- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (banana @ Jan. 02 2010,04:51) Stu Is the avatar you chose, something you believe your ancestors looked a million years ago?
Well, I agree, there were no humans around when the dinosaurs were; did I say otherwise?
So, you half way agree with what I said about, “after” their kind.Georg
I am please to see you distinguish the time periods of dinosaurs and humans.My avatar is of an orangutan, a modern species. As you know, orangutan means “man of the forest”.
One million years ago our ancestor was Homo erectus, which looked something like this:
Stuart
Quote (banana @ Jan. 03 2010,13:51) Stuart Your ancestors I'm sure; not mine.
Georg
My ancestors AND yours. Unless we are different species.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 03 2010,16:11) Quote (banana @ Jan. 03 2010,13:51) Stuart Your ancestors I'm sure; not mine.
Georg
My ancestors AND yours. Unless we are different species.Stuart
Of course you are.
Just look at your avatars.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 03 2010,21:18) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 03 2010,16:11) Quote (banana @ Jan. 03 2010,13:51) Stuart Your ancestors I'm sure; not mine.
Georg
My ancestors AND yours. Unless we are different species.Stuart
Of course you are.
Just look at your avatars.Tim
I am not a banana either.
Unless I am a banana suffering a severe existentialist crisis.
Stuart
stuart,
if you do look like that, call my sister, she is the best at waxing, she could fix it. honest.
Regarding the face, I was watching a documentary on some Pharoah. They had two different scientists using different methods, reconstruct the face. I was quite interested to know how close they came to each other. While the documentary made it seem like it was extremely close, to me, they looked like two completely different people. Different hair, different skin color (of course, both guesses.) But the face structure itself was not even all that similar. How much of this is just bias and imagination?
If someone is told that this skull is supposed to be this old, and look somewhere between man and ape, the scientist can use their imagination just like any other sculptor can.Quote (david @ Jan. 25 2010,19:18) Regarding the face, I was watching a documentary on some Pharoah. They had two different scientists using different methods, reconstruct the face. I was quite interested to know how close they came to each other. While the documentary made it seem like it was extremely close, to me, they looked like two completely different people. Different hair, different skin color (of course, both guesses.) But the face structure itself was not even all that similar. How much of this is just bias and imagination?
If someone is told that this skull is supposed to be this old, and look somewhere between man and ape, the scientist can use their imagination just like any other sculptor can.
The skull would not be 'between man and ape”, that would not be possible by definition!Your point does raise questions about how much facial reconstruction can be relied upon in the accumulation of forensic evidence, though. You would hope that there was at least one homo erectus somewhere that looked something like this!
You might expect that since homo erectus migrated from Africa north into Europe, and further to Asia, there would have been patterns of adaptation in skin colour to match those of modern humans.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2010,19:44) Quote (david @ Jan. 25 2010,19:18) Regarding the face, I was watching a documentary on some Pharoah. They had two different scientists using different methods, reconstruct the face. I was quite interested to know how close they came to each other. While the documentary made it seem like it was extremely close, to me, they looked like two completely different people. Different hair, different skin color (of course, both guesses.) But the face structure itself was not even all that similar. How much of this is just bias and imagination?
If someone is told that this skull is supposed to be this old, and look somewhere between man and ape, the scientist can use their imagination just like any other sculptor can.
The skull would not be 'between man and ape”, that would not be possible by definition!Your point does raise questions about how much facial reconstruction can be relied upon in the accumulation of forensic evidence, though. You would hope that there was at least one homo erectus somewhere that looked something like this!
You might expect that since homo erectus migrated from Africa north into Europe, and further to Asia, there would have been patterns of adaptation in skin colour to match those of modern humans.
Stuart
I have no problem with the skin color chosen. It's the one educated guess that would probably be right if such things were true. The rest is based on an artist imagination, just as much as science.Do you remember how they used to sculpt dinosaurs? They all looked the same, with elephant like skin and elephant like legs. The dinosaur movies of today look nothing like the dinosaur movies of 20 years ago. Similar with humans. 15 years ago, it seemed as if that was truly what they were doing–taking half human and half ape like creature to create something in the middle. But those bones now are interpreted in a completely different way–looking extremely human like.
Do chimpanzees not look mostly like hairy humans to you, perhaps without the flattened face and the tail?
The reconstruction above is of a species that is more human in character than common ancestor with chimpanzees. It lived only one million years ago while the last common ancestor with chimps was 5 or more million years ago.
I would expect it to look human, wouldn't you?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 02 2010,05:32) Quote (banana @ Jan. 02 2010,04:51) Stu Is the avatar you chose, something you believe your ancestors looked a million years ago?
Well, I agree, there were no humans around when the dinosaurs were; did I say otherwise? So, you half way agree with what I said about, “after” their kind.Georg
I am please to see you distinguish the time periods of dinosaurs and humans.My avatar is of an orangutan, a modern species. As you know, orangutan means “man of the forest”.
One million years ago our ancestor was Homo erectus, which looked something like this:
Stuart
How does that look like any sort of apelike creature?What if you made his skin white? Seems a bit racist if you ask me.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:27) Do chimpanzees not look mostly like hairy humans to you, perhaps without the flattened face and the tail? The reconstruction above is of a species that is more human in character than common ancestor with chimpanzees. It lived only one million years ago while the last common ancestor with chimps was 5 or more million years ago.
I would expect it to look human, wouldn't you?
Stuart
No they don'tQuote How does that look like any sort of apelike creature? What if you made his skin white? Seems a bit racist if you ask me.
Does THIS look like an ape-like 'creature' to you?
He IS an ape.
Just like you and me.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 30 2010,08:35) Quote How does that look like any sort of apelike creature? What if you made his skin white? Seems a bit racist if you ask me.
Does THIS look like an ape-like 'creature' to you?
He IS an ape.
Just like you and me.
Stuart
No, He is not an Ape but at least you seem less racist which I don't believe you are.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:27) Do chimpanzees not look mostly like hairy humans to you, perhaps without the flattened face and the tail? The reconstruction above is of a species that is more human in character than common ancestor with chimpanzees. It lived only one million years ago while the last common ancestor with chimps was 5 or more million years ago.
I would expect it to look human, wouldn't you?
Stuart
Exactly. You would expect it to look a certain way. Just as the scientists do, based on when they think it is dated. Should it be our expectations that help us interpret the result? When it comes to the fuzzy imaginative areas of science, expectations should either be left our or clearly identified.Quote (david @ Jan. 30 2010,16:27) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,18:27) Do chimpanzees not look mostly like hairy humans to you, perhaps without the flattened face and the tail? The reconstruction above is of a species that is more human in character than common ancestor with chimpanzees. It lived only one million years ago while the last common ancestor with chimps was 5 or more million years ago.
I would expect it to look human, wouldn't you?
Stuart
Exactly. You would expect it to look a certain way. Just as the scientists do, based on when they think it is dated. Should it be our expectations that help us interpret the result? When it comes to the fuzzy imaginative areas of science, expectations should either be left our or clearly identified.
If you go backwards from humans to the point of common ancestry with chimps, then do the hairpin turn and go forwards to chimps, then you travel the length of the evolutionary change that distinguishes the two species, a total trip of some 10 to 14 million years. Something that is only 1 million years into that trip should reasonably be expected to look more far more like a human than a chimpanzee. It should also be expected to look more like a modern human than our last common ancestor with chimpanzees.I think the interpretation is very reasonable.
Evolution by natural selection is how these changes occurred. If the specimen was found in Africa then dark skin is very reasonable. Hair is somewhat problematic, but giving it hair characteristic of an African human is more appropriate than giving it hair like a chimpanzee, because of how relatively recent on the human branch it is.
My original point was about how accurate plasticine reconstructions based on skulls are: forensic science considers the technique good enough to distinguish individual humans. I don't have much of a problem with it being much less exacting in giving us an idea of what a typical homo erectus roughly looked like.
Remember the probity of the ancestry of humans does not depend on these reconstructions. Those facts are derived from other evidence of course.
Where's the problem?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,13:03) No, He is not an Ape but at least you seem less racist which I don't believe you are.
Yes he is an ape. So am I and so are you.Why does that fact appear to present you with a difficulty?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 31 2010,01:29) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 30 2010,13:03) No, He is not an Ape but at least you seem less racist which I don't believe you are.
Yes he is an ape. So am I and so are you.Why does that fact appear to present you with a difficulty?
Stuart
Because it is not true.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans
http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/greatapes/greatapes.html
The great apes belong to the taxonomic family Homindae, which includes chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas and humans.
thttp://australianmuseum.net.au/Humans-are-apes-Great-Apes
Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids (Superfamily Hominoidea).This ape group can be further subdivided into the Great Apes and Lesser Apes. Humans have bodies that are genetically and structurally very similar to those of the Great Apes and so we are classified in the Great Apes sub-group which is also known as the hominids (Family Hominidae).
As I asked before, why does that fact appear to present you with a difficulty?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
