• 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?

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The muscles themselves are not, but all muscles leaves marks and imprints on bones where they were attached and its by analyzing those marks that you can know their shape and their mass at least to a certain degree.
No contest right now.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's pretty interesting how a subjective decision can make some interesting differences in the reconstruction of the facial appearence of an extinct hominid.

032621_ti_hominid-reconstructions_inline1-1018x580.jpg
Unfortunately, that's the thing that horror movies are made out of.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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 -- :)
I do not understand what you are trying to say with this thread or what it is that you want from me.

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?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm asking. Since a poster was including muscles of chimps as a baseline.
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.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Unfortunately, that's the thing that horror movies are made out of.
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?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The Taung child skull fossil. Is it human or ape...?

032621_ti_hominid-reconstructions_inline2-800x369.jpg


Chimp and human skull comparisons....
images
images
\

Baby chimp...very different to an adult.
images


The actual size of the Taung child skull fossil.
images

Compare them....
Looks more like a baby chimp to me.....

images


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......
happy0195.gif
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
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?
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)
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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)
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.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The Taung child skull fossil. Is it human or ape...?

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.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The Taung child skull fossil. Is it human or ape...?

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.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member

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.
 
Top