Posted: Sep 30, 2019 2:26 pm
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2715201
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote: But there are plenty of reconstructions of Australopithecus with small canines.
No, there aren't, and you've never shown any reconstructions of any australopithecine with small canines.
...Jayjay4547 wrote:So why are there no reconstructions of male Australopithecus that could give context to your claims?
1) Why are there no reconstructions of male <insert a species, not part of the name for a species, and not quite a genus name here>? Well, firstly, who says there aren't? It's not like I'm the one saying... dude, I've put up reconstructions for you to peruse. For me, the reconstructions are not important whereas you've latched onto this notion that some specific yet unspecified bar is the only form of evidence you will accept. I find that laughable. I've provided ample evidence in many different formats supporting my position, I don't have to jump some hoop you've concocted to avoid acknowledging all that evidence.
2) Given that you tried this already, and I pointed out how pathetic it is for your position to appeal to a lack of evidence that you've seen as evidence for your position, when it's only you who wants this particular type of evidence, and you can't even show any evidence whatsoever for your case... and then when you try to, you once again post a fucking female afarensis, cluelessly, which is exactly what started this entire side-discussion, and which you're still arguing about 40 pages later, yet you still don't know what you're looking at.
And somehow, you still act like your position is credible. /shrug I can't help you: you're doing this to yourself, and I ain't coming to your rescue.