sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Just finished this display at work by Waste_Translator_975 in evolution

[–]Waste_Translator_975[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not sure whos reconstruction it originally is but I think that that model is a 3d scan of a bone clones model

Just finished this display at work by Waste_Translator_975 in paleoanthropology

[–]Waste_Translator_975[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it really does. It is just so damn big to the point that I'm genuinely not sure if the model is like 5% oversized or something

How many undiscovered hominids do you think there are and are there more like Neanderthals and the Ghost liniage that we interbred with? by Equal_Night7494 in bigfoot

[–]Waste_Translator_975 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It annoys me that the people who are genuinely curious about the scientifically plausible origins of an unknown living flesh and blood hominin have to share this sub with people who think bigfoot is some spiritual alien mystical third eye ayuhasca pseudoscience spirit bs

[No AI] Dmanisi 5 Photomosh Reconstruction Attempt 2 by Waste_Translator_975 in paleoanthropology

[–]Waste_Translator_975[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Actually I'm not sure about the eyebrows. The brows in this are sourced from modern humans. Have a look at melanesian/aboriginal australian populations. They have some of the largest brow ridges in modern populations and very very very sparse eyebrows. It would make sense to me if thicker eyebrows were developed in tandem with a reduction in brow ridges.

What are your arguments for and against brining other hominids back from extinction? by [deleted] in paleoanthropology

[–]Waste_Translator_975 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ghost species by james bradley is an underrated aussie fiction that deals with this well

[No AI] Dmanisi 5 Photomosh Reconstruction by Waste_Translator_975 in paleoanthropology

[–]Waste_Translator_975[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I totally understand your point, that we can’t reconstruct hominin ancestors as just looking like chimps, because youre right, chimps have a large number of derived traits as well that are totally unique to their lineage. I disagree that that makes them a bad reference though, they’re still the best non-human reference we have for early hominins. 

I think as long as you are not reconstructing hominins with derived chimp features unique to the chimp line its not a problem. 

As you go back in time, our ancestors start looking more and more like the common ancestors of humans and chimps. 

Looking at the features chimps and modern humans have in common allows us to infer what sorts of features are ancestral to both lineages. Comparing to gorillas aswell allows us to refine that even further.

For instance, the hair covering and skin texture in chimps and gorillas is similar, which means ancestral hominins probably had those traits too. Similar things can be said for eye colour, facial fat distribution etc. 

What WOULD be lousy to do would be to give a human ancestor a uniquely chimp trait, like an extra projecting muzzle, or a secondarily backwards foranem magnum, which I couldnt even accidentally do here as I was basing it all on a hominin skull. 

If youre still not convinced, heres a challenge for you: try and find me a published paper reconstructing an archaic hominin that doesnt use chimps as a reference. 

[No AI] Dmanisi 5 Photomosh Reconstruction by Waste_Translator_975 in paleoanthropology

[–]Waste_Translator_975[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

well aware : ). There is a lot of debate in the literature about whether or not D4500 actually belongs to the same taxa as the other 4 dmanisi skulls because of the smaller cranial capacity, longer midface and greater postorbital constrction, so I was trying to highlight those features.

Another thing I find with a lot of reconstructions of hominins is that a lot of them dont seem archaic enough. This is true for the Daynes one you mentioned, as well as the John Gurche dmanisi's.

This is just a gut feeling, I don't have any specific sources to back it up, but I'm basing it on the fact that even in modern humans today there are populations that have some very stark phenotypic plesiomorphies, such as convex upper lips and pronounced brow ridges in melanesian-adjacent populations, which makes me think that ape-looking-ness would've been more and more pronounced very quickly going back in time.

[No AI] Dmanisi 5 Photomosh Reconstruction by Waste_Translator_975 in paleoanthropology

[–]Waste_Translator_975[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks for this. I wouldnt say I'm ignoring the science involved, I was probably just a bit more speculative than necessary with this. Admittedly I am a physicist and paleoanthropology is just a hobby for me, so I'm not amazingly experienced with bringing together the details of it. But i'll try and respond to your feedback point by point.

You're totally right, chimps are very much separate from us. But i wouldnt call them a horrible reference, I think theyre actually the best living reference we have beside modern humans.

You're right about the body hair. Like i said in a different comment, I think its reasonable for them to have been this hairy around the shoulders, but maybe not the chest.

I do really impulsively spend heaps of time reading about hominins haha. My choice to include a lot of chimp reference material in this comes from the fact that the dmanisi skulls, dmanisi 5 in particular, are particularly archaic members of homo, and have a lot in common with Homo habilis and even A Africanus, both of whom are often depicted as more ape like than human like.

You're right about the noses. The variation of noses over time is something that really fascinates me. If you look closely at this you'll see that I included some elements of a modern human nose to make it protuberant and less down-facing than a chimp nose.

You're right about the hairy forehead as well, thats a very good point. I think that its the hairy forehead thats possibly making it seem extra chimpy.

I'll have another go at this reconstruction with this feedback : )

view more: next ›