Thomas contends that the selection of dark features adapted to equatorial climates are not "normal". Sounds like a pretty racist conclusion to me.
Oh, the horror!
You would thing that Deak would have watched an episode or two of the Flintstones before creating his renderings or early humans.
And dont forget, they had molars! That means they were used to eating berries and roots!
And that sharp rock nearby? They used that to skin wild animals they trapped with sticks because they didn’t have bows and arrows yet!
And that fossilized twine? That was used to tie flint to another stick to form a crude spear!
And, they obviously dressed like Fred Flintstone, walked hunched over and were barefoot in the snow
What is this guy talking about? We already have living fossils in our midst that could serve as a model for the appearance of our ancestors.
Someone please cue up a photo of Helen Thomas.
The whole idea of pushing evolution requires a lot of creative art work.
Its “Snap You Finger Time” again.
Look who is posting our threads for us. The Creation Opposition Groupies (COGs) must really be desperate for attention.
If Brian Thomas were a doctor, and you went to him because you were sick, he’d say, “Well, we don’t want to assume anything about germs. I’ll need to test your humors, bleed you, and check your house for miasmas first.”
The artist certainly has a right to claim the necessity of using artistic license but not to portray it as fact.
Oops...I got it wrong...there’s no asterisk on this one.
depicted mankind as having emerged, Darwinian style, from a hairy, ape-like ancestor.
It's reasonable to say that we, as a species, had more hair than we do now (some of us retain much of that hair too).....more reasonable to say that Australopithecus did. Hair has function.
Deak’s images accompany the Wired article, showing semi-human faces that have distinctly human eyes.
Oh no!!!! Human ancestors has...OYG.....human eyes!!! Stop the presses!!!
Deak thoroughly studied the skeletal features of the creatures he was rendering, and his reconstructions of Homo ergaster and Homo heidelbergensis appear to match known fossil skull proportions for those extinct varieties of man.
BUT BUT BUT....THERE SHOULD BE NO EXTINCT VARIETIES OF MAN!!!! We were created "as is"...right? BTMS is slipping.
But the soft parts are interpretive, since these were not preserved in fossilized form.
Yes, BTMS....muscle does not preserve well. So, the depictions should have? Fatter cheecks? Cleft chin?
The clear message is conveyed, without a spoken word, that humans evolved from dark-skinned, hairy, wide-nosed creatures with sloped foreheads and jutting jowls.
OK....just remember, YOU said it, not me.
But the skin color, size of the nose and lips, and amount of hair are not supported by science, only assumed by evolution.
Evolution does not assume any such thing. It's reational to assume skin color, and based on measurements of the skull, it's rational to assume facial features.
....but think BTMS would be up in arms no matter what it looked like.
OYG!!! The images are soooo lifelike!!! ...because they really paid for 2-D Fred Freakin' Flintstone. Get a grip, BTMS.
In other words, if Deak had depicted these creatures with light skin, normal lips, human beard growth patterns, and Roman noses or Oriental eyes, they would have been just as valid, scientifically. But that wouldn’t fit with the evolutionary story.
...and why would they have lighter skin?? Do you have a problem with being the ancestors of "darker-skinned" humans?
Define "normal lips"....do People with big lips have "abnormal lips" or do you not want to be associated with those that have big lips? They weren't "Romans"...are you afraid to be associated with big-nosed people?...or Orientals...so early Man all had slant-eyes?
By these scientists’ own admission, they were just extinct varieties of man, which is exactly the interpretation that follows from the biblical creation model.3
There you go again, BTMS.....did I miss the part of Genesis that talks about "extinct varieties of Man"? The part where God made Man...but screwed up and then made Man again...but screwed up again and then made Man again and FINALLY got it right with Romanesque, small-nosed, slant-eyed, whitey?
while the evidence for the unique creation of man is in the rocks and in the world for all to see.
No, it's not, BTMS.
BTW, notice the image at the top of the article? Is that a modern human skeleton? Here I thought he was talking about ancient skeletons.