rationalskepticism.org

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The fat red lines...

I wonder what is left for you to complain about?

First I was "defacing the evidence" - a transparently ridiculous accusation given that a) the pictures you first posted remained unchanged b) the actual evidence is a physical specimen located completely outside the remit of my paint program and c) drawing lines on a picture to convey information cannot be described as 'defacing'.

Undaunted by such inanity, you next tried - after many pages had conveniently passed - to claim that my only response was 'cartoonish' - there's nothing cartoony about it.

Now, the problem is that the lines are too fat?

Are you actually physically wiggling around in your seat as you write these things?

The reason they're 'fat' red lines is because I happened to write that post at a computer which possessed only the most elementary paint program. But the thickness of the lines is, of course, completely irrelevant to the information they convey.

Jayjay4547 wrote: you drew on my pics...

Not your pics.

Jayjay4547 wrote: don’t reflect a serious attempt to show anyone that the sculpture on the right is inspired by the female A.L. 822-1 in the middle and not the male on the left.

Well, to address the most obvious stupidity in that: I am not trying to show anyone that the sculpture on the right is inspired by the other two - that's your ridiculous argument, not mine. Quite the contrary, the lines convey information showing that this *cannot* be the case, which was the point I'd made both in words and in that picture. Was this a Trumpian slip of the tongue, have you completely forgotten your own argument, or is this another example of JJ's unplumbed capacity for deceit?

And why is it I was drawing lines rather than writing it out in detailed form? Hmmm? It seems a bit unfair of me not to have specified exactly why in the very same post in which I posted those 'defaced cartoony fat lines', doesn't it?

Oh wait a moment... I did.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... e#p2703701

Spearthrower wrote:Remember how well JJ responded to me explaining in technical terms the characteristics of afarensis cranial morphology?

Yeah, ignored it for a dozen pages, then sought to claim it was a smokescreen.

Which is all very convenient for him, isn't it? Because how I am I supposed to show him how abjectly fucking clueless he is being yet again if he can't understand the words I use, and spins technical explanations as being bullshit?

Well, we all know how amazing he thinks his ability to 'see' things is... and yet he's posting a comparison of 3 pictures, a male afarensis fossil cranium, a female fossil cranium, and a replica afarensis female I've already said is at least 50% artistic license, and declaring they look the same to him.

Ok, I guess I will draw in crayon, as that appears to be the only permissible form of communication.

So once again, you are caught attempting to revise history to suit your argument. And you wonder why people consider you an compulsive liar.

The fact is that after carefully ignoring the detailed anatomical analysis I wrote of the original replica, you then attempted over the course of 4 pages to claim I was trying to deceive people with what I had written:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... e#p2702447

Jayjay4547 wrote:Your technical description above sounds impressively expert but it establishes nothing about the relative canine lengths of male and female hominins. It wasn't even clear whether your description was to distinguish male from female, or afarensis from other Australopithecus species as you imply in your post now. .And what those pics show is how closely the male hominin skulls resembled the female. A pictures is worth a thousand words, at least when the words are meant to put up a smokescreen.

Yes, it was yet another transparent evasion of ever addressing information which doesn't conform to your screed, this time by pretending that words weren't worth anything, and that pictures tell the story. So after laughing at how obvious this was, I then called your bluff and posted a substantive response to your contentions in pictorial form.

And now, a convenient dozen or so pages later, you're complaining that I am using pictures!

It's almost as if you don't want there to be any way at all for me to respond to your claims, JJ. Wouldn't that be the most convenient way possible, if someone qualified in comparative primate morphology wasn't permitted to challenge your claims about comparative primate morphology.

Perhaps you should demand I respond in experimental dance next?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Not that sculptor Steve Pinney could have used this female if he made it as you said “to the best of my knowledge, 22 years ago”, seeing that A.L. 822-1 was only discovered 19 years ago and that image dates from 2010
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981961/

Oh my god, you are so confused and lost, it's amazing how you still sound so confident.

Yes, he COULD NOT HAVE USED THAT FOSSIL... that was EXACTLY MY POINT. You were trying to claim the opposite, I was showing you wrong.

Pinney didn't know about that fossil, which is why so many of the fill-in details in his sculpture are so wrong. I drew planes for comparative purposes so you can see with your own eyes where he's made up details where he possessed no reference to draw from.

This is becoming gob-smackingly obtuse now. You don't seem to remember what you were arguing, let alone having even a passing grasp of the conversation.

Those paying attention, however, will note that even 25+ pages ago, I was already saying the same thing: that 40% of the female A. afarensis cranial replica you posted was artistic license.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You originally said flatly that the sculpture was of a female,...

The adverb 'flatly' there is doing nothing.

I said the sculpture was female because it IS female. You, of course, couldn't lower yourself to ask me how I knew it was female, so I poked fun at you for a page or two before posting up a detailed anatomical analysis of the replica showing how it was certainly female. I then followed that up by citing peer-reviewed literature from credible experts in the field confirming the key elements supporting that, including canine length and breadth.

Jayjay4547 wrote: to contradict my point that Australopithecus genus didn’t have fang-like canines.

Yes, and you know, the other citations to peer reviewed scientific literate from professional anatomical anthropologists.

Jayjay4547 wrote: All your later pics and graphs, (without explanations)...

Your arguments are funny. You claim that you can magically see things from photographs, that pictures speak a thousand words, and that written language is deceitful... yet you can't even read a graph? The graph doesn't need an explanation, JJ - it's a graph, they already contain all the information you need. The pics I drew lines on contain the information necessary to establish my point: I could of course write it out, but we've seen how you try to spin my written replies as being deceitful.

You've rather cornered yourself here, haven't you? Another example of how you refuse to permit information which won't conform to your ideologically motivated presuppositions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and now your open appeal to authority via a Yale professor,...

Nice try, but I cited a dozen papers directly addressing your totally unsubstantiated assertion, and you've determinedly ignored them all. So I went for the pithy one-liner route you couldn't really hope to evade.

A current summary of the standing between our two positions.

You possess a declaration with no evidence whatsoever, plus you've shown how incompetent you are at judging anatomical characteristics of hominids.

I've cited a dozen professionals in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals expressly corroborating my own detailed morphological analysis; I've cited fossils with detailed accounts of their anatomy; I've cited comparative dental analysis of all known fossils up to 2010; and I've cited several experts writing simply summary sentences which directly contradict your assertion.

Yet you think there's an equality to our positions?

All we're seeing here is you adamantly refusing to acknowledge reality while stupidly believing that you can convince people to accept your declarations of reality. You have no case, just a lot of chest-beating.

Jayjay4547 wrote: fail to touch the point I made long ago: if any Australopithecus male had fang-like canines, then somewhere among the hundreds of sculptures and reconstructions, there would be at least one creditable pic, showing an Australopithecus male with fang like canines.

Ahhh so you're going to appeal to absence of evidence as evidence of your claim?

Of course, there's a logical gap in your 'reasoning' there. You might be hyper-excited about photographs, but in reality, written reports is where the majority of information resides.

In reality, I have actually posted pictures of male A. afarensis canines, but of course, they weren't attached to the maxillary bone as long, thin, sharp things tend to break under pressure... the kind of pressure that results in fossils.

Instead, there are associated canines. I'll help you out here as I know you're abjectly ignorant about this entire field. What happens is that a field researcher finds some pieces of cranium in a particular location, on a particular strata, and nearby (maybe even jumbled up together in the rock) are the pieces of the original skeleton which have become disassociated. That's the case with all these fossils which is why you see fragmentary crania with 'fills'. If you want to see pictures of all their bits stuck together, that's called a 'reconstruction' JJ. Reconstructions tend to be only used to awe the general public because computers allow far more flexibility when it comes to viewing anatomical geometry.

Regardless, let's turn it back the other way. If A. afarensis (or any Australopithecine) male possessed small, flat canines, then somewhere along the dozens of fossils and photographs of fossils, you'd be able to find and present a picture showing that. Why can't you? Well, first of all because you're wrong, and secondly because it's not even certain that you'd know what an afarensis canine looks like given how you've failed so many times in that regard in this very thread.

So go ahead and appeal to no evidence for your claim. That suits me perfectly as it's exactly what I've been saying. You have no evidence for your contention, meanwhile I have reams of evidence for mine.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Like I said, if I am shown one, that will so upset my understanding of human origins that I will leave this forum. I won’t leave it because you call me a lying little runt:

Like I said: what a silly reason. You're pretending you have some credibility that would be damaged by being shown wrong in a field you manifestly know fuck all about.

This is MY field and as such there is a reasonable expectation for me to maintain standards of accuracy, yet if I was shown wrong, I'd say 'oops' and learn from it, not flounce off into the horizon.

Your refusal to learn, your refusal to acknowledge your errors, your refusal to accept evidence which contradicts your claim is what you SHOULD be embarrassed about, but your intransigence and close-mindedness is not a badge of honour. If you want a reason to scarper off in shame, they're the reason... not being shown wrong about something you obviously lack any real knowledge about. If you were motivated by truth, you'd have been lapping this up, and quite possibly even extending some gratitude to me for correcting your previously held erroneous notions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt. I take full responsibility for those words, and I stand by them. I would happily stand an inch from your face and say exactly the same thing. You're an obsessive liar, you're an object example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and you need psychological help to deal with your obsessive hostility.

My emphasis.

Yes, go fuck yourself JJ, you lying little runt.

You can't cite it every post. I'll go grab the post where you called everyone rabid dogs, shall I?