Talk:Homo antecessor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge to Homo heidelbergensis

Although I called for possible mergers on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Primates/category_rework, I'm not sure this is a merger I'd support. Mikko's phlogeny page supports them being distinct. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, they're distinct species. Ucucha (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The primary reference indicates that the age given here as 780 ka for TD6 may in fact be substantially older perhaps OIS 20 (c. 857 Ka)(Falguères et al., 1999:351). Derek Wood

Do you have a full citation for Falguères ? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibalism

'At the site were numerous examples of cuts on the bones, which indicates that H. antecessor could have practised cannibalism.' - changed from 'could have been victim of cannibalism'

Someone in the page history argued that H. antecessor was the victim of cannibalism but may not have been the predator. Is is then cannibalism? I think not. 84.13.171.245 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestor To Modern Humans?

I'd like that somebody expert looks at the claim that Antecessor and Heidelbergensis are possible ancestors of homo sapiens (a claim that the funding-hungry scientists in charge of the Atapuerca digs make every other day, leaving little room to doubt). There appears to be a contradiction with the scientific consensus that the sapiens sapiens didn't leave Africa until 200,000 BP. If true, how come these European hominids have anything to do with us? Aussiesta (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Many but not all scientists believe humans originated in Africa see Multiregional origin of modern humans for more information in a multiregional scenario homo sapiens could have evolved from Antecessor and Heidelbergensis also scientists who believe the Out of Africa Hypothesis say that homo sapiens migrated out of Africa around 80,000 BP not 200,000 BP.--Fang 23 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Most scientists, right? Including pretty much every expert in human genome, and some who go as low as the 50,000 BP year. Then, shouldn't this article say that? That, as far as the scientific consensus goes (and it's wrong very often, we know that), the Homo Antecessor antecedes no living being, and was probably an ancestor of an extinct line of big humanoids? The way it goes now, one gets the impression that the average expert has no objection to the claim that modern Europeans (and white North Americans, white Australians, etc) descend from some humanoids who once lived in Burgos these many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Which I take to be a minority position, isn't it? Just checking that I got it right... Aussiesta (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)