YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No contest right now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isn't this cute?
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Unfortunately, that's the thing that horror movies are made out of.It's pretty interesting how a subjective decision can make some interesting differences in the reconstruction of the facial appearence of an extinct hominid.
I do not understand what you are trying to say with this thread or what it is that you want from me.No beef. Just reconstruction by ?? scientific methods or artists employed by publications? Meantime, the article states, "Now, the researchers that produced the dueling images are attempting to remove some of this subjectivity by introducing standards that may give more accurate and reproducible portraits of species known only from fossilized bone." So -- may give more accurate ...portraits." I like the term "may give." May give. After a long time. Well, science changes, doesn't it?Wait a minute. Now I see no hair on these rendered faces. LOL, they lost their facial hair --
A lot of your posts come off as if you feel you have found some significant case cracker, but your attempts all seem like a bust to most people as far as I have seen.
We do not know what these species looked like in life. The article indicates that scientists want to work with artists to make the artistic renderings less biased and accurate to the best knowledge we have. What do you find wrong with that? What do you think it tells you?
The article mentions that the two different renderings of the same subject were rendered with one more apelike and one more humanlike.
It seems the problem you are facing is that you are talking to others that actually read the article you linked.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
You haven't seen the Human Centipede did you?
So scientists should request them drawn like Yogi Bear or some loveable cartoon character?
These are not meant to frighten, titillate or sweep you off your feet. They are intended to give a representation of what these would have looked like in life. Do you think it is wrong to try to portray them as accurately as possible?
The Taung child skull fossil. Is it human or ape...?
Chimp and human skull comparisons....
\
Baby chimp...very different to an adult.
The actual size of the Taung child skull fossil.
Compare them....
Looks more like a baby chimp to me.....
Quoted from the article.....
"Depictions of extinct human ancestors and cousins are often more art than science."
Yep, I reckon so too....inventions of human imagination...what a handsome dude......
Chimp and human skull comparisons....
Baby chimp...very different to an adult.
The actual size of the Taung child skull fossil.
Compare them....
Looks more like a baby chimp to me.....
Quoted from the article.....
"Depictions of extinct human ancestors and cousins are often more art than science."
Yep, I reckon so too....inventions of human imagination...what a handsome dude......
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Again-- as I said -- those depictions are interestingly enough, what horror pictures are made of. So there obviously is some feeling about what they look like. A biological anthropologist states, "“They think it is reality,” he says. And that can skew people’s views and reinforce existing prejudices of present-day people." (Hmm, isn't that interesting? "existing prejudices ... hmmm. In those renderings. hmmm)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
no, but you're making me laugh. I'm not sure I want to see the Human Centipede. I might be horrified.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Yep. Sure is. Thanks for sharing.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Both and neither. The Taung Child is an Australopithecus Africanus. This species, about 3 million years old, is a very early hominid and could certainly deserve the moniquer of "transitional form" between hominid and other great apes.
I have no idea what you mean. I never saw a biological illustrator horror movie.
People have prejudices. Why you highlight that you find it interesting without explanation is typical of your approach to these things you post.
It couldn't be any worse than watching someone attempt to make a mockery out of something they do not understand.
This is why papers only consider bone structures and scientists only work with fossils. The models you see in museums are only for popular consumption and are not used in scientific analysis.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This hits the nail on the head.
Reminds me of this extremely well preserved fossil that was found...
This Is the Best Dinosaur Fossil of Its Kind Ever Found
The artists did a pretty good job predicting what this dinosaur could have looked like before they dug this guy up, IMO.
This Is the Best Dinosaur Fossil of Its Kind Ever Found
The artists did a pretty good job predicting what this dinosaur could have looked like before they dug this guy up, IMO.
Well...both...
But in terms of the intent of your question, it was a topic of considerable scientific argument for many years.
The result of that scientific argument is that it's commonly viewed as one of the transitional forms many regularly claim 'don't exist'.
Wilfred Le Gros Clark was a key figure in supporting this finding.
It was an ape. But then, so are humans, so that isn't much help.
It was NOT a chimp, although it has a number of similarities to a young chimp (which is expected since it was young).
It also was not human.
It was a *transitional* species between other apes and modern humans. You know, the exact type of thing that is predicted by evolution.
Your article discusses skin color.
Skin color cannot be deduced from skull shapes. However, DNA can determine eye color, hair color, and I think also skin color. That is, if DNA still exists.
Modern methods of extracting DNA are more successful than techniques a few years ago.
Scientists believe that modern mankind began in Africa and traveled north to the rest of Eurasia. It is possible that humans were dark skinned originally, and that might explain why Africans, today, are dark skinned. Also, if mankind is related to bonobo chimps, and chimp's skin is black, it stands to reason that early man was black.
Through DNA, we know that Neanderthal skin was white, and their eyes were light (typically blue), and their hair was blond or red.
We also know that modern man has as much as 6% neanderthal DNA. There are no existing Neanderthal male lines, nor female lines, but the DNA exists in mixed lines. For example, your grandfather's y-DNA is passed to male kids, but fails to get passed to female kids. Yet, the females have DNA that is not y-DNA from your grandfather.
It is possible that Neanderthals, who left Africa much earlier than modern mankind, could have had sufficient time to evolve lighter skin. This would enhance their body's ability to absorb more sunlight from northern sun (which is less intense because it penetrates more atmosphere. This sunlight allowed their bodies to metabolically produce vitamin D. They would also blend in with snowy country.
Could it be that the blonds who exist today could be blond from their Neanderthal DNA? The prevalence of Neanderthal DNA seems higher in countries with blonder people.
Blacks didn't breed with Neanderthals, because the Neanderthals had left Africa long ago.
As for refining facial features without artistic biases. The science of facial reconstruction is getting more exact. However, as your article points out, there is a difference in the muscle of apes and humans, and, unless DNA is used it is an artist's guess about the type of muscle.
As we learn more, we leave less to chance, and eventually form a much clearly picture of ancient man and ancient artifacts.
Many criticize scientists for being racist for trying to determine such things as skin color and eye color. Yet, pure science doesn't seem to preoccupy itself with such concepts except to attempt to get as accurate as possible to reality.