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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bias? By the way, I like that -- "increase accuracy." But now that you mention it, accuracy? What do you mean by that?They want to remove bias and increase accuracy of artistic depictions of extinct hominids. What is the beef?
Bias? By the way, I like that -- "increase accuracy." But now that you mention it, accuracy? What do you mean by that?
Accuracy in the artistic representation.Bias? By the way, I like that -- "increase accuracy." But now that you mention it, accuracy? What do you mean by that?
yup. It sure is. Interesting. Of course, beauty (and by that I mean physical beauty) can be "in the eyes of the beholder." Although decisions have been made about what constitutes physical facial beauty.It's pretty interesting how a subjective decision can make some interesting differences in the reconstruction of the facial appearence of an extinct hominid.
You mentioned bias.Accuracy in the artistic representation.
yup. It sure is. Interesting. Of course, beauty (and by that I mean physical beauty) can be "in the eyes of the beholder." Although decisions have been made about what constitutes physical facial beauty.
And if I understand you correctly, it seems you are saying many renderings were not accurate?Accuracy in the artistic representation.
Yeah, we don't want no ugly reconstructions.yup. It sure is. Interesting. Of course, beauty (and by that I mean physical beauty) can be "in the eyes of the beholder." Although decisions have been made about what constitutes physical facial beauty.
Some people think chimps are cute, maybe not pretty though. Muscles, however, are usually not preserved in skull fossils, are they?They aren't trying to make them pretty.
The one on the left is modelled after using chimps muscles as a baseline while the other, on the right, is using modern human muscles as baseline to reconstitute the appearance of that child.
They are interpretations that can vary with the artist and basis they follow in making the reconstruction. I am not applying any quantitative estimates on the number and level of accuracy of any rendering. I actually read and understood the article you linked.And if I understand you correctly, it seems you are saying many renderings were not accurate?
You spoke of bias. Yet fail to explain.Yeah, we don't want no ugly reconstructions.
Did he mention that original muscles are preserved in these fossils? I did not see him mention that.Some people think chimps are cute, maybe not pretty though. Muscles, however, are usually not preserved in skull fossils, are they?
Did you not read the article?You spoke of bias. Yet fail to explain.
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 --They want to remove bias and increase accuracy of artistic depictions of extinct hominids. What is the beef?
I'm asking. Since a poster was including muscles of chimps as a baseline.Did he mention that original muscles are preserved in these fossils? I did not see him mention that.
Muscles, however, are usually not preserved in skull fossils, are they?
OK, what's that skull supposed to be of?here’s what they look like
View attachment 52218