Quantcast

«

»

Apr 13 2013

Let’s face it

Let’s see the faces of our ancestors. We humans look like our ancestors. Aren’t we? I am not particularly fond of human species. But I am proud of some enlightened humans, among them are the scientists who tell us the truth about our universe and our evolution. Nothing is more beautiful and fascinating than the truth.
I hope science will free the minds of all humans from the bondage of superstition and ignorance.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces0-515x388
Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Lived 6.8 million years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces1-515x388

Australopithecus afarensis. Lived 3.2 million years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces2-515x388

Australopithecus africanus. Lived 2.5 million years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces3-515x388

Paranthropus aethiopicus. Lived 2.5 million years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces4-515x388
Paranthropus boisei. Lived 1.8 million years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces5-515x388
Homo rudolfensis. Lived 1.8 million years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces6-515x388

Homo ergaster. Turkana boy, lived 1.5 million years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces7-515x388

Homo heidelbergensis. Lived 500,000 to 350,000 years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces8-515x388

Homo neanderthalensis. He lived 56,000 years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces9-515x388
Homo floresiensis. Lived 18,000 years ago.

storymaker-early-human-ancestors-faces10-515x388
Homo sapiens. Lived 100,000 to 90,000 years ago.

(Source: Discovery)

6 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    krsnakhandelwal

    All of them would think, now seeing us, most ugly of the lot, isn’t it Madam?

  2. 2
    GregB

    Fascinating stuff, thanks. What where your sources?

    The Neanderthal looks like Capt. Jean-luc Picard laughing at a joke.

  3. 3
    mikmik

    Now this is cool! Kind of haunting, Taslima. Awesome idea, thank you.
    I think that that Australopithecus afarensis there is up to something. LOL, GregB, I agree!

  4. 4
    M.L.

    These reconstructions are great as art, but dubious insofar as their likely resemblance to the indicated extinct human ancestor (several of the specimens reconstructed here are not direct ancestors to humans, and there is considerable debate about where Sahelanthropus fits in the scheme of human/chimpanzee divergence). The artist seems to have in many cases here modeled the faces too closely on modern humans, particularly the eyes (some of these guys almost look like the eyes of a modern Mongolian were copy pasted on).

    The Neanderthal reconstruction is really bad though. The whole “Say, let’s give them emotional expressions!” angle just didn’t work. It looks like Tigger from Winnie The Pooh.

    If you look at the actual known fossil remains of some of these species, you’ll see that some of the reconstructions here are rather implausible.

    But they are interesting looking.

  5. 5
    Cuttlefish

    Actually, I love the Neanderthal reconstruction–makes me wonder just what he was laughing at. Reminds me of my uncle, actually–and I think that is exactly right for each of these. They might not have been our direct ancestors (indeed, the odds are very much against it), but they are part of our extended family, and they are unique individuals. And both of those aspects come across in these reconstructions. Maybe it’s just me, but the emotional content makes me think this is not “a Neanderthal”, but rather, this is “Bob, a Neanderthal” (hey, somebody had to have been the first Bob). The sterile reconstructions I am accustomed to seem to try to represent all Neanderthals, and end up representing none.

  6. 6
    gil

    i study biology and i think i have very strong evidence for design in nature

    a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

    b) from a material prespective the ape is a self replicate robot

    a+b= the ape need a designer

    or even a self replicat watch.the evolution side always say that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

    plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?

    the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.

    but there is no step wise from car to airplan

    evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other

    check this site

    http://creation.com/

  1. 7
    A Thousand Words: Pensive » The Digital Cuttlefish

    [...] Taslima’s recent posts, here and here, I was taken aback, just a bit. I mean, I really don’t think we need to look to our close [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>