Talk:Toba catastrophe theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing a garbage page full of errors written by a non-scientist. Biology is NOT a matter if personal opinion. This goes way beyond NPOV. Frankly, it is against Wikipedia policy to create a parallel Wikipedia within Wikipedia. If Stevertigo rejects the facts described on the many article we already have on the origin and evolution of humans, then he should go to those talk pages, and describe what changes he believes should be made. But it is totally against Wikipedia protocol to try and subvert the communal consensus process and create a parallel set of Wikipedia articles. RK

I'm not sure whose views this article describes, but it could be a valid addition to Wikipedia if properly attributed (in the article title as well as the text) rather than stated as fact. Deleting without first asking the author to fix his contribution seems harsh. Mkweise 15:05 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

NO, Mkweise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not the appropriate place for Stevertigo to create his own mythical theories of human history and race. This is science based NPOV encyclopedia. Stevertigo's peculiar theories of races and human history have no currency in the scientific community. Further, it is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy to deceitfully make an end-pass by the communal review process of all our articles by setting up parallel articles on a given topic. Wikipedians have not allowed this violation of NPOV before, and we should not change our policy now. RK

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of science. Alternative theories and minoriy beliefs, even verifiably incorrect ones, are a matter of interest. There is no violation of NPOV as long as beliefs and theories are represented as such, and not as fact. Mkweise 15:33 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

You are way off base here. Stevertigo is making explicitly scientific claims - and his claims are wrong. Worse, he is bypassing the Wikipedia peer-review process. Many scientists already have set their "Watchpages" to follow our Wikipedia articles on human evolution and history, and Stevertigo is doing an end-run around them. How can an honest person like you not have a problem with this? RK

Um, Im not seeing the problem here besides the fact that this article doesn't describe some competing "theories". What is here certainly isn't unencyclopediac, although I guess it would be more POV if we included the theory that aliens created all life about 10,000 years ago. Susan Mason

The problem is that this is an encyclopedia, and not a personal webpage. Again, we have an obligation for us to discuss science and history in accord with the highest levels of academic standards. If we don't all follow this rule, then we descend to the level of Stevertigo who has never shown an ability to distibguish between his own personal theories and actual science, and who actually revels in the belief that his personal views matter more than peer-reviewed science. RK

RK, take a Valium. STV is not Clutch and neither is Susan. I have some difficulties with the entry myself, but thus far it contains nothing to justify those wild accusations you make, nor your confrontational tone. Just calm down a little, OK? Tannin 15:19 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, please take the time to actually read the comments I made. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal web page, and we have scientific and academic standards we are all obligated to adhere to. If Stevertigo is unwilling to work with us on our science articles, then he must go elsewhere. There are rules, even on Wikipedia. RK

I read them already. If you calm down and stop abusing other contributors, maybe I'll read them again, and if it seems useful, respond to them. When aiming to persuade people to a point of view, it is counterproductive to fill your text with emotive terms like "garbage page", "full of errors", "subvert", "mythical theories", and "deceitfully". If you can focus on the content instead of the personalities for a while, what exactly, are you objecting to? Where is the "racial theory" here? (For that, I take it, is your real objection.) Tannin 15:57 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

I've moved the article to a title that more accurately reflects the article so far. Can we all live with leaving it here while giving the author a fair chance to respond? Mkweise 16:56 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with an article on Toba catastrophe theory. (Though I suspect that this limited topic was not the intent of the original article.) RK

Well, not being a psychic I have no way of knowing unexpressed intent. But any intent to convince - rather than inform - the reader is out of place in an encyclopedia anyway. Mkweise 17:49 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RK. It's better placed here. Tannin 00:01 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, as right now the article is still at Toba catastrophe theory, where I moved it to. But if you want to move it somewhere else, that's fine with me. I just moved it here as an alternative to RK's solution of deleting it entirely. And, it looks to me to have since evolved into a pretty good article on a subject that wasn't previously covered. Mkweise 00:09 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that I agreed with RK agreeing with you - the current location at Toba catastrophe theory is good, and the entry is shaping up. Tannin

I didnt start anything, by tossing this particular stone in the water, did I? I does, after all, contradict Creationism. :] -'Vert

Contents 1 How does the genetic evidence work? 2 Possible Errata 3 Ice Age? 4 Lake Toba

[edit] How does the genetic evidence work?

The catastrophe supposedly created a population bottleneck. How can you tell that something like that happened if there are no survivors of the extinct genetic lines (by definition) to analyze? I think the article implies noticably small genetic drift in current lines as proof; but isn't that indistinquishable from human genetics starting out with low diversity? Are there fossils with recoverable DNA that do not match any current genetic line? (I'm not an expert; can fossils have recoverable DNA?)

--69.37.220.12 21:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Errata

"Some geological evidence and computed models support the plausibility of the Toba catastrophe theory, and genetic evidence suggests that all humans alive today, despite their apparent variety, are descended from a very small population (see mitochondrial Eve). Using the average rates of genetic mutation, some geneticists have estimated that this population lived at a time coinciding with the Toba event." At the end of the first sentence, the reference (see Mitochondrial Eve) should be edited to (see Y-chromosomal Adam). Under the Mitochondrial Eve article, Eve is believed to have lived about 150,000 years ago. That would predate the Toba catastrophe event by another 75,000 years. Whereas, in the case of Y-chromosomal Adam it is stated, he probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago. This time frame agrees more with the time of the Toba catastrophe. --Free Citizen 13:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Free Citizen that the link should be changed to Y-chromosomal Adam and will do so in the article. The section below is not written by me and I'm not sure if the author was responding to Free Citizen.

--Finbar 01:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the link to Y-Chromosomal Adam to a link on Population bottleneck which is a better explaination.

-- Finbar 12:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldnt call the article garbage its based on genetic scientific facts,the mitochondrial eve theory is well documented as is the MRCA theory all genetic lines lead to a single person that lived 150000 years ago,there must be a reason for this why do you seem so convinced it a "myth"? I think the real myth is your own ability to think.

[edit] Ice Age?

I am wondering, is this supposed to be describing the ice age man apparently went through a while ago, or would that be a different event? The drop in temperature seems to imply that... sort of like what the old dinosaurs went through but a bit less extreme? Tyciol 19:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Toba

Lake Toba linked to this article as the "main article" about the eruption. Since that's not what this article is about (directly), I've changed it so that the discussion of this theory links to this article, inline.[1] If anyone thinks that's a bad idea, and that the purpse of this article is really to discuss the eruption 75,000 years ago in general, then feel free to put it back and discuss your reasoning on the talk page. Thanks -Harmil 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)