FoFo owns a creationist.

this is a response to:


response:


transcript:
hi's hellos and garbage.

first comparison:

austra. africanus
to: a female Cercopithecus pygerythrus, better known as a vervet monkey.
first problem: those are not fangs.
as you'll see from this, more complete skull: A. afrincanus had flat teeth.
You can see a rather large difference between the shapes of the brow ridge, and the roundness of the eye sockets. Please note the clear morphological differences between the skull morphology, shape of the jaw and general size.

The vervet monkey has an average skull length of 10cm and are around 45 to 85 cm in size. austra. africanus on the other hand, using the sizes shown in the WBH-07 specimen, had a skull of 19cm and a size of over 100cm. [i say over because the specific specimens size is unknown; however the juvenile specimen known as tuang child, aged 3-6 years was over the 100cm mark].

Such a massive misinterpretation of the data can only be interpreted as the rosiest of glasses or outright deceit.

africanus, a bipedal ape being mistaken for an old world monkey? doubtful.
After this flounder; our wayward critiquer of paleoanthropology stumbles upon what is known as the "skull challenge" and of course, attributes the skulls of Australopithecus africanus and Homo habilis to "variations of a modern chimpanzee skull". Africanus is of course, already covered. Hbilis is, however, not. Habilis is one of the earliest additions to the homo genus, our genus. Master of the
Olduwan era tool case, king of sharpened rocks. while modern chimps, have only recently been observed in the "sharpened stick" level of development. Why an ancient modern chimp would discard stone tools in favour of teeth and sticks, well, i'd like to see you explain that.


but the big difference ill touch on right now, is simply size and cranial capacity. Habilis has some, chimps... well, they dont. Habilis had an average cc between 590 and 650, and stood 1.4 meters tall. Chimps on the other hand have an average of 375cc and stand roughly 1.2 meters in height.

You would think that old Habilis's troubles would end here, but no. After a quick comparison of yet another Africanus skull to an old world monkey, Habilis makes, yet another appearance. This time being compared to Macaca mulatta, the Rhecus monkey. A species with an average height of 53 centimeters. Aside form the more then obvious
structural differences between a Macaque and a homid, our blunderous friend actually has the gall to say that the skull, the habilis skull, is missing a fang! I invite everyone watching this video to search around for some images of habilis skulls; it has very few fangs to miss. especially on the order that rhythms comparison skull
would suggest.

Rhyme seems altogether set on ignoring the morphological distinctions between the specimens in favour of his own short sighted prognosis. Compare the shape of the jaws and the size of the skull as well as the skulls general shape, any thinking person
with a pair of functioning eyes, or at least a decent set of glasses, Can note the holes in rthymes theory. You could lose the grand canyon in them.

And then.... then things just got funny. Not haha funny, noooo, more like batty koda in fern gully funny. Do you know what his next move was? can you guess as to what his unidentified salvo was composed of?

in case you can't, I'll tell you. Neanderthal.

And what did he compare it too? another vervet monkey.

Damn, man. You certainly have a hard on for these vervets. This poor fellow, is comparing a fire using, tool building, cave painting, 5foot 5, higher cc then a modern human, neanderthal. to a tree swinging asian monkey that could stand on your shoulder. Yea... do i even have to bother ith this one?

Well, my expert, who i owe some of the finer details of this video to, wants me to bother.

well... how about this, you could probably fit a vervet monkey in to a neanderthal skull. You could also, of course, point out the massive morphological distinctions between the two... or pretty much any species that shared it's time line, save cro-magon, you could point out how throughout rthymes video, we see an interesting progression from robust facial features, small cranium and larger jaws, slowly
gradually shifting to a flatter face, shrunken jaw and large skull.
As an interesting side note, it's exactly that which causes wisdom teeth to erupt rather painfully in modern humans.


you will of course, also note that he majourity of his example skulls are found in asia, while the majourity of early human skulls are, of course... african. i figured now was as good a time as any, to tell him he was off by a continent.

The one thing he did get right, in this entire video. is when he pointed dout a pair of erectus skulls and said that they were not human. This is true, humans had yet to evolve. they are erectus. and they are ancestrial. ^^ unless, of course, our friend wants to grant monkeys mastery of fire, empathy and tools. I forget the specific
name of the find, but essentially it highlighted an erectus specimen in an advanced state of a bone disease, commonly caused by consuming the liver of a carnivor. essentially, it showed that erectus cared for there sick because the creature would, and some species continue to do so, die in a much earlier stage of the disease without care.

he ended this travesty with a comparison to a Pygathrix nemaeus, apparently missing, that the skull was far, far to small, the species was far, far to small, and the eyes were proportionally three times larger.

Now, i myself, have only a recent interest in this field, and i could pick out these errors blindfolded. well, if i could feel the skulls i could. Luckily, i have been blessed with an extended network of very smart people who spend alot of time in these subjects, and are kind enough to help me along with the details. Special thanks goes to the guy in question, who helped me with this video. you know who you are.

anyway, thats about it, you may now continue about your day, knowing that rthyme blatantly lied to you. Knowing that the extent of his research was clicking the first Google result for "monkey skulls", and knowing that if he lied about this, he may be lying about many other things.