Posted: Sep 24, 2019 3:56 pm
Jayjay4547 wrote:Spearthrower wrote:
The guy you quoted is supposedly an expert in dinosaurs, btw. Do you think a statement by an expert in dinosaurs about sexing hominids by crania is more legitimate than a statement, supported by detailed anatomical analysis and a dozen references to peer reviewed literature, by a trained palaeoanthropologist?
Help me out on a point of clarity: what ‘expert in dinosaurs’ are you referring to: the sculptor Steve Pinney or the Dinosaur Corp. spokesman who said his work was of a male Au. afarensis?
Thanks
Miroslav Moravec, and he's not a 'Dinosaur Corporation spokesman' - he's explicitly listed as the President, CEO, and Managing Director, yet it was he who answered a random email inquiry, which should suggest to you that it's a one-man organisation. He also claims to be a palaeontologist, and an artist; I am assuming these are true for the sake of the discussion, but it's obviously not verified. It's all listed on the website, JJ - do you not even spend 5 minutes researching your own links?
A quick search shows Linkedin and Facebook profiles, Twitter, and a slew of other similar companies he's been involved with (owned) over the years.
But let's just assume he's an accredited Palaeontologist specializing in dinosaurs. Does that mean he's meant to be a legitimate source of information for sexing hominid fossils?
What he actually does, JJ, is sell toys. Toys, paintings, t-shirts and other clothing, posters, books, gems, bedding, and other tat. Good luck to him, I am not criticizing him at all.
However, you've sent one email to him and because he's said what you want to hear, you've lent complete credence to it. He used one single word 'male' that made you believe him.
Comparatively, I have explained morphological details to you, the characteristics that experts in the field use to go about sexing afarensis cranial fossil - specifically afarensis, mind you; detailed anatomical traits. I have also cited a dozen peer-reviewed papers from credible scientific journals, by well known experts in the field which all have received multiple further citations meaning their work has had a significant impact on the field as it's cited by other experts. And how much credence do you lend all that? Bugger all because it doesn't conform to your ideologically motivated preconceptions. You don't want it to be true. You don't want me to be right. You don't want me to be knowledgeable about this. You want your argument to be taken as fact, you refuse to acknowledge when you're wrong, and you justify it all by pretending that I'm the one operating under a confining ideology that constrains me to believe in some garbled nonsense you've made up on my behalf, which I reject not just because it's untrue, but because it's patently fucking ridiculous and ignorant of real world information.
You keep whining about how you're treated. Are you really this blind to yourself? Regardless of the status of my belief in divine entities, if I acted this way in a science thread on a topic I know bugger all about, then I could expect the same jeers and mockery, especially if I persisted for months and years. Stop lying to yourself JJ - you're the one creating this scenario, you're the one engendering mockery, and you're the one with the power to stop it.