Re: The taxonomy of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from a craniometric perspective

  Mario Petrinovic wrote:

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

         Well, I like to watch real life crime cases. In some cases even fingerprint isn't enough. What if you match a person to the place, this still doesn't have to mean anything.

          Actually, see this, humans have SC fat, so this places humans in water. Is this enough? There are some very knowledgeable lawyers who will defend the savanna lie, not enough evidence, lol.

I'm a lazy fuck. Truly am. So I'm going to give you a super simple,
fast, accurate way to judge evidence:
Either apply the exact same rules/interpretations to contrary
evidence, or employ the exact same means of collection/interpretation
to contrary evidence.
Because what invariably happens in the case of pseudo science is
a sliding-scale. Like how teeth alone prove Chimps were somewhere
half a million years ago, but teeth can't prove hominids were in
Europe 10 million years ago. Teeth aren't enough.
I've pointed this out many times in my Geofacts (as opposed to
artifacts) arguments.
My one big or at least one of my biggest *Scores* in paleo
anthropology was... 2007? Over in talk.origins, back before usenet
died. I pointed out that, yes, there was interbreeding between
Neanderthals and so called "Moderns." And on the other side were
all these mouth breathers citing "DNA evidence." Well, there was
very little published DNA work at that time, on Neanderthals, it
dealt with the mtDNA and it was interpreted in the exact OPPOSITE
way the famous Wilson & Cann mtDNA study interpreted it, and THAT
study supposedly "Proved" Out of Africa purity and cemented the
"Mitochondrial Eve" concept.
See, Wilson & Cann assumed that interbreeding wouldn't necessarily
show up in the mtDNA, while the Neanderthal claims were all based
in the idea that interbreeding would have to be reflected in mtDNA.
Opposite assumptions, opposite interpretations.
So how did I know which was right?
Well. The Wilson & Cann study African Americans for their African
mtDNA, though there had been CENTURIES on interbreeding. The study
was later replicated using purely African subjects! So it seemed
very likely to be the correct assumption; that interbreeding
wouldn't necessarily be reflected in the mtDNA.
I took THEIR rules and I applied it to ALL THE EVIDENCE, and that
disproved them.
Well. Not as far as they were concerned. Nobody in the group
ever admitted I was right, not even after the Neanderthal genome
was published and interbreeding was 100% confirmed (as if it
hadn't already been with the archeology). They just flipped poles
and pretended that they've always knew interbreeding happened.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5