Talk:Homo rudolfensis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Copyright?
The first two paragraphs of this entry are identical with the first two paragraphs on Homo rudolfensis on this another site: something to do with the Smithsonian, perhaps. [1].
Does this constitute a breach of copyright? I don't know the author, perhaps they are one and the same.
Philip Lawton
p.d.lawton@dur.ac.uk
- Yes, the first two paragraphs are nearly literal copies of other sources. The only thing that stops me from placing a copivio notice on the article is that it's not clear who owns the copyright (if any) on the original. Here is another source that has the same paragraphs:
- http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1470.htm
- Google gives about 90 hits for pages with nearly identical wording
- Gene s 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Soft Tissue issues...
The article mentions a sophisticated sweating system, hair length, and noticeable whites of the eyes as characteristics not present in Homo rudolfensis. While it is perhaps unlikely that H. Rudolfensis would have exhibited these characteristics, is it not impossible to make such a determination given that the only existing evidence from this time consists of skeletal remains, as well as stone tools and a few footprints?
Charles Burgess
cb834214@albany.edu
[edit] Merge from Skull 1470
I think that both of these articles will always be rather small and, since one is talking about a specific find regarding the other, should be merged together here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- I belevie that this [Skull 1470] article is warranted. I think there is more to say about KNM–ER 1470 that will not (and probably shouldnt) fit in Homo rudolfensis - Por exemplo - how, when and by whom it was discovered; and considering that wikipedia has no size limits, there should be space for this scientifically important particularity. I hold no strong convictions on this issue, but considering that this is a subject that (I believe) is neglected on wikipedia, shouldnt we make some wriggle-space for extra article? --Ezeu 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC) minor edit by UtherSRG (talk)
- Certainly wiki has no size limits, but that doesn't mean we can't put two things side-by-side and see if they should be combined or not and use potential growth as an issue. Look at Meganthropus and the recent expansion its gone through. This article would easily be a section in Homo rudolfensis. I'd rather have one nice-sized article that covers several aspects (findings, evolution, interpretation, etc.) than several small articles that I'd have to use to piece together the larger picture. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, if the "nice-sized article" covers the subject, and the issues in the "small article" are not neglected (which often is the case) — cool. Unforunately "nice-sized articles" usually ignore the nitty-gritty, leaving the seemingly unimportant details to stubs. I'd rather have several good stubs than none. --Ezeu 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I edited out the whites of the eyes, sophisticated sweating system, and naked apperance comments, as they are speculative, and there is no evidence to support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafe Kelley (talk • contribs) .
- There was no need. The statement was already tagged as unsourced. Meanwhile, we continue to search for a citation for the information. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The role of Skull 1470 in evolution-creation controversy
This skull has been haunting me for a while. Its name keeps popping up on creationst websites. Many of them claim scientists deliberately changed the dates from the originally estimated age of 3 million years simply to make it fit the evolution theory better. The fact that it was discovered under "impossibly" old vulcanic ashes is also brought up often. One instance of such incident can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (scroll down to the segment titled "Bad dates", paragraph 3)
I have been wondering what is the scientific response to these creationist accusations. In what way are the later estimations more accurate than the 3 million years, and how are the "old" ashes explained?
And most importantly, should there be a segment in this article regarding this controversy, similar to the Nylon-eating bacteria? Or does this debate perhaps belong in the Creation-evolution controversy article?
- Henry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.214.9.63 (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
