Lucy and Secular Humanism

What is worth noting is where the dividing line falls between derived data and subjective guesswork. You'll note that on both the more recent picture posted above and on the earlier "ape-like" reconstructions the nose is wide. Why? Because the shape of the nose can be derived from the bones. As can the shape of the skull and jaw, the body shape, the posture, the layout of the muscles and the likely movements of the body.Unfortunately neither hair nor skin survive to give us those surface features on which we overly fixate. Were Neanderthals hairy or smooth skinned? Dark or pale? Did their eyes have the same range of colours as ours?

Haeckel did not "fake" his drawings. They're not particularly accurate and he did emphasise those features he wanted to draw attention to, and reduce other features he wanted to draw attention away from. And, what's more, he freely admits in the introduction to the second edition that he has done so. Haeckel argues that this is true of any and all diagrams and he has a point - you don't include oily stains on a diagram of an engine, for example.Drawing inaccurately is different from faked, and different from fraud.Personally, I think it's a shame they are still used so often, photos will demonstrate the point just as well and without any dificulties of 'ariststs interpretation' (which, in fact, is what the textbook I studied from at school did).Added by edit: by way of analogy, this is a map of the underground, allowing you to compare the "real" map to the schematic one shown everywhere. The standard map bears strikingly little resemblance to the actual positions of things yet it is neither faked nor fraudulent.This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 06-21-2005 10:54 AM