Talk:Human evolution/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This archive contains previous discussions from 2003 to the end of 2006

Contents

[edit] Headline text

Please dont think I want to create any problems, but as fas as I can see theres a (BIG) difference in the human evolution and the evolution of Homo sapiens, why I think its incorrect to redirect the page.

The human evolution of course, may start earlier with any Homo or even far back. Stumbling upon this page just becuase I wanted to make an interlink, I do not, (despite my opinion) belive that I could presently make a good article about the human evolution, but if any one does, then please make a language link to the swedish page like: [[sv:Den mänskliga evolutionen]] which is presently on the evolution of Homo sapiens page. Thanks, Danny Lumb 16:56 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

This taken from main page:
"Anthropologists currently identify two subspecies of H. sapiens: neanderthaloids, and modern humans (originally identified as "Cro-Magnon Man"). Current evidence suggests that the two subspecies diverged during the fourth glacial period around 40,000 years ago, after which neanderthaloids died out. All human beings today belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

Now, I am strongly of the opinion that Neanderthals should be classified as a seperate species, not merely a sub-species, but this is debated so I'm not going do anything with that yet, except maybe strengthen that side of the arguement while acknowledging that it is still debated. But, other parts of this paragraph are just plain wrong. It seems to imply that Neanderthals died out almost as soon as they came into existence 40K years ago. In fact, they existed for at least 150KY, I think rather more; and their fossils are known from as little as 27KYA.

But I don't have nearly enough time nor references at the moment to fully correct this, so I'm leaving it here for now. Je reviendrai. -Aidan Elliott-McCrea

Moved from main page:

Vaccination and other medical advances since the start of the 19th century have caused dramatic improvements in the survival rate of humans. The number of offspring per birth surviving infancy was 0.99 for singleton births, 1.74 for twin births and 2.78 for triplet births, between 1995 and 1997 in the United States. Natural selection is therefore acting to increase the human brood size.


Well, actually, it's not. Those figures show quite plainly that if you're a singleton, you have a 99/100 chance of survival, if you're a twin you have a 88.7/100 chance, and a triplet has a 92/100 chance: that gives any singleton child having approximately a 10% better chance of survival than a twin or triplet. Malcolm Farmer 05:16 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

The above comment is on target. the incidence of natural twins has been lessening, not increasing. And notice, a .99% survival does not mean a population decline as long as women have a number of children. SA

This article would be very well served by some literature lists! Good work! -- OlofE

Humans acquired language gene 50,000 years ago. During the last ice age interglacial they spread out of Africa, where they had to fight mute Neanderthals from Europe who were bigger and stronger, but mute. More articulate than these savages they menaged to commit genocide and Neanderthals ceased to exist 20,000 years ago. After that they have domesticated dogs and other animals.

The out of Africa model is well established if not universally agreed on, and the domestication of the dog is pretty solid. The rest of this, though, seems speculative at best.

Removed from article:

Today's Uzbekistan-Turkmenistan-Xinjiang area had been a cradel of Northern Eurasian and Amerind populations. Most ancestors of modern Europoids, Semites, Iranians, Berbers, Uralics, Siberians, Tibetans, Chinese, Korean-Japanese, Mongolians, Turks and Amerincs inhabited this area which was humid and warm until 17,000 Before Present.

About 40,000 BP, the ancestors of Europoids and other Caucasoids wandered off towards the west, splitting in to Europoid, Middle-Eastern and Berber groups. The population in Central Asia continued to evolve in to Mongolinds. In 17,000 BP, due to the climate turning cold and dry, several waves of migration started off towards the East, some ending up in the American continents, some ending up in Southern China and India, blending with populations of Subcontinental and Southeast Asian origins. The Central Asian population continued to evolve into classical Mongoloids and Tibetans. Finally These groups evacuated the inhospitable Central Asia and branched off into Siberia, Tibet, China and Mongolia around 6,000 BP. Around 4,000 BP, the Indo-Europeans, a group mostly closely resembling, and including the Iranians, re-colonized Central Asian with the help of their advanced pastoral culture, equipped with horses and wheels. Two Indo-European gruops, the Tocharians and Iranians were for a long time masters of the Central Asian steppes, the latter having the supremacy in mobility and number. Mongolian groups adopted the pastoral culture of the Indo-Europeans around 3,000 BP and became very good at it starting 2,000 BP. Several waves of Mongolian migration, often coupled with swift military conquests, started out West, South and East, leaving their legacies in Japan, Korea, China, Yakutia, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Russia and Europe. The above passage is plausible, but nevertheless speculative concerning a period of human history for which we do not have a complete record. But that is not my main objection. I deleted it because it simply does not belong in this article. It is not relevant to the evolution of H sapiens -- it describes migrations of H. sapiens long after they evolved. At best (it would still need accuracy work) it might belong in some other article, say, human prehistory, or paleolithic history. Slrubenstein

Do any articles on Wikipedia discuss the similarity between humans and chimpanzees, and how they should be classified? I want to try and add some info on the following news item, but I am not sure where it should go. Also, is there any discussion here of the significance of that 99.4% figure? I mean, this figure seems to includes exons as well as introns, which would seem a bit misleading. RK

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chimpanzees are more closely related to people than to gorillas or other monkeys and probably should be included in the human branch of the family tree, a research team says. The idea, sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and the relationship between humans and animals, comes from a team led by Morris Goodman at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. Currently, humans are alone in the genus Homo. But Goodman argues, "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes." He says humans and chimps share 99.4 percent of their DNA, the molecule that codes for life.
CNN Science website

The aquatic ape hypothesis is not generally accepted, and there are a number of points on which it is questionable. Why does this page give it so much more prominence than the conventional view, criticizing only the latter? This seems like a promotional, rather than a neutral, treatment.

Comments on: It is believed by some that human evolution has ended, because humanity as a species no longer has to adapt to its environment: rather, humans are capable of changing their environment to suit their needs.:

The wording seems inadequate; there are far fewer selective pressures to be sure (but this too will cause 'adaptation', i.e. myopia), but what pressures remain prioritize different features and behaviors. Additionally, we might want to differentiate evolution in the form of natural selection and other "natural" mechanisms, and artificial selection and reengineering; the human species is likely on the verge of accelerated genetic change in the form of intentional reengineering; if we define biological evolution as a change in allele frequency in a population over time, then it would be prudent to include this under that process.

Two points. First, it is, as you say, totally inadequate. It is also false, and ridiculous :-) which is why the weasel words "it is believed by some" have been included. You are welcome to expand this slight introduction to a controversial idea. In this talk page alone, you've tripled the size of it. Second, it is customary to put your talk page comments at the bottom. --Yath 00:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

We need to move this page to human evolution; the present name is rubbish, and it does not take into account other hominids. hominid evolution or hominin evolution would also be better but not as good. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No real objection from me, would also pass the Google test nicely ("human evolution": 409,000 vs "evolution of Homo sapiens" 3,570). We could also use the opportunity to integrate/delete/redirect or otherwise incorporate the rather awkward page: theories of the origin of humans, which isn't a true encyclopedic article, nor a proper disambiguation page (references to wikipedia should never appear in the text of wikipedia articles to maximize 3rd party re-use of content, hence the generic text for Template:Spoiler which doesn't mention wikipedia). --Lexor|Talk 13:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm good with the move. - UtherSRG 13:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No objections for a week, page has been moved. --Lexor|Talk 08:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neanderthals

Hi there,

I found this website via Google whilst researching whether Neanderthals made a genetic contribution to us. Your site seems to think not

The following is an extract from Almas section on the above site.

The Neanderthal DNA evidence that was reported in the July 1997 Edition of Cell was based on one sampling of DNA taken from a bone. This sampling was also of the mitochondria DNA (mtDNA) which is often utilized for its abundance and that the mutation rate is higher in mtDNA then in nuclear DNA (cell nucleus as source of DNA instead of mitochondria which is a cell substructure).

Mitochondria DNA is also the DNA used in the theory of a “mitochondrial Eve”. This specialized DNA is also only passed on by females.

A sequence of this mtDNA consisting of 379 units was isolated. This was then compared to a human population sampling. Neanderthal DNA varied by 27, there are 55 differences between humans and chimpanzees (Pan troglodyte). This suggests that based on the mtDNA mutation being consistent that humans and Neanderthals separated anywhere from 125,000 to 690,000 years ago, and thus are distinctly separate species. This compliments the theory of “Out of Africa”.

Dr. Christopher Stringer (the lead proponent of “Out of Africa”) does say that taking a sequence of mtDNA of 379 units does not necessarily prove Neanderthals were a separate species. This is based on the fact that human mtDNA contains about 16,500 units (meaning that only about 2.3% was analyzed). He has also stated that this kind of DNA analysis on old cells is controversial due to a possible breakdown of the cells. What follows is a statement by Dr. Stringer : “ The Neanderthal mtDNA sequence thus supports a scenario in which modern humans arose recently in Africa as a distinct species and replaced Neanderthals with little or no interbreeding. But they point out that other genes might tell somewhat different stories. This is certainly possible because, as mentioned, mitochondria DNA is only inherited through females. So genetic heritage passed on from Neanderthal males to present day populations…would not be recorded in that particular DNA.”

Some scientists have stated that if humans populations were isolated from each other then they would accumulate drifts in their mtDNA. This would continue until their physical appearance differed. Taken one step further, their shared ancestor between varied isolated people would appear archaic.

A geneticist named Simon Easteal has stated: “chimpanzees and other primates display much more with-species mtDNA variation than humans do. The amount of diversity between Neanderthals and living humans is not exceptional.” Geneticist Alan Templeton has stated that: “You can always construct a gene tree for any set of genetic variation, but there’s a big distinction between gene trees and population trees.” Population trees being those histories of genes of a group, not individual.

Other DNA work is overruling the “Out of Africa” theory now. Some of which is variations within betaglobin genes and Y chromosome evaluations. Some of this work now suggests expansion out of Africa and interbreeding among populations. Multiregional evolution is now becoming popular as well.

I do not feel qualified to edit the information presently included on your site under the heading Human Evolution. It is that the section below taken from your site may just be behind the times.

Neanderthal Man There is ongoing debate over whether "Neanderthal Man" was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens. While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.

In 1997 Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Penn State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors."² Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings.³

What do you think?

Regards,

Perry (originally posted by User:82.44.184.185 at the Wikipedia:Help Desk and moved by Noisy 12:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I think its becoming pretty clear now that Neanderthalis is a different species. Neanderthalis seems to have been outclassed by 'sapiens and competed out of existence. However, they also seem to have had the ability to produce art and jewelery, so they were capable of symbolic thought. Had not 'sapiens wiped them out, they might have been our ancestors instead, so they deserve a mention at least in our evolution

on a different note, dont we need to add a bit about Ardipithecus ramidus ?

Lincolnshire Poacher

I don't think that's correct, that they produced art and jewelry. In fact, their sudden disappearance "coincides" with the development of art, specialize stone tools, and culture in Homo sapiens.24.21.139.41 13:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Article needs more info on the species which preceded the first Homo species. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Intro rewrite

I rewrote the entire intro. The old intro was confusing, too specific, and dealt with topics that weren't even about human evolution. In short, the previous Human Evolution Introduction was neither about Human evolution nor an intro. --JPotter 00:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hominid ancestors

[edit] The earliest hominids

[edit] The Australopithecus genus

[edit] The Paranthropus genus

[edit] Image:Darwin-chart.PNG - eugh! horrible.

So then guys, evolution involves progression up the great chain of being then does it? Our job as science communicators is made hard enough by our own ignorance. Paleontology and human evolutionary biology has a history of falling for the fallacy of evolutionary progression, and the general public are suckers for it too, so we shold steer well clear of any monkeys to man side-by-side pictures. Find some bones or something. Dunc|☺ 21:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

to get separate species of humans should exist genetic barrier of infertility.

Human have 10 times longer maturation period, 10+ years. The genetic infertility barriere should be proportional to Generation offspring's if for dog it is 1MY for Human may be 10My. It is perfect with separation of our other cusines (chimps &c)

The fact that each anthropologist want to find new species give us a sytuation that we have tree full of hanging dead humans and no even race betwenn living population.

So dont be racist for ancestors, there is no realy reason to separate them in different species. Especialy H. Neander. Did HN mix? In fact we can say. The other species where whiped out becouse there was no barier of infertility and they mix (which realy mean there was no separated species)

ps.PLs edit typo.

[edit] Multiregional hypothesis vrs. out of africa

Multiregional hypothesis needs alot of content added by an expert or student of human evolution. Please come lend a hand, those in the know. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genus Homo

Shouldn't all of the species in this list be consistant in "H." vs. "Homo"? I'd edit, but I really don't know much about taxonomy. --Tydaj 21:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linked the word Georgia for disambiguation. -- Badams5115 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy

Recently the article Lucy refered to Australopithecus afarensis. I understand why many would find this acceptable but the fact that it is a name is clearly the primary meaning. I have therefore changed the article and am in the process for changing all lucy links to Australopithecus afarensis| lucy. Trouble is, there's one in the human evolution box, and I don't know how to change its. Can anybody help? (Comment by User:Matthew Mattic)

Done, by editing the Human Evolution template. The best way to have done this was by looking at the 'What links here' page for Lucy, and following the link to the template (and all other relevant pages) from there in order to eliminate any disambigities. Noisy | Talk 08:41, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Behe and MENSA state that evolution story is a lie foisted on an unknowing public by those pushing their own agenda. The story is wrong on its molecular biological level. Adding deliberate falsehoods and pranks furter discredits the whole story.--Numerousfalx 18:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind citing when and where MENSA stated that evolution is a lie? Thanks. --JPotter 21:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution of race

What are the best current estimates as to when the races of humans first emerged during the evolutionary process?

Well, according to my Biology book, there was a large split from Africans about 40,000 years ago. So :I assume that means that there was a later split of Mongoloids off from non-Africans a few millenia :later.Amren 15:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Whups, here's some more information from higher up on the talkpage that's more detailed than my :comment above.

About 40,000 BP, the ancestors of Europoids and other Caucasoids wandered off towards the west, splitting in to Europoid, Middle-Eastern and Berber groups. The population in Central Asia continued to evolve in to Mongolinds. In 17,000 BP, due to the climate turning cold and dry, several waves of migration started off towards the East, some ending up in the American continents, some ending up in Southern China and India, blending with populations of Subcontinental and Southeast Asian origins. The Central Asian population continued to evolve into classical Mongoloids and Tibetans. Finally These groups evacuated the inhospitable Central Asia and branched off into Siberia, Tibet, China and Mongolia around 6,000 BP. Around 4,000 BP, the Indo-Europeans, a group mostly closely resembling, and including the Iranians, re-colonized Central Asian with the help of their advanced pastoral culture, equipped with horses and wheels. Two Indo-European gruops, the Tocharians and Iranians were for a long time masters of the Central Asian steppes, the latter having the supremacy in mobility and number. Mongolian groups adopted the pastoral culture of the Indo-Europeans around 3,000 BP and became very good at it starting 2,000 BP. Several waves of Mongolian migration, often coupled with swift military conquests, started out West, South and East, leaving their legacies in Japan, Korea, China, Yakutia, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Russia and Europe. Amren 05:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment on the above: Evolution is a scientific concept. The theory of evolution is the central theory of the life sciences. Race, on the other hand, is a social construct. "Race" is not a scientific term, and there is no biological basis for the concept of race. Members of a certain geographical population or people within a particular narrow range of skin colors (or other physical feature which you can pick arbitrarily) have not in any sense "split off" from the rest of humanity. Genetically, any individual may have more in common with a person of different skin color or of different ethnic heritage than with someone who lives nearby and is has the same skin color. [I'm not just making this up! For a detailed and convincing popular overview of these ideas, please see Graves, Joseph L. The Race Myth N.Y., Dutton, 2004. Graves is an evolutionary biologist. Also if you don't want to take the time to read the book, there is a three part video series calld "Race: the power of an illusion". The videos are not commercially available, but are in many academic and public library collections.] My point is that a discussion of "evolution of race" or "when the races of humans first emerged" lacks any scientific underpinning and is therefore quite out of place on a page dealing with human evolution. Zedkay 19:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree in part, yes race as we think of it is a social construct, but I think the above summary is very accurate scientifically. Limited mobility did cause some superficial differences such as skin coloration. However most groups were never completely cut off and so little genetic changes took place. It is more like the evolution of languages where languages blend at the borders. I think you can go two very different and equally wrong ways with this. You could use science to try to justify the social construct of race or you could use science to try to deny the idea of any differences between peoples.
Obviously there are differences between peoples and these differences were determined by evolution. That these differences are NOT what we traditionally think of as race is not something to be swept under the rug, but something that must be confronted and corrected. Nowimnthing 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
slanted eyes, predominence of some hair, eye and skin colours, types of hair and other features that make up the racial myth... That's what this question is about I think... The evolution of distinctive phenotypes. I.E. What phenotypes belonged to humans before this superficial myth could be made? When and why did the first phenotypes that allowed the myth of race to exist appear? Which followed and why? By when the phenotypes that create the current race myth where distributed as we know them now and how has this distribution changed over the years? Are there other phenotypes that existed once but are no just known thanks to social, cultural or physical records? What's the route these phenotypes are going to take according to the predictions of the professionals? Can real races evolve from these grouped phenotypes? How much deep shall these phenotypes altere the overall makeup to result in effectively different races? Etc. The question is not in regards to the true ultimate nature of what is informally called a "race" but of what the apparent nature of what is both formaly and informally seen as distinctive appearances making people from one "race" look ('though', not be) different from those of others. The question is in regards to the real cosmetic differences between humans... Maybe, "subraces". Herle King 11:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Isn't there one picture that shows how man has evolved over the years? It starts with a picture of a monkey and then other pictures of more advanced monkey's (I dont know what they're called) and then it comes to a picture of a human. Wouldn't that be the perfect picture for this page? Will someone please put that picture on this page? Rentastrawberry 23:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That image was asked to be taken down as, to the person who complained, it represents evolution as a progressive force ala the Great Chain of Being --JPotter 23:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how--it shows time and evolution, not progression to perfection. It is not hierarchical just over time.

[edit] -thal or -tal

I reverted the recent edits that changed all instances of Neanderthal to Neandertal.

1) The article is entitled "Neanderthal" and these edits create an uncessary redirect. 2) The scientific community is ambigious about which should be used. The change is because of a vowel change in the German language that changed the word valley from thal to tal. (or something like that). However, the species was named before the change. 3) Other changes occur to names and places and the scientific community does not necessarily adopt the change, ie Peking Man has not been changed to Bejing Man 4) It doesn't improve the article, we don't normally change words from the English usage like behaviour to behavior just because. --JPotter 18:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative theories

I believe it's important, to keep things objective here. I seems this topic should point out that evolution, while quite convincing, is still not conclusively proven and that there are other theories that can, to varrying degrees, offer other causes for the same observed facts.


Except there aren't currently any competing theories. Evolution is as "proven" as anything in science is. I think the note mentioning the political and religious controversy is sufficient, as there is currently no scientific controversy as to whether evolution took place or whether humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. There are of course many controversies about the details of what species is ancestral to what and where it happened; the more significant points of disagreement are already included in the article. thx1138 14:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a small comment under "Additional Notes" is sufficient to convey this information. Please stop removing it altogether. Edit the phrasing or add skeptical comments or whatnot, but it should be clear to the reader that the Darwinistic theory of evolution is not 100% proven law and that there are competiting and complimentary theories .

The information is not accurate or encylcopedic, but I did leave the link to creationism, but removed the link to Intelligent Design, as there is no cohesive model of human evolution in the ID hypothesis. There are other problems with your verbiage: Neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories. No scientific theory is ever "100% proven law".

As for the following paragraph:

It is commonly believed, in American culture at least, that the Darwinistic Theory_of_Evolution is a matter of fact, and not proper theory. A recent survey by Elaine Howard Ecklund at Rice University (14-AUG-2005 presentation before the Association for the Sociology of Religion in Philidelphia) showed that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in a god and that the Theory_of_Evolution might not adequately explain the origins of species.

I am not sure what you mean in the first sentence; facts and theories are not mutually exclusive, please see theory and the scientific method. As for the survey of scientists, what is the relevance to human evolution that a majority of scientists believe in a god? And most importantly, no where in the study does it say anything confirming the statement " and that the Theory_of_Evolution might not adequately explain the origins of species." You also failed to mention that a majority of life and earth scientists do not believe in a god, only when lumped in with all scientists does theism gain the majority. It still isn't relevant, however. --JPotter 17:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC) [1]

(Start Cmyers) The point was that the majority of scientists do not necessarily subscribe completely to Evolution. This human evolution topic is controversial and it's important, for historical purposes, to explain that it is not a done deal. You do not get that impression from the rest of the article. As for the Rice survey, it said that 38% of natural scientists did NOT believe in god (implying that 62% DID). It didn't specifically mention Earth or Life scientists, though I would imagine these would be lumped under Natural scientists (as opposed to political or social scientists).

Here's the same story, but with more detals: [2]

According to that news story:

  • Natural: NAY: 38% YEA(?): 62%
    • Biologists: NAY 41% YEA(?): 59% (only sub-group mentioned in the article)
  • Social: NAY: 31% YEA(?): 69%
    • Poli-sci: NAY: 27% YEA(?): 73% (only sub-group mentioned in the article)

Presumably, the majority of biologists believe in a god (and, I think it's reasonable, a creator of some sort, or perhaps in guided evolution or ID).

So, the facts are:

  1. Evolution is theory and it's possible it can never be conclusively proven
All theories hold provisional doubt. Proof is not a concept in the scientific method.
  1. There are competing theories with varrying levels of believability and evidence
  2. The majority of scientists are not necessarily completely subscribed to Evolution
You have not proven this statement. The survey asks about religious belief not evolution. --JPotter 18:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

These are pretty major facts that impact whether our information on Human Evolution is entirely correct.

The article is beautiful, don't get me wrong. But for completeness' sake, it's important to mention that it's not all completely figured out and that the reader should be aware that there are other theories.

It's true that it's not completely figured out yet, not by a long shot. But it's not true that there are other theories. thx1138 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is why I thought the link to the Creation vs. Evolution Controversy article was sufficient to convey that there is currently intelligent debate (for the most part ;) ) going on about the origin of species.

I was hoping not to turn this into an Evolution vs. Religion debate. In fact, it's quite possible and probable and another naturalistic theory will come along that will explain everything with none of the current holes that Darwinism has. --cmyers 18:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the majority, even biologists, believe in a god, but where does it say anything about skepticism about evolution? That would be major, but I don't see anything other than questions about god belief, which doesn't mean they don't accept evolution. Thanks! --JPotter 18:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

These numbers of "believer scientists" seem to conflict with some info that can be found on the atheism article here on wikipedia:

""It is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%. [8] (See also The relationship between religion and science).""

[edit] Homo sapiens domesticus

Wouldn't it be more correct to call the modern man Homo sapiens domesticus rather than Homo sapiens sapiens? When we take a look at human populations that have lived as hunters and gatherers until recently, like the aboriginals, they have a much thicker skull and bigger jaws and teeth than most other people.

When humans domesticates animals, the same pattern is always repeated; an increase in under- and overbites, smaller body size (at least in the start), expanded breeding season (or breeding year round), shorter jaws, smaller teeth, monomorphism (males and females looks more alike), neotony, juvenile behavior, skull changes, reduced brain size and other stuff. When humans selected the kind of animals they wanted, they were picked for their meat, milk and fur and so on. Never for reduced brain size, curled tail, reduced jaws or any other well known traits, even if modern breeding of today are often extreme and selecting animals because of the way they look, that was a luxury out ancestors could not afford. These are traits that just followed. Not just once or twice, but as far as I know, always, no matter what species of mammal who were selected. So it is clearly not a coincidence.

Each time humans have become farmers and starts to live in permanent settlements and change their way of life from something "primtivie" to more modern, we see exactly the same changes in us after some generations.

In the last thousands years most people over the world have evolved shorter jaws (which often gives too little room for all the teeth, even if also they have been reduced in size), a reduced sense of smell, even new blood types and bio chemistry, an increase in under- and overbites, monomorphism (reduced secondary sexual characteristics, neoteny in other words), reduced brain size (if I remember correct, it has become reduced with as much a 10% since humans started to grow their own food), thinner skull and weaker muscles, most likely more juvenile behavior and other traits.

Just the same pattern as in domesticated animals. It seems that after humans started to live in early permanent villages and towns, where they domesticated animals and were growing their own food, they became self-domesticated.

Humans have adapted to new kinds of food. The adaptations are not perfect and many of us are still well adapted to the so-called "paleo diet", but we are better adapted than our ancestors. The same can be said about dogs and wolves. Wolves demands a much more protein rich food source than dogs (in other words; meat), while dogs can do with less protein in their food without negative effects.

In crowded environments and a new way of living, there is always someone that will do it better than others, and there is always someone that will produce more offspring than others. Even today we will probably see some pattern on who is having most children in the biggest cities in the world, and who is producing few or none. Of course, the bigger the cities are, the slower the evolution goes with all those poeple there are not bottle-necks which can speed it up. The original natural selection may be gone, but there is still other forms of selections going on, even if it may not be constant over time and goes very slowly.

Some says those humans living today have almost identical DNA with the humans that lived in caves and made paintings on the cave walls. Maybe, but this is also the case with domesticated animals and their wild cousins, and still we see some very big differences. It is said if we took a new born baby from its parents hundred thousands years ago and brought it to our modern time, no one would be able to tell the difference when he or she grew up. This is probably true, but I suspect it would be a very big chance the child would not like to go to school and sit on a chair most of the day and listen to teachers. There is a big chance the child would become one of these problem childs, not being quite comfortable with the modern way of living and all its noise, rules and laws and so on. Just my personal opinion.

It seems like Homo sapiens sapiens is almost extinct, and is being replaced by Homo sapiens domesticus. Is there any other way to explain the changes in us that have showed up since we stopped living as hunters and gatherers?

  • I don't know how long ago this was posted, or who by, but it fascinates me... I'm a silly laywoman so I could have completely the wrong end of the stick, but if anyone has any further info on thsi subject I'd love to hear about it. Weenerbunny 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cladistics and human evolution

It seems to me that this article, or the series of species articles on hominids, would benefit by some information on cladistics. The family tree timeline chart currently in this article is very nice, as getting the timeline straight is a challenge. And although cladistics has limitations, it would be nice if that methodology could be represented here, assuming that there's sufficient information about hominid fossils available for an analysis. Has anyone published a cladogram of hominids? If so, can it be adapted for use here? Sorry to whine and make suggestions about content that I can't generate myself; this subject is outside my field. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] bipedalism vs. intelligence

On another wikipedia article I read that there is a controversy about "bipedalism vs. big brain" (ie. weather or not bipedalism precedes intelligence). Is there a controversy of note on this matter? I am asking because I know nothing of these things and i am asuming there are wikiexperts on human evolutionary theory here. I am hoping there is such a controversy because it would make an excellent WikiArticle (if there is already such an article, point me there) --Ezeu 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This controversy was settled in the 1920's with Dart's discovery of Australopithecus africanus and the realization that Piltdown Man was a forgery. --JPotter 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It appears as though anthropologists and other evolutionary biologists have yet show which of the developments in the Genera Homo occured first. Also peculiar is the coexistence of Homo species. Did a member of an inferior species think, "You know, I want to be like Mike. I want to walk like Mike. I want my linguistics to change so that I can sound like Mike, thus altering my "Grunt, grunt". -- MEGOP 14:52 GMT, 13 June 06
It's very well established by now that bipedalism predated the rapid brain expansion by several million years. Ladlergo 15:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No offence Zondor, but "you" can mean a lot of people in here. What article are you reffering to?

[edit] Domesticus? Couldn't agree more!

Maybe there would be a new species soon -- the Homo corporatus (can climb the corporate ladder and selected by boss for promotion)

It was not meant as a joke.
Is the tilde key on your keyboard broken? Can you manage to hit it 4 times before you press "save page"? (yeah, it was kind of a mean way to put it, sorry--Brentt) Brentt 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serenissimus stuff

The following was remvoed here for consideration:

===Homo Sapiens Serenissimus===
The most evolved consciousnesses among human consciousnesses, are called Homo sapiens serenissimus. They are named this because although they are humans, they are at a level of evolution, bio-energetics, cosmoethics, and self-control which distinguishes them from other consciousnesses. Their strongest and most noticeable characteristic is their serenity.The consciousnesses known as serenissimus can be recognized through conscious projections.The serenissimus assists a large group, sustaining the energies of the population, like helpers of entire continents. Extraphysically, there is a hierarchical evolutionary chain, where the Homo sapiens serenissimus are at the highest level. The theory of the Homo sapiens serenissimus has been developed by Waldo Vieira, M.D., and it was presented in several Universities, so far irrefutable.

along with:

==Conscientiology: Future Measurement of Human Evolution==
According to Conscientiology, the main levels of evolution, in an increasing order, are:
1: Evolutionary para-comatose
2: Pre-intrusion-free
3: Existential recycler
4: existential inverter
5: Veteran projector lucid energizer
6: Permanent-total intrusion-free
7: Veteran helper
7: Evolutionary orienter
8: Homo Sapiens Serenissimus

and these refs:

  1. Crow TJ Ed. The Speciation of Modern Homo Sapiens OUP, Oxford, 2002.
  2. Academy of Consciousness
  3. Waldo Viera Projectiology:A Panorama of Experiences outside the Human Body

All of the above seems just slightly off or out of the realm of science to me. Comments? Vsmith 16:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the external link earlier today as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of edits by 203.214.145.168

I've reverted several edits from anonymous user 203.214.145.168 because they appear to be unlicensed reproductions of copyrighted material from, at least, [3] and [4]. The edits also deleted (what I'm assuming is supposed to be) established scientific information and replaced it with facts meant to discredit evolutionary theory -- regardless of whether the added information is true or not, it's trying to advance a POV opinion. –Sommers (Talk) 11:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theories of the origins of humans

Now, I'm not a nut or anything, but I don't understand why Theories of the origin of humans automatically redirects to Human evolution. This seems POV to me. Should "Theories..." be a category pointing to evolution as well as creation myths (which are, or were, someone's theories?)? Out of boredom I'm poking around for extraterrestrial intervention and would appreciate a less direct link between "Theories of the origins of humans" and the Human evolution article. Turly-burly 01:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've made the distinction yourself: a myth is not a theory. - Samsara contrib talk 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Granted, but it's just my opinion that they're myths...maybe "theories of human evolution" should redirect to Human evolution, but it still smells fishy/POV to me that a redirect article with a name as broad as "origins" redirects to discuss one theory of origin. Not trying to be a dick, just trying to make it easier to search for specific topics. Turly-burly 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No. Conflicts with Wikipedia:Verifiability. The truth of religious beliefs cannot be experimentally verified. Therefore this article is based on fact, a religious one would be POV, unless explicitly presented in the context of religion, e.g. as part of Christianity or some such. - Samsara contrib talk 14:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I read yesterday that they had been hashing all this out (to some degree) at the Talk page for Theories of human origins. I still think, though, that searching for "theories..." doesn't always mean searching for something that everyone recognizes as experimentally verified, e.g. "Novelty Theory", "Flat Earth theory", "conspiracy theory". I think that "theories of human origins" shouldn't *automatically* redirect to *one* set of theories concerning human origins, but instead to Origin belief, from which one can access information concerning all the different ways that people over time have believed humans to biologically emerge, even if this kind of page could rightly place a link to this scientific article beside a link to the Australian Aboriginal account of the origin of humans. Origin belief includes within itself those origins believed in because of religious beliefs and/or scientific investigation. I understand that Origin belief is very general, but in the absence of a more specific "human origins" page, I think it would be useful. Turly-burly 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The article you cite, Origin belief, is about general creation myths and theories; it does not solely concern itself with the origin of humans. I think it would therefore be an inappropriate redirect. - Samsara contrib talk 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] future section?

The future section of this article seems to be full of pseudo-science and poorly written ideas. I think we should just remove it, but if anyone has time a rewrite could be useful (something about how modern medicine may change how natural selection happens or blur the lines between artificial and natural selection). Timothy.brady 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There may be an encyclopedic way to treat future human evolution in this article, but that wasn't it. The section has been removed. --JPotter 05:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move History of Paleoanthropology

You should move the History of Paleoanthropology section to the Paleoanthropology article. Canadianism 03:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

Shouldn't the following passage (in the section on Homo sapiens) read "...then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. ergaster in Africa.."?

"The direct evidence suggests there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. erectus from H. ergaster in Africa (there is little evidence that this speciation occurred elsewhere)."

Anthon.Eff 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting Primitive man here

[edit] Inconsistency?

The subsection for H. sapiens idaritu says they've been around since 160 TYA, and calls them the oldest known anatomically modern humans. But the subsection for H. sapiens sapies says they've been around since 200 TYA. They can't both be right.

They can both be vague... ;-) AnonMoos 17:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sahelanthropus tchadensis link not active in timeline?

The link to Sahelanthropus tchadensis doesn't seem active in the timeline (at least, on my PC). Is this a bug in the timeline system software, or an error in the timeline's syntax? Wdfarmer 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasians evolved from chimpanzees?

Under the "History of paleoanthropology," the following text occurs in the article: "Darwin believed that Caucasians evolved from chimpanzees, that Africans evolved from the less intelligent yet stronger apes, and that Asians evolved from orangutangs."

Could the author or someone someone more familiar with Darwin's "Descent of Man" and other works than myself please verify this and provide a citation? As I understand it, Darwin famously believed that all races of man represented a single species. Browsing through the Project Gutenburg "Descent of Man" text, I find "If the races of man had descended, as is supposed by some naturalists, from two or more species, which differed from each other as much, or nearly as much, as does the orang from the gorilla, it can hardly be doubted that marked differences in the structure of certain bones would still be discoverable in man as he now exists."

There is further information countering the above "orangutang" view on the "Descent of Man" article, under "The race debate." Perhaps someone who feels more authoritative on the subject could remove the offending text, if appropriate. Foofiticus 14:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the absurdity. Vsmith 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is true that Darwin believed this its very much irrelevant to the article, and is likely to reinforce some unfortunate common misconceptions about evolution. I doubt its even true that its a position Darwin held though. It should be removed until sourced, I think the text you found atleast calls it enough into question for that...the relevancy issue aside.Brentt 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recently-found intermediate-species between H. erectus and H. sapiens

Ack, someone rewrite this Recently-found intermediate-species between H. erectus and H. sapiens section, its not written very well. I don't have time. And please make clear that saying a species is "intermediate" only means morphologically intermediate.--Brentt 14:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I cut down the section, because the press report [5] that seems to be its source, has a suspiciously uneven balance between, on the one hand, substantial evidence (for example, no indication of brain size is given; nor is it said why its discoverers "believe" the fossils to be as old as they say they are), and, on the other hand, generalities (such as the not very relevant mentioning of "Lucy"; or that it walked upright - well, one would expect that of such a recent Homo), embedded in repeated TellSell claims that this is a "very significant", "intriguing and important" (etc.) find. Better await the scientific report, I think. Hans van Deukeren 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC) -- I changed the external link to a press release [6] that seems more sound, and has a picture of the skull. Hans van Deukeren 07:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well done, as with your other changes. I like it when all I have to do is clean things up to work in alignment with the other related articles. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this conversation was some time ago, but I think I can help a bit on this part. It's commonly mentioned in discussion about De Loy's Ape, a cryptid, that the person who tried to popularize the creature was named George Montandon, and that he was the one with the opinion that, "Africans evolved from gorillas and Asians from orangutans." This is all mentioned at the DeLoy's Ape article (sorry, can't figure out the fancier links here on Wikipedia yet) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameranthropoides_loysi I've also heard this elsewhere on other sites about the DeLoy's Ape, but I'm not entirely certain if it's true or not. Just thought I'd mention it, in case it was of help. Indy Gold 03:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Evolutionary Path?

Regarding this:

"H. floresiensis is intriguing both for its size and its age, being by far the most recent species of Homo that does not lie along the direct evolutionary path of modern humans."

What does "direct evolutionary path" mean? If by direct evolutionary path it is meant an ancestral species, its bad form to assume any species is ancestral to modern h. s. sapien isn't it? For example nobody knows if we ever had a ancestor that was a member of the h. habilis species for example. Its just known that they are the closes morphologically to us to that time. If someone said h. habilis was in our "direct evolutionary path" and they meant that we had a ancestor that we're members of h. habilis for example, then thats total speculation based on weak and naive assumptions. Its a safe assumption that they we're closely related to our ancestor species that was alive at the time, but never a safe assumption, and I believe frowned upon among most phylogenetic researchers, to assume that they are our ancestral species, no matter how morphologically similar. So the phrase "direct evolutionary path" should probably be avoided, as it reinforces the false, but popular, conception that we have specimens which we know are our ancestor species. --Brentt 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's by far the most recent species which we know for sure doesn't not lie along the direct evolutionary path to modern humans... AnonMoos 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I think Brentt has a point. It's a statement about what we know and don't know, not about the actual phylogeny. It would be better for it to be phrased as such. David Olivier 21:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

We used to have a picture of different hominid skulls, anyone know what happened to it? At any rate, we should have more pictures in this article, particularly we need an intro pic. --JPotter 17:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Why the deletion, WAS? --JPotter 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homo Sapiens Discovery

Homo Sapiens as a species was discovered in 1758? WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangy (talk • contribs)

I know it seems odd, but the discovery dates are talking about specific fossils. Of course anyone robbing a grave over the past 20k years could be said to have 'discovered' homo sapiens fossils. But the date is refering to the discovery of a specific early homo sapiens fossil. [no it's not, see below — Gdr] Early homo sapiens are slightly morphologically different than fully modern humans.
Evolution is not neat and distinct. There is a lot of variation within species and there is a lot of argument as to which fossils are different species and which are just variations within a species. Some would argue that the true name for us should be Homo sapiens sapiens and neandertals as Homo sapiens neandertalis. If we go strictly by how we classify other animals the argument can be made that our species really belongs in the genus Pan. Nowimnthing 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1758 is not the date of discovery, it's the date of first publication of the name "Homo sapiens" (in a publication that meets the rules of the ICZN, in this case the tenth edition of Systema Naturae). See Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox, point number 7.

The "discovery" column of the table seems to be quite confused; most of the dates are for publication, not discovery. Some work is clearly needed to sort the table. Gdr 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't check up there. Nevertheless in most cases publication happens within a few years of physical discovery. I suppose the use in the table is 'discovery by the scientific community' which would be the date of publication rather than the 'discovery by the person in the field'. Nowimnthing 17:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TYA?

I had to look up 'TYA' for thousand years ago. It is used interspercedly in this article. I would highly reccomend reconciling the artcile with either all dates over 1000 years into TYA, or having full numbres for TYA years.TheHYPO 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed them all over the the full number since that required the least amount of work :^). However my experience is that BP is the more commonly used term. Being worldwide though, maybe just keeping the whole number is the least confusing way to go. Interesting that BYA and MYA seem more universal than TYA, but I had never seen it used before either. Nowimnthing 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icehouse album

Does anybody esle think its problematic to include the phrase For the album by Icehouse, see Primitive Man at the very beginning of the article? Seems out of place to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmart1 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 June 2006.

Well, that's where disambiguation links are usually put. -- bcasterline • talk 06:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, but whose going to confuse an obscure music album called "primative man" with an encyclopedia article on HUMAN EVOLUTION?? Is disambiguation really necessary here? Anyway, I guess the real issue is that primative man redirects here, which it shouldn't, becuause human evolution is still happening, despite the fact that humans are, by most accounts, NOT PRIMATIVE anymore. Primative man would be better off redirecting to protohuman, caveman, or homo-erectus, but even then, it would still be a shame to soil those pages with an irrelevant obscure music reference. Cmart 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea is that someone might search for "Primitive man" expecting to return the album -- but instead, they'd be brought here and have little chance of finding the album on their own. The redirect link at the top is supposed to solve that problem. Primitive man redirects here because this article discusses primitive humans and their subsequent evolution into us. I do also wonder at the appropriateness of the redirect, though, since "primitive man" seems like a nonstandard term, but a Google search suggests that the redirect fits. If you disagree, however, feel free to bring it up at Talk:Primitive man or Redirects for deletion. -- bcasterline • talk 21:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of hair

At what point in human evolution did our ancestors lose their body hair? I see depictions of H. erectus with little or no body hair, but don't know if others pre-date them. Or is it even possible to guess how much hair an individual ape had just by looking at its bones?

Nobody knows when we lost our hair (heh, when most of us lost it anyway). The only thing we can be pretty sure about is that it was sometime after the ancestor we have in common with chimpanzees (that making the pretty safe assumption that chimpanzee hair didn't reevolve, since hair is the exception rather that the rule among apes). Nobody even knows why we lost our hair. There are a bunch of different just-so theories, that compete pretty closely for plausibility. One theory is that its just a case of run-away sexual selection (like peacock tails). Then there is the aquatic ape theory. There are lots of different theories about it. But yea, nobody really knows when or why. Hairy ape bones look exactly like naked ape bones so far as anyone knows. Brentt 08:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, reading about aquatic ape hypothesis is what got me wondering. So if there's no telling a hairy ape bone from a naked one, then there could even be different races of the same species with different hairiness, no? Just as humans have different skin colors? Or perhaps one species could lose (or gain) its hair over the millennia? Yikes. — Epastore 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, there is variation in hairiness among people who come from different local groups ("races"), and even variation within those groups. There is no reason why that variation could not have been even greater in the past. Brentt 03:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting here, that humans don't have less hair than chimps or gorillas. We have the same number of hair follices per square inch as they do. What makes us appear less hairy is the fact that our hair is ligher, finer, thiner..etc. JPotter 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it's an official theory, but isn't it possible that human hair became thinner and finer because humans started wearing animal hides? Since these were used for insulation a thick insulating fur would become less important or maybe even problematic, hency why modern man evolved thinner hair. Jerkov 11:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's more likely that we lost the hair in the African savannah due to heat and then had to add animal furs to keep warm as we moved to cooler areas. Without animal furs ancient europeans probably would have become hairier and not been able to move as far north. You don't see traditional African tribesmen wearing much in the way of animal furs. Nowimnthing 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If there was a sudden onset of cold (either through an ice age or through migration), then there wouldn't be time to adapt genetically. If tool users encounter sudden cold, they do something about it. Thus I can imagine hairy humans putting on furs to solve the immediate problem. However, I'm not so sure that those people would then get nakeder in order to make the furs more comfortable.
As for losing our hairiness on the savannah... why do other almost all savannah mammals (except for previously-aquatic elephants) have hairy bodies? Hair protects skin from the sun. See AAH on nakedness for further arguments, and also for objections to those arguments. —Epastore 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Winter et al. (2004) [7] reported a gene for type I hair keratin that was lost in the human lineage. Keratins are a major component of hairs. Humans still have nine functional type I hair keratin genes but the loss of that particular gene might have had a dramatic effect. Interestingly, the gene loss apparently occurred in the recent human evolution (less than 240 000 years ago).

Homo sapiens is about 240 000 years old. So isn't this just saying that humans don't have lots of hair, but other extant apes do? — Epastore 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

skin pigments can offer certain protection from the sun and loss of hair such as in elephants help cool the body and regulate temperature, though we didnt really lose the hair, it just became a little useless, I wonder why is still occurs in certain places, is it all hormonal or genetic?

Well, the places where it does occur would be very nice places to have hair if we had been the sort of creatures who spent a lot of time in water up to their necks. — Epastore 01:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i read the aquatic theory, i like it, humans do like the water

[edit] Catalog of Specimens

I am currently working on creating basic stub pages for the specimens. Once I get that done I would like to organize the specimens. What does everyone think, should the list be in order of discovery, age or species? I can see arguments for each. Maybe eventually someone will make a seperate list page for each. I am also going to go back and add a prominent specimens section to the appropriate species pages. Nowimnthing 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for listing them by chronological age. JPotter 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
How about species by chronological age? Maybe I can make a simple table or something. Or maybe I could combine the specimen section with the species list in a table.Nowimnthing 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there some dispute about the species of some specimens? It may be less contentious to only sort by age. — Epastore 22:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, the information of interest to most people is the age of the specimen, not when it was found--that would be of interest to a smaller number of people. (in geological time, they've all been found at the same time) Brentt 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, though age can be somewhat imprecise too. Maybe the subtitle would be 'in order of approximate age' and then have some age groupings like '1.5-2.0 mya'. Nowimnthing 23:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course your going to want to include the margin of error. That should go without saying. But nonetheless, the age range of the specimens should be enough to order a list according to age. Brentt 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How about ordering by geography, like the book Guide to Fossil Man. Then you dont make any assumptions on neither species names nor chronogy --Helle Thomsen 12:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transhumanism

I think that recent addition should go in the see also, rather than have a sentence, what does everyone else think? Nowimnthing 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't even belong anywhere in the article. It really should go. It has nothing to do with human evolution. JPotter 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Sourcing is good. This article sources specific claims too little. I am not disagreeing with any of its contents. Yeah, I know, there is no money it... 4.250.168.128 22:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about Australopithecines

Australopithecines are dead-end in human evolution, theyr just "cousins"! Dont mention them, family tree goes something like this: Sahelanthropus tchadensis > Orrorin tugenensis > lot of unknown fossils (??) > Kenyanthropus platyops and Kenyanthropus/Homo rudolfensis > Homo ergaster. I think this article is little bit outdated. --Zzzzzzzzzz 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some sources to cite? The article mention australopithecines as close relatives, not definative ancestors. I don't see how you can make claims like above there may be too little information for us to ever pinpoint our exact ancestors. All we can do is narrow down the field and I haven't seen any sources claiming that australopithecines are that far off base. Again if you have sources let us know and we can improve the article. Nowimnthing 15:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I dont have any sources in English language. I've written long article about human evolution to Finnish Wikipedia using book from year 2004 as source (same book is also used in university), and it claims that Australopithecus are just "cousins" (close relatives), because recent findings like Kenyanthropus platyops and Sahelanthropus tchadensis are likely to be ancestors of Homo. Older books from 1990s are pretty sure about Austrapithecus, but can't trust them anymore. I've tried to find recent speculative family tree of human evolution from Internet (year 2004+) but didn't find any for you. --Zzzzzzzzzz 01:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution inside the Homo sapiens

Is there somewhere a description of the evolution into different races inside the Homo sapiens? Like how long ago the Japanese separated from the ancient eastern ancestor? --Maruvkay

See Recent single-origin hypothesis vs Multiregional hypothesis Nowimnthing 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
H. sapiens sapiens has no true "races". But for a description of the branching and history, see human#Habitat and population. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. I read it. But I did not find the answer in it. Could you please give me some references that discuss in more details the question of the time scales of separation between different human "races"\groups? --Maruvkay 17:05, 8 August 2006
You can try Race but I think it points you back to the links above, you might also try some of the external references in tose articles. In short there is no good answer because 1. Races don't really exist and 2. Human migration has been so fluid it is hard to pin down where groups may have been reproductively isolated. Nowimnthing 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank Nowimnthing. I Try to read more data and the external links. You are right that there is no very sharp estimation for it but they have some general estimation.
--Maruvkay 03:40, 13 August 2006

[edit] Meganthropus

What is the current scholarship around Meganthropus? I found the page while looking through the early hominid category but it seems to be floating without any links to it from here. Is it due to questions about its classification or its scholarship? Either we should add links to it from here, or we should edit the page, because as it stands it seems like a legit subject. I'll leave it up to those more knowledgable to decide. Nowimnthing 20:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronospecies

Would many of our ancestors (Homo habilis, australopithecus africanus, for example) be classified as "chronospecies"? I think that should be mentioned in the article if that is so, becuase we are not exactly anatomically similar to Homo erectus... Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the link would only be relevant if chronospecies had been debated in anthropological and evolutionary science journals. Anyone more familiar with the issue is welcome to give a more substantive answer. ;) Ladlergo 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more notable fossils

I have added a lot more fossils, but now the list is getting big. I think I should break it into columns or create a main page for List of human evolution fossils or something like that. What do you think? Nowimnthing 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I went a bit of a different direction with a chart and a new page Human evolution fossils, but I think it will work out well. If anyone wants to help fill in the gaps, feel free. Many of the fossils have their own pages so you can pull that info right into the chart. Nowimnthing 20:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article on human evolutionary genetics

This article is focused on the fossil record. This is fine. However, considering the vast amount of molecular data on human evolution today (e.g. comparative genomics, genetics of great apes, mitochondrial Eve, selection on particular loci, etc.) it is time to start a new wikipedia site dedicated to look at human evolution from the molecular perspective. I started one and I started to collect some material but a lot more needs to be done. I need some support though (more content, verification, linking of other sites to it, better English, etc.). I would be happy to get some feedback :) Molgen 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the information to this article? JPotter 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
renamed the page w/out the extra capitals, now the link above works. Vsmith 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro picture added.

Whereas this is a sensitive topic - for reasons valid or otherwise - the informative and aesthetic benefit of an image against the table of contents supercedes the potential risk of subjective inference that the image belies some controversial theoretical underpinnings.
The series of skulls was chosen after a very brief search on commons, as the most obvious picture (the infamous sequence of primate silhouettes) apparantly carries too much cultural baggage. However, feel free to replace the image if a more suitable one is found. 84.43.104.227 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Future of Homo Sapien Sapiens

Please don't add that Oliver Curry stuff thats been getting a lot of attention in the media lately. Dr. Curry is not an evolutionary biologist or even a biologist and no evolutionary biologist would take his "hypothesis" seriously. This is a good explanation of whyJust leave it out until there is some evidence for what he is saying (which there won't be unless a time machine is built--you may have noticed the striking resemblance to the H.G. Well's story, which is why I think it may actually be a joke). It at most should be in the see also section with a link to an article about his half-baked theory. But it hardly even deserves that. Brentt 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funding source for Curry's research

Wikipedians may also like to see the source of funding for this "research", in The Guardian: Bad Science column by Ben Goldacre - "The strange evolution of PR"; Saturday October 21, 2006, together with an appeal for higher quality Science journalism. For a mind-stretching early SF novel on human evolution, try Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon (1930). ===Vernon White (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current evolution of our species

Would it be fair to say that our evolution has stalled? Slowed? Have we managed to thwart natural selection from making any significant evolutionary changes? I'd like more than a single sentence if at all possible. Mike.lifeguard 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) nevermind. just went to a lecture on this topic. Mike.lifeguard 03:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • laughs* i think we've started to regress, since 1750, to be honest, with all the wars, murders, religions, and so on... we also have diseases. Sure, the industrial revolution helped us out and helped us live longer, but what was the price? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 21:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well keep in mind that evolution can take a while to work O:-) Our gene pools are obviously changing though. Would it be correct in saying that europeans have developed a higher lactose tolerance due to their dependency on animal milk during the 18th century? And also the way Africans are more prone to inheirting Sickle-cell disease because although it has many negative effects, it helps prevent malaria (which is common in some areas of Africa). While malaria prevents reproduction, sickle cell does not, so a human with sickle cell disease in these areas of Africa have better reproduction chances than those without. Correct? So I think we have seen some minor examples of evolution in humans. Incidently, Racoon, can a species really 'regress' in evolutionary process? I suppose that we could look at the long term vs short term effects of evolutionary traits though, so maybe the traits that are becoming more frequent are not in our species long term interests, so I suppose you could be right.  ;-) --Wormywyrm 09:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, there is no such thing regressive evolution because evolution has no goal or standard for it to "regress" from. (atavism doesn't count either). There IS such thing as being maladapted to a changing environment of course, which is the whole idea of evolution. (Also, its beside the point, but its not like there as ever a time in human or pre-human history where everything was just peachy). Brentt 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost data?

Here's a chunk of data which is present at this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&oldid=84477697

but not in this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&oldid=84657390
---

Whether this was an acceleration from standstill, or a trend that had in fact already started earlier, is debated: many innovations of the past 50,000 years are known to have occasional precursors in the Middle Stone Age. Among innovations of the Acheulian and the Middle Stone Age are the use of fire (500,000 BP), building shelters (400,000 BP), production of stone blades or knives (280,000 BP), grinding stones (280,000 BP), long distance barter trade (140,000 BP), fishing gear (110,000 BP), mining (100,000 BP), and beads (75,000 BP). However, these mostly remain incidents and do not become common until after 50,000 BP.

---
I can't seem to find any data about why this block was changed/removed.
Did this information proved to be false?

This is the info bit of the last editor of it: "17:49, 30 October 2006 216.73.64.6"
Thanks, BinTravkin 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm concerned by the lack of references to nearly every statement in this article. It seems well written, and of course, I buy into everything that is written, but if I were to use this article in an intellectual battle with Creationists, I'd have a hard time, since this article lacks a lot of references. Therefore, I'm going to tag it with needing more references. I looked into the past discussions, and I didn't find anyone else commenting on it. If I'm nuts, please tell me (although in a much nicer manner). There are numerous comments on human evolution that, without reference, sound like the editor's opinion. I can't believe that the creationists that usually come into these pages to push for intellectual honesty haven't done so with this article. Orangemarlin 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)