pretending it's the manufacturer because he is desperate to add a little legitimacy to his argument, or he's just this clueless and, driven by desire for corroboration, he didn't for a moment think to validate anything about his inquiry.

How can we know its not the manufactuer?

Well, for a start, the very same replica skull is sold on... at a first pass without really bothering to try too hard... 24 different websites, all in competition with one and other.

In reality, there is actually an independent sculptor who made this replica (it's actually specified on most of these websites), which he then sold on to all these sites selling replicas, and he made this particular model... to the best of my knowledge, approximately 22 years ago.

As many may remember, after JJ dropped his little foray into 'research'... he promptly disappeared for a few weeks. There was some amused discussion as to whether he believed he had achieved a mic drop moment, or whether he'd realized a few minutes after posting it just how fucking stupid it made him look and had consequently scurried off to hide for a bit and let the heat dissipate.

In the mean time, I decided to conduct a fun experiment. Of course, not being motivated by ideology, understanding the problems of asking a single seller a leading question and then hanging everything on their response, and also having scientific training which necessarily doesn't build castles from single data points and understands concepts like controls.... I decided to write an email to all the companies on my list adding controls; I wrote to 20 of the websites but 2 addresses were rejected, so 18 total. However, in my emails I changed just one detail. In 1/3 of them, I asked whether the replica was male. In 1/3 I asked whether it was female. And in 1/3 I simply asked what sex it was.

The format was:
Dear <company>, I am looking to buy a <gender or unspecified> Australopithecus afarensis replica skull. Could you please tell me what gender <their product number> is?

Obviously this is going to sail right over JJ's head, but I am sure other people here are not so dense and can explain to JJ why I did it this way.

Unfortunately, not all the websites were as strong in the customer service department as the one JJ happened to write to, but I still received back 10 replies. However, these are a little skewed now - damn uncontrollable humans, don't they know this is an experiment?

1) Requesting Male
Sent: 6
Total replies:3
Responses: 2 said male, 1 said they didn't know but could find out for me (ooh honesty!)

2) Requesting Female
Sent: 6
Total replies:3
Responses: all 3 said female

3) Unspecified gender
Sent: 6
Total replies:4
Responses: 2 said male, 1 said female, one said it was unknown :scratch:

So what is this phenomenon we're seeing?

Well, I submit that a seller of replicas who buys in models of thousands of different species (and in fact on most of these sites, replicas of historical art and various archaeological finds) can't really expected to have the training necessary to make any identification whatsoever, so unless they happened to have those details to hand, they instead opted to tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. This could sound unscrupulous, and perhaps in some of these cases it was unscrupulous - they quite possibly think that no one knows what sex it is, so telling me what I want to hear isn't going to hurt anyone.

Whatever the case is, it's a perfect example of JJ's confirmation bias. He found a single source which corroborated what he wanted to hear, did nothing whatsoever to corroborate it, then latched permanently onto it in typical close-minded fashion.

I provided a fairly complete list of characteristics which allows trained palaeoanthropologists to sex male or female Australopithecus afarensis' crania, I also supplied something in the region of 20 independent sources from expert palaeoanthropologists reporting in respectable peer-reviewed journals explicit anatomical descriptions which professionals in the field recognize as metrics for establishing the sex of afarensis... JJ has outright ignored each and every one of these - not even replying to those posts - his bar is a single email to a seller of Dinosaur replica items with no training whatsoever in anything relevant to sexing any hominid, let alone Australopithecines, let alone specifically afarensis... and now he actually thinks he can score back some credibility.

Is this knowing bullshit, or is he really this ignorant?

In terms of this thread, what actually occurred is that JJ tried to make one of his ever-retreating arguments that relied on comparing a male gorilla with a female Australopithecus afarensis, I took much amusement from this as he hung so much on in, and had been pounding his chest declaring his special ability to see what kind of animal Australopithecus (an entire genus of animals) truly was, yet he wasn't even able to tell a female from a male.

On top of that, we have hard recorded evidence in this thread of JJ being unable to tell the difference between a juvenile and an adult specimen, and most amusingly, unable to even tell the difference between an Australopithecus afarensis and an Australopithecus africanus!

And yet... he still wants to pose as someone serious and credible, and is still trying to sell his special ability to really see what kind of animal a... genus of animals that diversified anatomically over millions of years.... truly was. Clown.

This is why people laugh at Creationists.