Humans are Apes. Some people accept this, some people don't care. Others are quite opposed to the idea. And amogst them, there are people who have a problem how fossils are reconstructed. One of the criticisms is "they are deliberately made to look human, to fit the evolution narrative" Is that criticsim correct?
Being an Atheist myself, I am a bit biased, when I say "no" immediately. Therefor we would need to look in to the science behind it. This would start with Paleontology. Which is the study of fossils. That already can tell a lot about the animal, including the color of skin, fur and feathers, as pigments are fossilized aswell.
Analysis of the fossils doesnt just show size, shape and color of the animal, as it likely had, when it was alive.
Based on what it looks like it can also be determined, to a certain extend, how it behaved and what it's capabilities were. How did it walk? Did it likely use tools? The whole analysis helps place the animal in the phylogenetic tree. These are great indicators and they do fit within the Theory of Evolution.
However, especially with regards to primates people have arguments against this, saying that similarities do not prove common ancestory. And with some of the characteristics of primates, they have a point. Some characteristics may not be verifiable in fossils. Like the white parts of the eyes, known as the Sclera.
Answers in Genesis, an American religious organisation, questions if the artists who made fossil reconstructions deliberately more humanlike, "since no fossilized eye-balls have been found". They base this question on the premiss that "Only humans have a white sclera producing the “whites of their eyes”.
This however is wrong. In many species of Great Apes, a large percentage of the population has a lighter colour sclera. In a study of 85 Gorilla, 70% was found to have grey-ish sclera and 7% to have a completely white sclera, like humans have. This is definitely not uncommon. Not in Gorilla and other species of Great Ape.
The function of the white sclera seems to be mainly social, as eye-movement is better visible to other individuals in the group and it shows more of intentions of the individual making the eye-movement.
Is fossil reconstruction accurate?
The question remains. Is fossil reconstruction accurate? Well, if you look at the science behind it and then not just look at the Paleontology, Anthropology and Biology, but also look at the sciences behind Forensic Facial Reconstruction, as it is used in criminal investigations, in order to identify skeletal remains, then I would say yes.
That being said, a certain amount of subjectivety is involved in this, as not all information is available. So a general impression is given. The sclera may or may not have been white, yes. But that doesnt discredit the overall impression that is given.
The evidence and the research clearly shows and confirms the phylogeny and the evolutionary changes over time from one species in to the next, within the same bloodline.
The artists who make the fossil reconstructions would make their reconstructions in such a manner to illustate thist best way possible, making their reconstructions self-explanatory. Dispite that, people still seems to misunderstand their work.
Comments