Isn't this cute?

[A Vestigial Mote]

You mentioned bias.

Well, you perpetrated bias the moment you used the word "cute" in the thread title in an (assumedly) sarcastic way.

The takeaway I get here is that you want us to view the photos in the article, find ourselves somewhat repulsed, and then conclude that we don't want to be related to "that thing."

If that is not at all what you intended, then please, by all means, demonstrate to me that you actually thought the photos "cute." Tell me all about it. let me know what, exactly, you find attractive about the mocked-up faces in the renderings. I'd love to hear it.

 

[Bear Wild]

New depictions of ancient hominids aim to overcome artistic biases | Science News

I am still waiting for your expert explanation of fossils to put all of us evolutionists to same. You must have discovered the final and complete answer that explains the fossil deposits in differing geologic strata and over different geologic locations - (shellfish and fish fossil in the middle of a continent).

Now before you criticize, make fun of or question any further fossil evidence, please enlighten us with your explanation and set us straight. (Oh and not how fossils are formed we all probably could agree on that)

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, you perpetrated bias the moment you used the word "cute" in the thread title in an (assumedly) sarcastic way.

The takeaway I get here is that you want us to view the photos in the article, find ourselves somewhat repulsed, and then conclude that we don't want to be related to "that thing."

If that is not at all what you intended, then please, by all means, demonstrate to me that you actually thought the photos "cute." Tell me all about it. let me know what, exactly, you find attractive about the mocked-up faces in the renderings. I'd love to hear it.

You don't find them attractive? Why do you think the renditions look like that? Again regarding bias, these two images do look like things from a horror movie. Rarely does a freak character look like the supposed Prince Charming. However, while we're on the subject, some astute observers recognize the racial characteristics concerning the depiction of supposedly evolved humans. From chimpanzee-looking sorts as they supposedly straighten up.
Taken from a science magazine, New Science:
"Until recently, the only evidence for the existence of a mysterious group of ancient humans known as the Denisovans was ancient DNA extracted from a fingerbone and three teeth found in the Altai mountains in Siberia. Now a team has created the above portrait of a young Denisovan woman based on that fingerbone DNA – but other researchers are sceptical of the method they used." This is almost certainly not what Denisovans looked like | New Scientist

 

[Twilight Hue]

no, but you're making me laugh. I'm not sure I want to see the Human Centipede. I might be horrified.

 

[Bear Wild]

You don't find them attractive? Why do you think the renditions look like that? Again regarding bias, these two images do look like things from a horror movie. Rarely does a freak character look like the supposed Prince Charming. However, while we're on the subject, some astute observers recognize the racial characteristics concerning the depiction of supposedly evolved humans. From chimpanzee-looking sorts as they supposedly straighten up.
Taken from a science magazine, New Science:
"Until recently, the only evidence for the existence of a mysterious group of ancient humans known as the Denisovans was ancient DNA extracted from a fingerbone and three teeth found in the Altai mountains in Siberia. Now a team has created the above portrait of a young Denisovan woman based on that fingerbone DNA – but other researchers are sceptical of the method they used." This is almost certainly not what Denisovans looked like | New Scientist

Please give your explanation. We all know science theories progress with time as new information becomes available and even that there are healthy disagreements amongst scientists. Yet you give no explanation of the fossil evidence. Either you do not have any explanation or you realized your explanation has nothing at all to support it and so desperately search for anything to argue over to distract from the reality that the theory is the best and only supported explanation.

So if you actually have something better to explain the fossils - say it instead of making fun of representations that have evidence and meaning. To most life on the earth now humans are the horror movie.

 

[YoursTrue]

Doesn't "accuracy" in that context always translate to "closer to reality". In facial reconstruction there is always going to be a measure of interpretation since you are going by skull shape and muscle lines which leaves a lot of room, but there are ways to increase accuracy by using more sophisticated modeling tools taking into account more data or by removing entirely a completely imagination dependent feature like hair style as mentioned in the article.

Looking up a few things about evolution and racism, I was a little surprised to read the following:
"When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population. Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’.
She was a hardcore racist, but this is not publicized by Planned Parenthood today."

When I was in high school I was not a real believer in God, I didn't study the Bible or know that much about it. But I did not like war and I ingenuously asked my American history teacher (I was an 'honor student,' by the way) why people go to war. And he said one reason was to, "reduce the population." Little did I know that was a rather popular belief among those like Margaret Sanger. I was astounded and saddened to hear him say that--I liked and respected my teacher--but I had no Bible trained belief at the time so just heard that excuse (reason) in some dismay without recourse.
Does A Belief In Evolution Lead To Racism? – The Truth (thetruthwins.com)

 

[epronovost]

Looking up a few things about evolution and racism, I was a little surprised to read the following:
"When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population. Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’.
She was a hardcore racist, but this is not publicized by Planned Parenthood today."

When I was in high school I was not a real believer in God, I didn't study the Bible or know that much about it. But I did not like war and I ingenuously asked my American history teacher (I was an 'honor student,' by the way) why people go to war. And he said one reason was to, "reduce the population." Little did I know that was a rather popular belief among those like Margaret Sanger. I was astounded and saddened to hear him say that--I liked and respected my teacher--but I had no Bible trained belief at the time so just heard that excuse (reason) in some dismay without recourse.
Does A Belief In Evolution Lead To Racism? – The Truth (thetruthwins.com)

What has this anything to do with the subject at hand?

Plus, there is absolutely no link between belief in evolution and racism if only because racism, even "scientific racism" far predates the publishing of Darwin's theory of evolution let alone modern synthesis. Today, most racist people subscribe to some pseudoscientific beliefs about biology and race usually referred to by sociologists as "folk biology" when they even have some sort of pseudoscientific foundations to support their beliefs and attitudes. Most often, its not even the case and racism just comes from a sense of fear and lack of education.

 

[sayak83]

New depictions of ancient hominids aim to overcome artistic biases | Science News

None of the pictures look remotely repulsive or horrifying to me. The absence of hair makes them look unnatural that's all. Anyways who cares what anyone's subjective emotions on these things are. Emotional responses are irrelevant in scientific studies.

 

[YoursTrue]

What has this anything to do with the subject at hand?

Plus, there is absolutely no link between belief in evolution and racism if only because racism, even "scientific racism" far predates the publishing of Darwin's theory of evolution let alone modern synthesis. Today, most racist people subscribe to some pseudoscientific beliefs about biology and race usually referred to by sociologists as "folk biology" when they even have some sort of pseudoscientific foundations to support their beliefs and attitudes. Most often, its not even the case and racism just comes from a sense of fear and lack of education.

Yes, the depictions of early hominids promote a somewhat subconscious view of not so smart people looking close to gorillas since anyway that unknown link is still unfound. But somehow is supposed to look like a gorilla.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please give your explanation. We all know science theories progress with time as new information becomes available and even that there are healthy disagreements amongst scientists. Yet you give no explanation of the fossil evidence. Either you do not have any explanation or you realized your explanation has nothing at all to support it and so desperately search for anything to argue over to distract from the reality that the theory is the best and only supported explanation.

So if you actually have something better to explain the fossils - say it instead of making fun of representations that have evidence and meaning. To most life on the earth now humans are the horror movie.

The fossil evidence proves that there are skulls and other vestiges that resemble human types but not quite. That's what they prove. I agree about humans being the horror story, and have been thinking about the popularizing of crime in Hollywood over the decades. As if it's enjoyable to watch. Yes, it's connected with social evolution, not biological evolution except the common and virtual acceptance of it must have a brain (biological) impact. The theories of neanderthal and homo sapiens interbreeding is just that--.theories. And yes, eugenics was a big thing for a while. Connected with evolution as if the human population can be interbred for better people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fossil evidence proves that there are skulls and other vestiges that resemble human types but not quite. That's what they prove. I agree about humans being the horror story, and have been thinking about the popularizing of crime in Hollywood over the decades. As if it's enjoyable to watch. Yes, it's connected with social evolution, not biological evolution except the common and virtual acceptance of it must have a brain (biological) impact. The theories of neanderthal and homo sapiens interbreeding is just that--.theories. And yes, eugenics was a big thing for a while. Connected with evolution as if the human population can be interbred for better people.

There is actual evidence for Neanderthal and Homo sapiens interbreeding. How is it that you do not seem to understand that? Are you so immersed in denial that you refuse to see it even if it is spelled out for you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fossil evidence proves that there are skulls and other vestiges that resemble human types but not quite. That's what they prove. I agree about humans being the horror story, and have been thinking about the popularizing of crime in Hollywood over the decades. As if it's enjoyable to watch. Yes, it's connected with social evolution, not biological evolution except the common and virtual acceptance of it must have a brain (biological) impact. The theories of neanderthal and homo sapiens interbreeding is just that--.theories. And yes, eugenics was a big thing for a while. Connected with evolution as if the human population can be interbred for better people.

There were two cities destroyed by atomic bombs, but that does not make physicists radical, militant and bloodthirsty. You are making an association fallacy.

Why do you think you have to resort to fallacies in order to attack science?

 

[YoursTrue]

There were two cities destroyed by atomic bombs, but that does not make physicists radical, militant and bloodthirsty. You are making an association fallacy.

I was speaking about war and the idea that it had been taught by some well-educated and influential persons that it was necessary to reduce the population. Further, the idea of eugenics was highly promoted among well-educated and influential people in the not-too-distant past. An interesting thought was put by someone about racisim in marriage, including those of royalty, and the Hindu caste system. In the U.S. not too long ago, some states forbade inter-'racial' marriages. There could be discussion about this, but the question arises: what really is meant by the term 'race'?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is actual evidence for Neanderthal and Homo sapiens interbreeding. How is it that you do not seem to understand that? Are you so immersed in denial that you refuse to see it even if it is spelled out for you?

Please show the evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please give your explanation. We all know science theories progress with time as new information becomes available and even that there are healthy disagreements amongst scientists. Yet you give no explanation of the fossil evidence. Either you do not have any explanation or you realized your explanation has nothing at all to support it and so desperately search for anything to argue over to distract from the reality that the theory is the best and only supported explanation.

So if you actually have something better to explain the fossils - say it instead of making fun of representations that have evidence and meaning. To most life on the earth now humans are the horror movie.

As far as anything to explain the fossils, frankly other than conjecture, I don't see proof that these were ancestors biologically in the direct or indirect (like interbreeding) lineage of homo sapiens. So if you can show proof of this, that would be helpful. Now by that I mean you not only show me what scientists say about it, but the scientific proof (evidence, of course,) they have to show, prove, or demonstrate scientifically that these evolved to the present day human population. Thanks.

 

[exchemist]

As far as anything to explain the fossils, frankly other than conjecture, I don't see proof that these were ancestors biologically in the direct or indirect (like interbreeding) lineage of homo sapiens. So if you can show proof of this, that would be helpful. Now by that I mean you not only show me what scientists say about it, but the scientific proof (evidence, of course,) they have to show, prove, or demonstrate scientifically that these evolved to the present day human population. Thanks.

Aha, moving the goalposts now, are we? Demanding "proof" now, instead of evidence, I see.

As you well know, science deals in evidence. Proof is for mathematics and logic. There is no such thing as "scientific proof" - except in the rhetorical vocabulary of creationists, of course.

So, ask for evidence, by all means.

 

[Deeje]

Actual size of the Taung child skull fossil.

This is an infant.....a very small infant......but what species?

This is a young chimp..........................this is a one year old human child.

Now compare......

Which one does the Taung child skull fossil resemble more?
Please note the shape of the upper jaw and position of the nasal cavity.

Isn't it obvious? Isn't this a blind Freddy thing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And if I understand you correctly, it seems you are saying many renderings were not accurate?

For people who aren't completely oblivious concerning basic evolution and anatomy, this isn't news at all.

I mean, it's practically a given with any "artistic rendition", even if accuracy is the goal rather then esthetics.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You don't find them attractive?

I don't find it "attractive" in the same way that I don't find penguins, or polar bears attractive. I may actually find those things "cute" in some ways, and I likely could do the same for a being resembling what is in the mock up... but let's remember I'm not the one who expressed any sort of "beauty" or "cuteness" judgment in the first place. YOU did.

Why do you think the renditions look like that?

What does it matter? Do you go around asking the same thing for artistic renderings of dinosaurs in any book you have EVER seen that contains a dinosaur? The same sorts of liberties are most certainly being taken by anyone depicting a dinosaur with flesh on its bones. Are you all in a huff about those as well?

Again regarding bias, these two images do look like things from a horror movie. Rarely does a freak character look like the supposed Prince Charming.

So your thread title IS entirely facetious, correct? Sarcasm? As in - a form of purposeful misgiving meant to invoke the opposite of what you're actually saying, right? So I was right in my original assessment. You wanted everyone to have to admit what they have all been saying that they are most likely related to ancestrally is an "ugly" creature, right? It is no uglier than (again) penguins or polar bears... and I would readily and happily admit and accept that I was related to that creature through common descent IF THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO.

 

[exchemist]

I don't find it "attractive" in the same way that I don't find penguins, or polar bears attractive. I may actually find those things "cute" in some ways, and I likely could do the same for a being resembling what is in the mock up... but let's remember I'm not the one who expressed any sort of "beauty" or "cuteness" judgment in the first place. YOU did.

What does it matter? Do you go around asking the same thing for artistic renderings of dinosaurs in any book you have EVER seen that contains a dinosaur? The same sorts of liberties are most certainly being taken by anyone depicting a dinosaur with flesh on its bones. Are you all in a huff about those as well?

So your thread title IS entirely facetious, correct? Sarcasm? As in - a form of purposeful misgiving meant to invoke the opposite of what you're actually saying, right? So I was right in my original assessment. You wanted everyone to have to admit what they have all been saying that they are most likely related to ancestrally is an "ugly" creature, right? It is no uglier than (again) penguins or polar bears... and I would readily and happily admit and accept that I was related to that creature through common descent IF THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO.

The reason apes are found ugly is precisely because they have features close enough to human ones that it is hard to put aside the comparison to human beings. Whereas with a bear or a penguin nobody makes that comparison.

So in a way the fact we may find these creatures ugly is itself a sort of evidence that we are related to them!