They're aquatic and aa says they need one.
They're aquatic and aa says they need one.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
They're aquatic and aa says they need one.
Instead of parading the massive gaps in your knowledge, why not base
your questions on what you do know?
For example, as Coastal Dispersal is accepted, even by Out of African purists, and stopping at a sea side McDonald's was unlikely, how could
anyone outside a psychiatric hospital think they weren't exploiting the
sea in order to eat?
And why did they spread across the globe? The screaming obvious
answer is that BECAUSE they lived along the waterline, they consumed resources & moved on. But your ears are clogged, you can't hear all
those obvious screams, So you clearly "Argue" that they treks from
continent to continent for a different reason...
Overcrowding? Is that it?
Actually, sorry, but if we ask questions based on what we know -- even
you know -- instead of ignorance, going off about otters or beavers seems
a little dumb. Or a lot dumb.
Some imbecil believes aquatic mammals have exgernal noses:Tell us about snorkel noses again ->
They're aquatic and aa says they need one.
:-DDD
How stupid can you be?
Tell it to
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Tell it to
So you're not mv and mv posts your words and that's why
your so called "Argument" is not yours?
(let me know when it dawns on you)
They're aquatic and aa says they need one.Neither do sea turtles.
As ridiculous as "why don't sea-otters have snorkel noses" is "why don't humans
(endurance runners!! :-DDD) run on hooves?".
Some imbecil believes aquatic mammals have exgernal noses:
They're aquatic and aa says they need one.
:-DDD
How stupid can you be?
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
Op woensdag 1 juni 2022 om 19:54:31 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Tell it to
So you're not mv and mv posts your words and that's why
your so called "Argument" is not yours?
(let me know when it dawns on you)
As ridiculous as "why don't sea-otters have snorkel noses" is "why don't humans (endurance runners!! :-DDD) run on hooves?".
Op woensdag 8 juni 2022 om 05:32:21 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becoming more+more infantile.
The nostrils of the big neandertal nose + prognathism were closed by the upper lip, of course: philtrum!
Please keep running after you kudu... :-DDD
Primum Sapienti wrote:
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
According to you, not that you can keep track of your idiocy but, according to you he quoted someone who claimed to observe it at the time of the discovery of the remains.
So what you would do, if you weren't a mouth breather, is try to come up
with something to verify or falsify the claim. Because that's precisely
what science is: A process that eliminates the human element, such as
your idiotic response here.
There's lots of claims, even physical evidence, that is ignored because it
is anomalous. Myself? I've often discounted claims on that very basis, offering that if the claims are true then it's only a matter of time before the
evidence establishes it as fact, but until then I would favor a conservative approach. And you could do that here, but you're not. You don't even know
how you might test ideas or why ideas should be tested.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/666892277639233536
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
According to you, not that you can keep track of your idiocy but, according to you he quoted someone who claimed to observe it at the time of the discovery of the remains.
So what you would do, if you weren't a mouth breather, is try to come up
with something to verify or falsify the claim. Because that's precisely
what science is: A process that eliminates the human element, such as
your idiotic response here.
There's lots of claims, even physical evidence, that is ignored because it
is anomalous. Myself? I've often discounted claims on that very basis, offering that if the claims are true then it's only a matter of time before the
evidence establishes it as fact, but until then I would favor a conservative approach. And you could do that here, but you're not. You don't even know
how you might test ideas or why ideas should be tested.
Some kudu-runner who is so idiotic as to confuse the human "philtrum" with the completely different "philtrum" in most mammals (google e.g. "philtrum dog" or "philtrum monkey") wrote:
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
Childish liar: Otto Hauser's description in 1908 when he unearthed the Moustier Hn:
the nostrils were placed more anteriorly:
from my 1997 book p.171:
"... Otto Hauser ... onderscheidde nog de afdruk van de uitwendige neus:
de neusgaten stonden meer naar voren, verder op de neustop als bij ons."
Op woensdag 8 juni 2022 om 05:32:21 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
:-DDD
My little little boy, you're becoming more+more infantile.
The nostrils of the big neandertal nose + prognathism were closed by the upper lip, of course: philtrum!
Please keep running after you kudu... :-DDD
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
:-DDD My little little boy, you're becoming more+more infantile.
The nostrils of the big neandertal nose + prognathism were closed by the upper lip, of course: philtrum!
Not possible. If those nostrils were on TOP of the nose, how could the
upper lip go that far to cover them????
mv did quote that.
Op maandag 27 juni 2022 om 00:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
:-DDD My little little boy, you're becoming more+more infantile.
The nostrils of the big neandertal nose + prognathism were closed by the upper lip, of course: philtrum!
No answer, only this nonsense:
Not possible. If those nostrils were on TOP of the nose, how could the
upper lip go that far to cover them????
???
Are you really that stupid??
Again, my litle boy:
If you put your 2nd & 3rd fingertops 1 or 2 cm apart underneath your upper lip, and then try to inhale through your nose, your lip perfectly closes your nostrils.
Didn't you know??
The human philtrum (very unlike the monkey's) fits perfectly at the underside of our nose if we had been more prognathous (as H.neand. were):
IOW, our upper lip in the early- & mid-Pleistocene could easily close our nostrils.
It's difficult to find another functional explanation for the *human* philtrum in our upper lip: a nostril-closing device, that beautifully fits the columella.
Okidoki?
The human philtrum, bordered by ridges, also is known as the infranasal depression, but has no apparent function.
Op maandag 27 juni 2022 om 00:45:59 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
:-DDD My little little boy, you're becoming more+more infantile.
The nostrils of the big neandertal nose + prognathism were closed by the upper lip, of course: philtrum!
No answer, only this nonsense:
Not possible. If those nostrils were on TOP of the nose, how could the
upper lip go that far to cover them????
???
Are you really that stupid??
Again, my litle boy:
If you put your 2nd & 3rd fingertops 1 or 2 cm apart underneath your upper lip, and then try to inhale through your nose, your lip perfectly closes your nostrils.
Didn't you know??
The human philtrum (very unlike the monkey's) fits perfectly at the underside of our nose if we had been more prognathous (as H.neand. were):
IOW, our upper lip in the early- & mid-Pleistocene could easily close our nostrils.
It's difficult to find another functional explanation for the *human* philtrum in our upper lip: a nostril-closing device, that beautifully fits the columella.
Okidoki?
Primum Sapienti wrote:
mv did quote that.
Think of this like a court of law, where facts have to be established: You just established that you are an goddamn nimrod.
I mean, you read a quote, you confirm it was a quote -- when both sides
agree on something in court it's called "Established" -- and yet here you
are upset over the quoting of a quote because... because... well, who
cares? Your reasoning could only be ridiculous so best not to dwell on
it.
But YOU established ONCE AGAIN that it is a quote. It's not anything
that someone here made up, it is a legitimate quote.
So what's your issue?
"You can't quote something if someone really said it!!!!"
Like always, your so called "Arguments" are pointless. You don't even
seem to be aware of what if anything you want to challenge, much less
how.
So can you move on now? Thanks in advance.
Primum Sapienti wrote:nose...
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal
According to you, not that you can keep track of your idiocy but,according
to you he quoted someone who claimed to observe it at the time of the discovery of the remains.
So what you would do, if you weren't a mouth breather, is try to come up with something to verify or falsify the claim. Because that's precisely
what science is: A process that eliminates the human element, such as
your idiotic response here.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
According to you, not that you can keep track of your idiocy but,
according to you he quoted someone who claimed to observe it
at the time of the discovery of the remains.
mv did quote that.
And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal nose...
According to you, not that you can keep track of your idiocy but,according
to you he quoted someone who claimed to observe it at the time of the discovery of the remains.
mv did quote that.
some idiot:
nose...And let's not forget you believe nostrils on TOP of the neanderthal
According to you, not that you can keep track of your idiocy but,according
to you he quoted someone who claimed to observe it at the time of the
discovery of the remains.
the same idiot:
mv did quote that.
idiotic liar
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 167:56:30 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,819 |