@ChrisStringer65 This article references the ‘Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum. In addition, creationists use some of the same ideas knocking paleoart as this article does. Casting doubt on the validity of sime hominin reconstructions is used to cast doubt on human evolution in general.
@Qafzeh@FieldMuseum My photo taken at Chicago's field museum. Being a huge fan of Hominin reconstruction, I was surprised and thrilled to see Daynes work that also included a Neanderthal construction
Reconstruction of Amud 1 Neanderthal cranium and associated mandible originally reconstructed by Suzuki and Takai (1970). Facial soft tissues were reconstructed using regression models developed in Simpson and Henneberg (2002) HT - @LanceStein https://t.co/GTKxQ9Dozs
@LanceStein Facial reconstruction of Amud 1 (without hair and pigment) produced in 2019 that employed facial soft tissue regression models developed in Simpson and Henneberg (2002) - Image credit: R. Campbell, G. Vinas, M. Henneberg, R. Diogo https://t.co/COj0aFCqWr
@FossilHistory I understand the depiction is outdated and I draw Neanderthals with more humanity, but i still love these older interpretations ever since I was a kid in the sixties.