Talk:Human evolution/Archive 5

There is an RfC at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis regarding the possible inclusion of a selfpublished e-book in the article. The book is one of a few works published about this fringe theory and is interesting because it has the participation of a well known specialist - but it has not generated any new interest in the scholarly community and it has not been reviewed or evaluated by other scholars (no peer review, and no post-publication reviews). The question is whether the book can/should be mentioned as an example of a recent publication not whether it can be used to support statements of fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is new science that indicates Africa may not be the original home of early man. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1227_051227_asia_migration.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.88.106 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm no scientist, but I'm sure the dates for modern humans migrating out of africa in the forth paragraph of the indroduction is wrong. It says "According to the Recent African Ancestry theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensisand migrated out of the continent some 50,00 to 100,00 years ago".

I'm sure that's meant to be 50,000 to 100,000 years at least, if not more. It looks like this has been vandalisd by someone. Could someone who knows what these dates are supposed to be please correct the problem.

Yeah. No idea what happened there. I've fixed it. Thanks for noticing. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section on evidence and wrote one on the actual evidence - the fossil record and genetic studies. User:Judgeking partially reverted instead inserting the old "evidence" section into where the fossil record fit in my version. That doesn't work and I had to revert, but here I give my reasons why the evidence section had to e rewritten and the material in the previous section is not suitable for this article.

The section I removed was not about human evolution, but about using vestigial organs as evidence for evolution in general. It was written for a reader who does not believe in evidence and who would have to be convinced by using the examples of vestigial organs. That is not how we write a section on human evolution in wikipedia - human evolution is a scientific fact and we don't have to convince anyone, we just have to describe the process as it happened and the evidence in the fossil record and genetics. Textbooks on Human evolution do not include descriptions of vestigial anatomy as "evidence".

Secondly the section was incoherent and incorrect in many cases. And it explains anatomical changes without reference to function and adaptation. It said "the tail gradually dissappears". This is incorrect the first apes are tailless and human ancestors have not had tails since before the split between Apes and old World Monkeys - losing the tail is not part of Human evolution but of primate evolution. It is also not gradual - there are no semi-tailless fossils. When apes appear in the record they are already tailless. Also the phrase "The progressive straightening of the spine" is problematic - what is seen is not a straightening of the spine it is a series of adaptations to bipedality that eventually lead to the characteristic S shaped spine - already found in Ardipithecus ramidus. The same with the plantaris muscle - it becomes unfunctional because of evolving bipedality - that is what is significant, not its status as vestigial. Jacobson's organ becomes diminished in Humans because of primates' incresed focus on vision rather than smell - all primates have dminished vision centers - humans more than most, we are an extremely visual species. The change in perception could be mentioned - but not as a vestigial organ. Wisdom teeth are not evidence of evolution but a result of the human face becoming shorter - a side effect of bipedalism. Human ancestors didn't "have an extra set of Molars" all primates have three molars humans also do, but we are gradually loosing them because of the problems they tend to cause in our over crowded little mouths.

In short the section is not something we can include in the form it has - it is based on a misunderstanding of the aim of the article: we do not need to present evidence for evolution - only the evidence for how human evolution has occurred. This we do with reference to adaptive changes - not by describing anatomical changes with no description of how they occurred. The section I inserted describes the fossil record with its main anatomical adaptative evidence - bipedialism, encephalization. That is what characterizes human evolution. Also it is not correct that it is repeated elsewhere in the article - there is a list of species lower down, but it does not give a coherent narrative of their relations or their anatomical adaptations. That is why we need such a coherent account in the fossil evidence section. I will be rewriting the rest of the article over the next few weeks. And those parts are likely also to be changed drastically.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the vestigial organs being removed and have thought we don't need this in an encyclopedia either. I do think you should discuss 'drastic' changes on the talk page before proceeding so we can get others input into changes.Jobberone (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The changes I see are to the general structure of the article which is now incoherent made up of sections with no clear relation to each other. The section on genus homo is just a list of species names when it should be a coherent account of the evolutionary trajectory that those species are part of. The sections on tool use and migration models should be integrated into the main narrative so that it is clear for example that Genus Homo is characterized by increased tool use from the first time. ON a very general level behavior and anatomy should be treated together so that the role of adaptation can be made clear - that is the way evolutionary history is told. The article's structure should follow the type of structure one would find in a textbook on Human evolution. Also the article now takes an extreme "splitter" position listing even separate species that have already been conclusively incorporated into larger groups (e.g. Homo georgicus which is clearly at this point considered Homo erectus). This is problematic, both because it doesn't represent the majority view in Palaeoanthropology, but also because it obscures historical and evolutionary relationships between the proposed taxons. Describing those relations should be the focus of the article not simply listing every fossil that has ever received a separate species name.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Broadly, I support the change in direction as discussed by Maunus. However, changes to human anatomy as a result of the evolutionary process are important and will need to be discussed. The examples of 'vestigial structures' are part of this larger story. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with other posters above. Maunus, you should discuss before making such drastic changes to a reasonably controversial subject. Especially since your changes make historical comparissons very difficult. I agree with the re-addition of the vestigial structure examples. I also think many of Maunus additions are overly wordy and make the article bloated. Many of his topics are better left as references to other articles. --Judgeking (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No I should not, I can make all the edits I want without discussing. If someone disagrees then I discuss as we're doing now. Who do you agree with about reinserting the vestigial features? Everybody else who has commented here has agreed it wasn't apt for inclusion. The article on human evolution is a main article and it should be long and comprehensive and well structured. Including pertinent subsections that actually explain the evolutionary process and the evidence it is based on is not "bloated". None of the topics I have included were adequately represented ion the article, all of them are main aspects of the description of Human evolution - none of them could be left as references to other articles. The vestigial structures section was a collection on random anatomical feature in random order - how does that facilitate comprehension of the "complex subject" or facilitate comparison. This article should be written in summary style yes, with links to main articles - but it must summarise all the main aspects of the topic and the article is probably going to end up being as long as the main article on Evolution - which it should be when trying to summarize 6 million years of history and explain the biological changes. The state of this article before my edits (and still) really was not impressive so I don't understand why your're all so keen on "discussing it first" - it is not as if there's a lot of risk of making it worse - o r as if you were already in the process of discussing how to improve the page here on the talkpage. The article needs a major overhaul, and that is what it is going to get.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, I'm not saying you MUST discuss, but it would be nice, you're making very dramatic changes. Even your talk comments are bloated and arrogant. --Judgeking (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll refrain from characterizing your comments. Now can we discuss the how to improve the contents instead of how you believe I should have behaved? You are very keen to tell me to discuss, but not very keen to actually do discuss anything. If I had started out by posting politely on the talkpage nothing would have ever happened. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be good for the article to include mention of vestigial traits in humans. But I think this should be done in the context of evolutionary changes and adaptations, and not in a context of arguing simply for the fact of human evolution. (So if anyone wants to present those arguments, the place to do so is the evidence for common descent article. But a legitimate function of this article here is to explain how we changed from other apes, which not only means how our brain cases and posture changed, but also does include at what point and why our wisdom teeth lost their advantages, how much the musculature of our feet changed, whether we also differ from other chimps in our smell sense, when the hair thinned and the eye-whites became emphasised and whatever else. Obviously though, material on gill arches or full-blown tails isn't even remotely relevant to the period of evolution this article discusses.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with using vestigial features to explain human evolution is that they are evidence only of what we are not - they are the negative mirror image of adaptations. Focusing on those in the narrative of evolution describes a side effect as the end result. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand your meaning, I don't see a scientific basis to your point. Shouldn't we simply say that the cranium got larger and the plantaris muscle got smaller? (Why ignore or refuse to mention one - we wouldn't dismiss the evolution of hummingbirds just because they had much bigger ancestors? How can you be sure the reduction is not adaptive, when surely it reduces the energy requirements, reduces motor-coordination burden, and thereby could be presumed to increase fitness in its context? For that matter, what proof do you have that something which got bigger did so due to adaptive causes and is an "end result" not another "side effect"? Seems so much simpler just to neutrally describe the changes that took place and what is known about them without bias.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern texts on evolution describe anatomical changes relative to adaptive functions. The adaptive function that lead to the plantaris muscle becoming smaller was bipedalism that lead to the restructuring of the entire foot. That is what texts on evolution write. Vestigial features are by definition traits that loose functionality, not things that get smaller, now of course it wouldn't have gotten smaller if doing so didn't increase fitness - but it wasn't its getting smaller that increased fitness it was its enabling bipedal walking.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're in disagreement. We both think this article should inform about the anatomical changes involved in human evolution, and neither of us want content that would be contradicted by completely up-to-date reputable texts. Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Vestigiality is a part of evolution, it is NOT a mirror image of adaptations, they ARE adaptations. Evolution is not just about favoring positive traits, it's also about the effects of 'reducing' or eliminating characteristics, whether they're positive, negative or neutral. By reducing the size of our appendix, humans may be able to use more oxygen for our brain, who knows? --Judgeking (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all that is speculation and second it would still be brain function that is being favored, and the reduction of the appendix would be a simple tradeoff. Evolutionary texts do not give much attention to vestigial features, and if they do it is either regarding how they fit within an adaptive history, or as evidence of evolution as contrasted to creation. I think you should review how vestigial features are treated in general texts on Human evolution, and if you find that there are significant sections dedicated to vestigiality then we can discuss how to include it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am not really impressed with the degree of discussion you guys provide. I'll keep editing and expect you to provide constructive critique and suggestions on the talkpage as I work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain you'll win friends and influence others with your current approach. There are likely people here with an interest in human evolution who have advanced degrees and can lend some help with your ambition to rewrite the entire article yourself. Jobberone (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope there are and that they will. What I am getting annoyed at is that people apparently are interested only in discussing whether I should have discussed before I edited, but they provide no constructive input or response to my suggestions. They tell me to discuss before editing, but then they don't actually discuss or comment on my proposals. That only makes it clear that the only way to get any input is by editing boldly, then people are likely to comment if there's something they disagree with. Whereas If I try to post more suggestions here before editing I'll sit for weeks and wait untill someone replies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think some are helping with the outline. Again, as I suggested earlier and it's only a suggestion, is to do the work in a sandbox and when its grown enough ask for more suggestions. You'll likely get a few people who will work with you on an outline and then help fleshing it out. That way you won't disturb the current article until its ready to be replaced. However, if you wish to do it piecemeal or any other way please do so. I will be happy to help some but it will have to be on my timetable as my plate is currently somewhat full. But I am very interested in improving Wikipedia in general and this article in particular. Jobberone (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Cesiumfrog did make some good suggestions. I generally dislike working in a sandbox, but perhaps i'll try it. Of course I don't mean to hurry anyone in to working more than they like, and will be happy with any suggestions, additions and contributions you or anyone else will make as the work progresses, regardless of the pace - but likewise my schedule is also restricted and I have to work when I have time - that is also why I prefer to be bold rather than waiting on others. Boldness moves wikipedia along - but I do agree that one should be as bold to engage in constructive discussion and compromise as in editing. And perhaps the tenor of my approach her was not sufficiently inviting of compromise. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is great. If people are going to drag their feet then proceed boldly. Jobberone (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The article on Human evolution must include the following:

1. A coherent narrative of the evolutionary history leading from Primates to hominins to genus homo to modern humans
2. An account of the anatomical adaptations that have occurred as well as the evolutionary pressures they have happened in response to
3. An account of the different fossil species, where and when they have been found an how they are understood to be interrelated - i.e. describing the different classification schemes, not just one. (I.e. we must note that Paranthropus are also classified as australopithecines, that Rudolfensis is also classified as Homo habilis, etc.)
4. An account of the behavioral changes happening through Human evolution such as the evolution of tools (Osteodontokeratic/Oldowan/Acheulean), use of of fire and change to meaty diet (hunting/Scanevnging hypotheses), evolution of of language and cognition, of social structure (pair bonding, parental investment)
5. Genetic and molecular evidence for classification and for human migrations
6. A summary of the main controversies ROOA/Multiregional (showing the more recent mixed models as the emerging consensus), splitters vs. lumpers,
7. A history of evolutionary thinking and research from Dubois to Tim White and into the future

Lets discuss how best to make an outline that includes all of this (and add if I left out important stuff)

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the vestigial structures topic is not necessary to the article. If some wish to make a subsection on this then by all means let's discuss it. There is often room for compromise.

Your outline is ambitious. I hope all can work together in consensus to build the outline then flesh it. Hopefully we can avoid adversarial positions and statements. I think bold revisions can be rewarding however it may not work well if done unilaterally. Also, some of the things you mentioned already have their own articles. If so then summarizing and pointing to the other articles might prove more useful to all. Some may think performing the outline et al might be easier for all if done in a sandbox. Just a suggestion.Jobberone (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, except for the suggestion that we should summarize already existing article - none of the existing articles are in a quality where that makes sense. That is why I am proposing to work the opposite way to write sections here, which if they become too long can be expanded into the daughter articles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree this restructure is worth trying. So to start with:

1. Overview of human evolutionary history assumes a chunk of the content from the lead (and first section is indeed an appropriate place for this coherent narrative to be developed), and also the "species list" which can be reformatted as a table/figure;
2. Anatomic changes and adaptations retains its existing structuring;
3. Behavioural changes and adaptations starts by assuming the use-of-tools section;
4. Molecular and genetic evidence combines the existing mol.ev. subsection with the genetics section, and potential expansion will hopefully incorporate a brief mention of DNA hybridisation shortly;
5. Fossil evidence is the most troublesome because to start with it naturally assumes the content of the existing subsection "evidence from the fossil record" and sections "From primates to hominins", "Australopithecines", and "Genus Homo". This leaves a future meaty task of reorganising/untangling its content. Of moving the more introductory material up to the outline section, thereby allowing the emphasis here to shift to just the raw facts of the numbers, degree of completeness, locations, datings, associated artifacts, and associated evidence of the original climatic/ecological environment, and also letting some more interpretive content be shifted to the adaptation sections;
6. Controversy assumes the section currently named "models of human origins". I like that the existence of this section emphasises what topics of controversy persist in the scientific field, which seems the best way to inform of the fallaciousness of other perceived controversies;
7. History of the study of human origins assumes the existing section plus the "notable researchers" section (the latter can hopefully ultimately be worked into the text rather than stay sitting apart as an alphabetised list).

The weakness of this scheme though, is that the division doesn't obviously seem to be uniquely-correct, and for any subspecies about which a great deal is known (and a great deal could be written here, integrating a large variety of evidence including fossils, living DNA, theoretical simulations, ice cores, whatever) there won't be an obvious place to put it.. but then, maybe this article is becoming too unwieldy anyway, and we should encourage the reader to move to other existing articles for more detail on the subtopics such as particular genera? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the controversy section and the history of study sections could be combined so we also get an overview of past controversies that have been resolved?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So, should we experiment with other possible ways of dividing the content? Obviously the article should be written in summary style with links to daughter articles on the specific topics - but I think that it is worth it to write sections that are purposely overlong, in order to split them out as separate articles. Definitely we don't need to have full sections on all species - I think we should have sections on the genera (i.e. Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus (treated with Australopithecus) and Homo) but they should only mention each species with a link to the article and focus on the general description of the genus and its fossils. Homo should probably be a little longer than the other genera.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Modern Humans Came Out of Africa, "Definitive" Study Says" this source from 2007 says modern humans (Sapiens) came from Sub-Saharan Africa because patterns of diversity increase to that point. It is known that most diversity is shared with chimpanzees and also centers on this point. Therefore patterns of neutral diversity cannot answer this question. Recent research has placed modern Sapiens as descending from Heidelbergensis in North Africa, not Rhodesiensis in Sub-Saharan Africa. SusanKravitz (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just got an email from the author:

"in my view sapiens came from heidelbergensis in Africa, region unknown or multiple regions - see The Origin of Our Species/Lone Survivors Best Chris" SusanKravitz (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to say that it is probably unwise to give a specific region as the place of origin since there doesn't seem to be any consensus on that. I do think that Heidelbergensis is generally agreed to be the ancestor, but then there is no agreement about whether Rhodesiensis and Heidelbergensis are even different species.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with this - a recent review of what genomics tells us of the evolution of modern humans gives Kenya or more generally East Africa as the site of h.s.s. origin. (Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans, July 2012) As an aside, there is much in this review that would benefit how we deal with the genetic aspects of human evolution. Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find the part where they specify the location. Can you quote it? SusanKravitz (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my brain did a crazy thing and filled in a non-existent gap (Kya becoming K[en]ya as I read it - I know it doesn't make sense, but sometimes these things happen). What the review says is, ". . . suggesting that modern humans have not been totally genetically isolated since their emergence, some 150–200 Kya in East Africa." Agricolae (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there some way Wikipedians can separate the vetting process between being published and being an expert? A publisher decides what books to publish on the basis of marketability, NOT on the basis of reliability. Jared Diamond is an authority on nothing ... except apparently on the subject of geography, which is what he teaches at UCLA. Citing Jared Diamond is about as authoritative as citing Reader's Guide. Find people who have conducted their own research. Stop using journalists as your sources!!!

Ylgehwelwicne (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, Diamond is not an expert in Human evolution, but in geography.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to cite journalists (and other secondary sources) and not people who have conducted their own research (primary sources). Agricolae (talk)

Nope. Journalists are notoriously unreliable sources for human evolution, they'll publish any sensationalist claim anyone makes if it will get readers. Now Diamond is not a journalist he is a geographer. What we should cite are are review articles written by experts evaluating the state of the field, and not novel claims based on primary sources. Most resarch articles also contain a review of the extant literature and we can cite those, just without accepting the new research claims at face value. Apart from reviewarticles in scientific journals, textbooks, handbooks and specialized encyclopedias have priority. In any case Diamond is not objectively summarizing research, but building his own argument considered to be probably incorrect by most authorities in the field at this point. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I get the point you are trying to make, but it is not only unnecessary, but probably not even a good idea to limit source material to the words of experts. The summary articles in the front-matter of Nature or Science, for example, are perfectly acceptable even though written by 'journalists'. They are of acceptable accuracy and sometimes are more balanced, lacking the self-serving slant that someone with a dog in the fight will usually give when summarizing the state of their field. Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good, but please don't leave it at "Some anthropologists characterize this..."! That will attract {{who}} and similar. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it should. Its a sizeable group with no particular prominent proponent among them. Anyone who wants a name can look at the reference. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but what about This has been characterized as a "Great Leap Forward"? That cannot be challenged as the link is its own explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Policy states Wikipedia is not a valid source (that only leads to circularity and dependency hell). There's no reason to remove a citation to JD anyway; if somebody has a better source than fine, but a primary source is not better. Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's better than fringe science. And as I said even research articles tend to be partially secondary sources in the part of the article where they review previous literature instead of advancing novel data.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have reinserted Jared Diamond as a source for the term "great leap forward" about the Upper Palaeolithic revolution since apparently he was the first to use that. I am not completely sure that that phrasing is so common that it needs to be mentioned though - most scholars use "upper paleolithic transition/revolution" or "transition to behavioral modernity" or some such. I was mostly opposed to using Diamond as a source for the general view of the transition, because his interpretation is not widely accepted, and he is not a good representative of the "revolution" view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

These are always complex issues. Obviously science news reporting is consistently attrotious (not sure about news reporting in general), and crediting original sources with the citations is standard within academia. But I think it's good if we can occasionally cite significant popular works (where appropriate). Most of our potential audience does not have convenient access to the scientific journals, and might less likely be reading this topic if it had not been for widely available popular works. Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that view and it is reasonable, but I don't subscribe to it. I think that the merit of wikipedia is exactly that we can summarise knowledge that other folks may not have access to. If we just give them what they could readily find for themselves then theres not much point, in my oopinion. I like leading people towards the best literature, not the most accessible. I think prhaps further reading sections is the place to lead people towards literature that is both good and accessible - but the guidelines for further reading sections are rarely given heed and they tend to turn into the place where sources go to die.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Recently on this page, maunus proposed without dissent that the section on the ROOA & multiregional models be combined into the history of study section. The idea is to present this topic as a previous controversy that has since been resolved.

I have done so, along with a variety of improvements to the initial phrasing and illustration. (These were broken down into separate edits and I tried to attach clear descriptions.) However, SkepticalRaptor keeps reverting wholesale to a version in which these models comprise a substantial section of the article and are not presented as a resolved controversy. These reverts are only explained with mention of "due weight". Since the reverts are giving more weight to the idea that there is still a controversy, I can only assume that SkepticalRaptor hasn't actually looked to see what changes she is reverting.

I find this tendentious, and would appreciate a better explanation of what SkepticalRaptor thinks is better about her favoured revision compared to the most recent revision she has reverted. In the meantime I will probably attempt further improvements (since the part of the text which I haven't modified still gives the impression of ongoing controversy) and will also try simply removing the word "competing" in case SkepticalRaptor really is just having a knee-jerk reaction to that one word without bothering to glance over the context nor compare it with the alternative she reverted to. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that your version has a lot of good stuff. I think that it basically works becvause it is a part of the history of study. I think that as a part of the main historical narrative we should not describe the debate too much, but devote most of the attention to the evidence for a ROOA with subsequent admixture. Then it is OK to describe the competing models in the "history of study section" as you do. So I am basically in favor of CesiumFrog's version (perhaps with a slight pereference for abbreviation). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am intending to do some abbreviation/rewrite of the last two paragraphs. Currently they comprise most of the text which the article previously contained on these topics. Its phrased poorly (and polemically) because it was obviously appended to over a length of time as the initial data emerged and while the debate was being waged, whereas now with the benefit of hindsight and better data we can simply summarise the (more nuanced) current position. I just didn't want to change too much in one go (in case I stepped on the toes too much of whoever wrote those sections). Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI: There is a current discussion on the talk page there about the article title (human vs hominin) that people here may want to weigh in on. Thanks Nowimnthing (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles on Human evolution are using a confusing nomenclature -especially in the adoption of the term "hominan" for the bipedal members of the human lineage. These usage is increasingly rare, I don't think I have ever seen it in generalist literature. Recent textbooks tend to use "hominin" to refer to habitually bipedal primates of the human lineage since the split from the Pan lineage. Scholarly articles often use Hominid for the anatomical grouping of biped primates and hominin only for the clade. I think the logical choice for us is hominin for the human lineage from Sahelanthropus (as long as it is considered bipedal). I don't think it is reasonable to adopt the Mann & Weiss usage and include Pan in hominini - that is not the most commonly used classification scheme by a long shot. In any case we should not just adopt one and ignore the other classifications, but give a thoroguh explanation of the differences in classifications and the evidence and reasoning they rest on.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently employs a classification suggested by Mann & Weiss (1991) which has not gained wide currency. Specifically it is very uncommon to include Pan in Hominini. A more widespread taxonomy is that by Wood and Richmond 2000. Wood in Blackwell Companion to Biological Anthropologyrefers to the classification by Bradley as a consensus classification (it excludes Pan from Hominini):

• Bradley, B. J. (2008) Reconstructing Phylogenies and Phenotypes: A Molecular View of Human Evolution. Journal of Anatomy 212: 337–353.

Stanford, Allen and Anton's 3rd edition of "Biological Anthropology" (2012) also uses this classification. It seems clear that Weiss and mann's classification has become obsolete and should not be used as the basis for our articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose we use this "consensus classification" based on Bradley 2008, and represented by Wood (2010) in the Blackwell Companion to Bio. Anth. page 66. Superfamily Hominoidea

Family Hylobatidae

Genus Hylobates

Family Hominidae

Subfamily Ponginae

Genus Pongo

Subfamily Gorillinae

Genus Gorilla

Subfamily Homininae

Tribe Panini

Genus Pan

Tribe Hominini

Subtribe Australopithecina

Genus Ardipithecus

Genus Australopithecus

Genus Kenyanthropus

Genus Sahelanthropus

Genus Orrorin

Genus Paranthropus

Subtribe Hominina

Genus Homo

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I just advocate that we briefly note (in the article somewhere) this issue and the choice. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the list below from the article. If these researchers are notable (I know some of them are), they should be integrated into the rest of the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

agreed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

{{section-diffuse}}

• Robert Broom, Scottish physician and palaeontologist whose work on South Africa led to the discovery and description of the Paranthropus genus of hominins, and of "Mrs. Ples"
• Raymond Dart, Australian anatomist and palaeoanthropologist, whose work at Taung, in South Africa, led to the discovery of Australopithecus africanus
• Charles Darwin, British naturalist who documented considerable evidence that species originate through evolutionary change
• Donald Johanson, United States paleoanthropologist, credited with discovering Australopithecus afarensis
• Louis Leakey, Kenyan archaeologist and naturalist, who helped establish human evolutionary development in Africa
• Mary Leakey, British archaeologist and anthropologist whose discoveries in Africa include the Laetoli footprints
• Richard Leakey, Kenyan paleontologist and archaeologist, son of Louis and Mary Leakey
• Svante Pääbo, Swedish biologist specializing in evolutionary genetics
• Chris Stringer, anthropologist, leading proponent of the recent single origin hypothesis
• Alan Templeton, United States geneticist and statistician, proponent of the multiregional hypothesis
• Erik Trinkaus, United States paleoanthropologist and expert on Neanderthal, proponent of Human/Neanderthal admixture hypothesis
• Milford H. Wolpoff, United States paleoanthropologist, leading proponent of the multiregional evolution hypothesis

Could we include a section under the Genus Homo heading that includes some of the more realistic and modern theories regarding the evolving of Homo sapiens sapiens into a more advanced species? Or would such a thing be too theory-based to include in a fact-grounded article such as this? FellPacifists (talk)

I would not call any of what is written here factual, as it is, in fact, all theory. I also think that other theories should be included. Plus, I have a problem with labeling Lucy as human, when the DNA evidence says that it is impossible, with her and the other so-called ancestors having too many chromosomes. Craxd (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any admins watching this page? We need an admin to protect it against anonymous edits. Thanks, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've submitted a talk|history|links|watch|logs)|request to have this page semi-protected after being personally attacked with this edit. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would you be worried about edits? Are you asking for the page to be locked to all? If you can't take criticism of others, then don't write or publish something for others to read. Craxd (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the peopling of the Americas, other than the map with arrows image. Perhaps you are not referring to paleo or modern times? But the dispersal of humans to the Americas is an ongoing and rancorous debate. A summarizing paragraph on the DNA evidence would be a very nice touch on an article that is well-collaborated overall. KSRolph (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the migration of humans to the Americas is very relevant to human evolution. By the time humans got to the Americas, Homo sapiens had already evolved, and is well past the point of this article. Actually, primate evolution mostly bypassed North America. As for rancorous debate? From my experience, it's mostly pseudoscience vs. what is actually supported by real evidence. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I will have to agree with SkepticalRaptor - no need here - way beyond the articles scope. We have Early human migrations that links to Settlement of the Americas and Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas.Moxy (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, There is a thread here you may be interested in, about a consistent naming for articles dealing with evolution of taxa. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 17:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Electro Magnetic Evolution of DNA.jpg07:50, 01 January 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei After mature deliberation, It has been found that the inclusion of various theorems, should be warranted within the article. The earth was once flat, as it was perceived, and therefore, in the realm of scientific discovery, fact, and the pursuit of that light warrants a specific allowance for such thoughts, ideas and innovations. Theretofore it is proposed, and subsequently acted upon for the inclusion of the illustration demonstrating the Bio-convergence, of Electromagnetic influences placed upon DNA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales (talk • contribs) 07:58, 1 January, 2013

If this image is to be included in the article, it needs to be relevant, beyond just representing some fringe pet theory (if that is even what it represents, who can tell). A link to Galileo fails to support its inclusion. Agricolae (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: pet theory: http://www.projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discovery-strange-emissions-by-sun-are-suddenly-mutating-matter/ ( 1.) [Relevance] 11:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Galileo was a speculative theorist, no more no less.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wales (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 January 1, 2013 UTC

Galileo was a speculative theorist, so what? He wasn't a speculative theorist about evolution. As to the link, it is not a WP:RS and I fail to see the relevance - the link given in an edit summary on also appears to have no relevance, not discussing human evolution at all. Agricolae (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah no, no way. There is no reason to include this, or any such fringe nonsense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have no idea what "mature deliberation" is being referred to or when or where it occurred. I do not understand what this has to do with Galileo or human evolution. The formal, legalistic language obfuscates without explaining anything. I have no sense of what this image is about and I do not see a cogent, policy-based argument for including it. It's January first, not April first, right? Jojalozzo 16:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure there shouldn't be at least some discussion of the early ancestors for man since H erectus is being moved back earlier and earlier and controversy about habilis and ergaster. I don't want to mess with the lead without much discussion of this.

Please discuss. Thanks. Jobberone (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should have too much discussion of this in the lead, but we could add some hedging. I dont think there is any doubt about the sequence of Homo habilis and Homo erectus though, although of course some discussion continues about the precise temporal relation between Asian Homo erectus and African Homo ergaster.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is at all settled. Homo erectus gets older and older. It appears Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Paranthropus boisei all lived together around and likely before 2 mya all in the same area. So no the tree from Australopithecines to Homo is not really known. Jobberone (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide some very good sources that agree with that suggest that the earliest Homoerectus and earliest Homo habilis were contemporary? Yes, they may overlap, but I don't know of any anthropologists who presently argue against the general sequence of the genus Homo, particularly not in textbooks or general reviews. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

http://humanorigins.si.edu/. http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot/new-fossils-confirm-diverse-species-root-our-lineage. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Evol/habiliserectus.html

I'll try and get to more after Christmas Jobberone (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer academically published books or peerreviewed articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Also these sources do not in fact support the claim you are making. They all say erectus starts around 2.0 MYA and overlap with Homo habilis, but the earliest habilines appear 300,000 years earlier than the earliest erectus. So these article do not contradict the general sequence that has habilis as the earliest homo, and they also do not contradict what the lead of this article currently says. Also regarding Leakey's Rudolfensis jawbone the jury is still out, her conclusions have not yet been generally accepted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can reread them but that is only three general articles given to you over a few minutes of extra time. Also textbooks lag behind published articles which is what we really need. We don't need textbooks for up to date data IMO unless its very recently published. Perhaps you have some time to help me on this??? Jobberone (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Textbooks are revised every year or two to include the most recent well accepted data. This article should reflect well established consensus, not the most recent speculations of which there are always plenty, most of which are abandoned. the good thing about textbooks is that you can generally count on them not to be overly partial to one particular interpretation, and to include only the most well regarded and influential findings. Also i am quite short on time, and I also don't agree with you that the article as is is problematic. I think it reflects the current consensus. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't spend a lot of time with textbooks as I don't normally need them on topics I generally understand. They rarely offer the most recent published works. Their bibliographies are helpful. I'm more interested in everyone's recent work which is quickly not only peer reviewed for the publisher but also the general field of those academics gets involved. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean there is consensus at all. But it certainly changes the course of disputes and brings new questions to be answered. However, I'm not here to discuss my academics or habits of review and study but to get people to discuss the subject I've broached. If you have had time to read one of the articles you will see that particular professor note she uses that information to teach since most textbooks and Wikipedia still reflect a linear progression from A africanus/afarensis which is most likely not correct. Checkout the bibliographies of those links.

I didn't say it was problematic only that it needed to be updated.

This page and this particular section was created to discuss topics before introducing them into the encyclopedia. You have made your view known so let's wait for others to chime in if that's ok with you. Jobberone (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we could emphasize the non-linearity/bushy tree more, since this is basically the current consensus. I am not sure we currently are too linear, since there's been a bit of editing in that regards since a year ago when Professor Kemmer wrote that for her course in linguistics. I have spent a lot of time reviewing textbooks the past couple of years because I teach. I think they are excellent sources for wikipedia because they make it a lot easier to decide which interpretations are currently closest to having a consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean that textbooks aren't important even as sources for new information. It's just not the first place I look. My specialty is not anthropology but something else anyway so I'm no expert on these matters. I do know how to critique the literature though and I know something of evolution esp human. I was hoping there were more than us interested in this matter though. It would be nice to have more viewpoints. There is plenty of time for more to add to the discussion. Take care and good holidays. Jobberone (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Only one person responded to this. This is extremely important and needs to be discussed. I'd rather not unilaterally start changing things. The linear line for Homo needs to be revised to reflect the current data. Please, chime in. Jobberone (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given this a fair amount of time for others to add their thoughts to this. If I don't hear from others soon then I'll take that as approval to begin modifying the article. Jobberone (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When will another species develop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.10.47 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We are now. Meanwhile, focus on article improvement :) Vsmith (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain why this peer reviewed source is "fringe" and give me your correct interpretation which contradicts mine, as you have accused me of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.93.124.28 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not the mainstream view, which makes it WP:FRINGE. Wait until it is commented on by secondary sources and if it is met with approval there we will include the idea. Thank you for taking this to the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A. Klyosov (not a geneticist) has found-out in the past that the peer review process does not place a lot of stock in nationalistic publications.Moxy (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read the abstract that you used as a reference several times and cannot find anywhere any indication that the authors have drawn the conclusion that "...[t]he high genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa has been shown to be a result of interbreeding with non-human lineages...". That statement appears to be entirely your own doing.Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing in the article about non-human lineages whatever that means. And it's not time to bring this into the conversation of a 'theory' of Eurocaucasians not being 'Out of Africa'. It is an interesting article and I have no problem including the ref in the article appropriately. Jobberone (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1) A non-mainstream view is not a fringe view.

2) Non-human in the context meaning non-Sapiens. Try reading and understand THE ARTICLE rather than the abstract, if you are capable of that.

3) There are a tonne of non secondary sources used in this article, including some blogs. But I guess the difference is they agree with your pet theory.

4) Please explain when and why, in your great wisdom, it will be "time" to bring into a "conversation" the apparent fact that Sapiens is non-African? When you "feel like it"? Is that how you edit here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.38.20 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE

"Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play.

As far as I can see, that reference is only quoted by racist and extreme-right sites; not by a single reliable scientific paper. That paper is not only fringe, it is pseudo-science and complete crap. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this statement the paper cannot be fringe as it is PEER REVIEWED, that is accepted as valid science by several researchers in the field. Please review WP:FRINGE. The real objection you have is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It may not represent a consensus view but is a valid minority view that can be reported as a new competing hypothesis. Please also see WP:NOTCENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.38.20 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer reviewed papers can be fringe. And they can also be non-notable, in which case it would be undue weight to include it. It is not a valid minority view until mainstream science starts taking not of it and describing it as such. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with everyone else but you. A theory that has had no impact on mainstream science is simply not noteworthy, peer-reviewed or not, and thus carry no WP:WEIGHT. WP is not the place to promote or advertise obscure fringe theories. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Per Think Tanks, most peer reviewed works are WP:FRINGE. And if you (IP) are here to tell mankind that Africans are not humans... well... maybe try Conservapedia, I'm sure they'll appreciate your input. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The paper has had an impact on mainstream science by passing the peer review process. It has been reviewed by scholars in the field, as is normal, and aproved as valid reasoning. According to WP:FRINGE it is not fringe, and I consider it a serious offence to falsely claim so. I have no idea what the ridiculous red herring of "think tanks" is supposed to prove. This is a recent paper and has not been referenced yet. There is no requirement that it needs to be. There are other less reliable sources in this blog and is is rather transparent that the only real problem is that the paper does not conform to your preferred theory. This is unscientific bias, and the problem is with all of you, not me. All notable views can be included, however much you don't like it. I can report this, for what it's worth, if you necessitate that.

Nowhere has it been claimed that Africans are not humans, clearly you fail to understand the rudiments of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.38.20 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. This has already been explained to you very clearly by multiple editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have merely repeated the same fallacious argument. You wave you hand and dismiss this reviewed and published paper as "fringe". Needless to say, you would not do this if it agreed with your preferred theory. This is proved by the existence of other less reliable sources in the article. Other scientific articles will simply and correctly report new papers on the subject. In this case you have an emotional and ideological bias ("far right", "racist"), which you attempt to justify through spurious and ad hoc editorial arguments. Clearly this is going nowhere and I will have to report it to examine precedents and corollaries, for what it is worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.38.20 (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to report it, and see how far that goes, might I suggest WP:FTN as a start? As an aside, you might find out while editing here that often people with years of experience actually know policies much better than people who have an editing history of 13 hours or so. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The content in question cannot appear in this article because it falls within the definition of a fringe theory. Simply repeating over and over that it was peer reviewed is meaningless; the fact that it was peer reviewed does not change anything. In fact the policy on fringe theory aka WP:FRINGE specifically states that "Fringe science may be advocated by a scientist who has a degree of recognition by the larger scientific community (typically through the publication of peer reviewed studies by the scientist)" thus acknowledging that fringe theories can be presented in peer reviewed publications. So your constant repetition of the mantra that your little theory has been peer reviewed just won't work. Normally fringe theories are at least debated in scientific circles but the theory you are advocating hasn't even had enough impact to generate serious discussion by anyone of note. Wikipedia cannot be the first place that talks about this theory. Wikipedia policies are in place to make sure all theories receive due attention, and in order to adhere to that policy we must at this time exclude this one from this article. It's not about what we like; there are lots of articles with content we don't like. But Wikipedia is not a forum for publicizing every crackpot idea that comes down the pike. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up WP:WEIGHT as that is exactly the problem. Refusing to give one sentence to the notion that the actually rather dubious "Out of Africa" theory is in fact false, using the latest peer reviewed genetic data, is a clear case of ideologically motivated censorship. Fringe states that scientists gain recognition through peer review, and may then independently support fringe science using that reputation. Modern peer reviewed material is not fringe by default. I think the problem is here dissonance jarring the WP:TRUTH in your head. I will report this and precedents from neutral articles will show me to be correct. And I apologise, Dbrodbeck, as someone with years of genetics experience, to have the audacity to question "experienced wikipedia editors" about what is fringe in the field. Clearly editing this amateur encyclopedia makes one an expert on everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.38.20 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes please go and report it. Wikipedia policies do not support your position, not even a little bit. And a one-sentence mention of a theory that virtually nobody supports would be giving to much weight to the theory. Wikipedia is not a compendium of fringe theories; it is an encyclopedia. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh and we really don't care about your experience in genetics. I have a great deal of experience in many things, and I make a killer martini, but that simply does not matter. This is going nowhere, I suggest you learn how things work around here, and that the rest of us move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dave. Even one sentence is too much for a theory that has not yet been commented on by the mainstream community. Again, WP is not for promoting or advertising fringe theories. There are plenty of other sites on the internet for that. Dbrodbeck'a advice is spot on. Unless you learn how things work around here by reading and understanding our policies, you will not accomplish very much here. Further discussion of your proposal at this point is unlikely to result in any change to the article, so I agree that this thread should be terminated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong and a cursory glance at other scientific articles will show new papers on the subject are reported, without any need to demonstrate they have been "commented on by the mainstream community", whatever that means (and of course peer review by its very nature is comment by the mainstream community). The difference here is that you guys don't like the conclusion of this paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.38.20 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(yawn) G'night, John Boy! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For those not ready to put this to bed, the IP editor has followed the recommendation and taken it to FTN

The "Out of Africa" theory does not have any real substance. The Human Genome project failed to accomplish goals. "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans." This is the statement that came from the Human Genome Project. There is conflicting statements to the contrary in claims during the First Genome Project. The NIH produced a 144 page, titled "Sequencing the Trellis: The Production of Race in the New Human Genomics" makes the case that could not code any phenotype (trait) that is skin color, or pigmentation. Furthermore, they could not code any phenotype of ethnicity. There is reason to believe there was suppression of evidence so the government would be accused of profiling by race or ethnicity, which violates the 4th amendment. At that time President Bush made a statement they will not profile by race and ethnicity. It is unclear whether the phenotype for these attributes remain absent, suppressed, or are deemed too sensitive. This issue is a moral, ethical, and legal problem which they debated. With the absence of data for race and ethnicity, the project fails to identify ancestry. Rather than acknowledge failure, they inject non-discrimination which is in the best interest of the public. They produced a video: Journey Of Man: Genetic Odyssey (PBS Documentary) which supports the "Out of Africa" theory. There is nothing recorded in history that supports the ancestral race and ethnicity evolved as the theory suggests. Just because the theory was made into a documentary does not make it factual. If you watch the video, the science in the lab is simulation, with no published data to back up the theory. Mapsurfer49 (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

All the OUt of Africa theory has is support among the scientific community who study such things. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the Out of Africa Theory Out? An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia --Inal31 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And they got to Asia from Africa. thx1138 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read the actual article, 1) it doesn't deal with 'Out of Africa' as it is used here (i.e. the migration of h.s.s out of Africa, as opposed to a multi-regional derivation of modern humans), but with an earlier hypothesized migration; 2) it explicitly states that it doesn't question that any of the migrations out of Africa occurred, it just minimizes the impact of one of them. Whoever decided to give this title to the article did a serious disservice. Agricolae (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion Anatoly Kloysov (Professor of Biochemistry Harvard University) support multiregional hypothesis, or not?

And what about it? IS OUT OF AFRICA GOING OUT THE DOOR? - http://www.ramsdale.org/dna4.htm

--Inal31 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars --Inal31 (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am from Russia, because sorry for my English, colleagues.

The SciAm article was written 13 years ago, and that is a veritable eternity when it comes to this question - before the human genome sequence was completed, and now we have over 1000 genomes sequences from modern humans, plus neanderthal and denisova. The whole field has moved beyond the question of Multi-Regional vs. Out of Africa. There is overwhelming agreement that modern humans migrated out of Africa, but that there was minimal neanderthal admixture when they first arrived in the Middle East, and a subsequent denisova admixture in the Far East - basically mostly Out of Africa with a touch of Multi-Regionalism. It is no longer debated whether it is one or the other. Agricolae (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiregional hypothesis has much less evidence base; Multiregional supporters criticizes Out of Africa, but this does not make it marginal. Why then Klyosov, which has already been published in journals on specific genetic genealogy (example, www.jogg.info/52/files/Klyosov1.pdf) can not criticize Out of Africa? --Inal31 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yours respectfully, --Inal31 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, his paper has not even drawn notice from other scholars in the field. His conclusion falls well outside the scientific mainstream, among whom there is near-universal agreement of the general pattern outlined above. It doesn't help that Klyosov's relevant publications seem overwhelmingly to be in Russian, or when in English appear in obscure (Advances in Anthropology) or substandard (JoGG) journals, while the movers and shakers are publishing in the flagship journals of the field, or even in Science and Nature. Agricolae (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AA Klyosov - Human genetics, 2009 - Springer, Human genetics is famous scientific journal, --Inal31 (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Human Genetics is not exactly famous, but it is a 'flagship' journal. That being said, this is not a peer-reviewed article. It is a letter to the editor, commenting on someone else's article. The original study's scholars response begins as follows:

We thank Dr. Klyosov for his Comment. The speed of response is unusually impressive, and it covers a wide scope. However, we are concerned that this haste may not be in the best interest of the sound scientific process, as evidenced by the heavy reliance on non-refereed publications, unpublished work and work not accessible to the scientific reading audience through usual scientific channels (categories that cover all five citations to Dr. Klyosov’s previous work). Reference to non-peer reviewed and poorly accessible data and formulations renders the constructive critique process problematic. Furthermore, the use of unconventional and “private” terms without definition or reference renders response problematic. This includes terms such as “…genealogic haplotype series”. Moreover, a statement such as “Since the logarithmic and linear methods give the same dating the common ancestor, it means that there was indeed just one common ancestor for the whole series of 98 of 22 marker haplotypes”, lacks scientific rigor and robustness. (Hammer et al., "Response", Human Genetics, 126: 725-726)

In other words, Klyosov's extended commentary, while appearing in an established publication, only did so by piggybacking off of someone else's peer-reviewed research, and is largely based on his own inaccessible and/or non-standard publications, making his idiosyncratic viewpoint hard to evaluate. That pretty much mirrors my critique. Agricolae (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4206/version/1 - Klyosov publications in peer-reviewed journal or not? --Inal31 (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not. It says right in the description that this is a repository for pre-publication research and preliminary findings. Given that it was submitted in 2010, it must have failed subsequent peer review (else it would have been formally published somewhere by now), the author decided it was unworthy of publication or has not found the time to go forward with submission for peer review, or no review was ever intended, the author using this repository as the sole vehicle for distribution. One way or the other, this is effectively just a glorified personal web page, albeit hosted by a respected journal. Agricolae (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have, with a certain reluctance, removed the recent addition regarding olfactory selection. There are numerous examples of recent human evolution, of which this is just one (nor is it, as claimed, the first). As such I don't think it merits special notice, except perhaps in passing among many others in a section that gives superficial coverage to others. However, I would encourage a discussion of whether the entire section should be expanded. Agricolae (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A tag was added to Human evolution (origins of society and culture) to merge that article into this one over a year ago. No merge-from tag was added here and no discussion started and no discussion appears to have occurred. The other article has useful content and could stand on its own with some work but it might be better to merge it here. I'm neutral but want to move things along. Jojalozzo 16:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As a non-expert without much experience editing here, I'm a little confused by the disparate pages that do not seem to be working together. The Human Revolution (human origins) is a start-level article on a topic that is mentioned in passing here by another name. It, like the society and culture article above, could stand on it's own with some work but could equally well be used to improve this central article, especially in combination with Human evolution (origins of society and culture). I have no strong opinion and am unlikely to participate in a merger, since I lack domain knowledge and am only qualified to copy edit. Jojalozzo 16:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly (correct me if I am wrong) The Human Revolution (human origins) and Human evolution (origins of society and culture) seem to be the same thing and should be merged. But merging them here seems to me to be a bad idea: genetic evolution from clams to humans is one thing, the social changes that result from that are another thing. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. I was thinking they would merge to the existing section, Human evolution#Transition to behavioral modernity. Jojalozzo 02:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Those two articles seem to be almost entirely historiography (how the great leap forward went in and out of fashion, and how it is still an area of active research with competing models and no consensus yet, dropping names of people involved). In my view that belongs in the "history of study" section, and the section (elsewhere in the article) on "behavioural changes" should be altered to solely focus on the relevant and uncontroversial facts (like what date are the earliest known pigments and burials, an outline of the development of tools, which species consumed shellfish in what quantities, how old are the earliest musical instruments) with minimal interpretation. Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is no movement here to merge then I propose the tags be removed. Jobberone (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"The rise of comparative genomics and related technologies has added important new dimensions to the study of human evolution. Our knowledge of the genes that underwent expression changes or were targets of positive selection in human evolution is rapidly increasing, as is our knowledge of gene duplications, translocations, and deletions. It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."

Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery 2012 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.abstract

It's fairly well known now that the 98-99% human-chimp similarities came from comparisons of selective of coding regions using outdated methods. The actual percentage is probably well below 90%.. I'm sure Wikipedia will fight that tooth and nail, though the emerging data is inevitable. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The paranoia is not helpful here. You are right on the facts, and your source is a high-quality one. The author states that the correct figure is probably in the 95-96% range, and I would support incorporating that information into this article -- although, as the author says, one-dimensional comparisons are inevitably simplistic at best. For example, it's very hard to see how to do a comparison that reflects the huge enrichment of Alu elements in the human genome. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As of right now, the (Wikipedia) article states: "With the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of the similarity between their DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%." Seems like it doesn't even need to be changed; 95-99% represents the range mentioned in reliable sources. Obviously we can't incorporate the assertion from the IP above that the actual percentage is "probably below 90," unless and until reliable sources for that emerge. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The claim of less than 90% is just too absurd to be taken seriously.--Charles (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use the skeleton of a horse rearing on its hind legs next to the skeleton of a man to demonstrate the skeletal similarities between mammals. It's found in a museum in NYC --I will track it down later.--205.167.120.201 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The divergence of the homo line from pan and from their LCA was changed and I rolled it back to the previous version because it was not referenced and I'm not certain it's a good idea to change the timeline without some discussion esp one based on a mitochondrial DNA clock. I think we need more data esp with the rapidly changing fossil record. This bares more discussion particularly since its in the lead. Jobberone (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The change was not referenced in the lead but it was where I gave fuller details under 'The genetic revolution'. This is considered the correct place to give the reference, not the lead. The old timeline is now generally considered out of date because of the revised genetic clock, as stated in the New Scientist reference I gave, and there is a contradiction between citing possible hominin ancestors such as the 7 million year old Sahelanthropus, and then in the next sentence giving an earlier date for the divergence. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree that the article should be updated in this respect, but I can't see any sign that you actually added that reference anywhere. In any case a New Scientist article is not an ideal reference -- I think perhaps the best reference would be PMID 22984161. We shouldn't be too definite, though -- the issue is still in flux in the literature. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference is note 21 in my revision [1]. However, I accept that I was too definite. There is a report in Science News at [2], which is better than the brief comment in the New Scientist, and I suggest citing this as well as PMID 22984161, the full text of which is not accessible to many readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Another relevant reference is PMID 23066056, a summary of the debate by science writer Ann Gibbons in Science. Agricolae (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and it makes as many or more assumptions than previous work which is speculative as well. I have no problem with including this data in the body of the article and compare these results with the current general consensus. I think that is a good idea but don't think this data is more accurate than previous work as genetic clocking is full of assumptions period. We need more data and I'll bet people are working on this already as they should. Let the debate shake out as much as possible with the peers of this field then we can sort thru their conclusions including any controversy. Right now, IMO, this is too new and not validated enough to change the overall view of the divergence. But it should be put there for those interested in more in depth look at the current state of affairs. Those interested should try to gather some recent work on the fossil record and try to incorporate this into the article. I've meant to do so as the timeline for A afarensis yada to Homo is somewhat blurry these days. I just don't have time to do the necessary work to do it properly. Jobberone (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

All that needs to be done for the moment, perhaps, is to extend the range of possible dates to 4-13 million years, rather than 4-6. The 4-6 million year range never made sense anyway, given that there are hominid-like fossils older than 6 million years. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to extend the range of dates in the lead, but I think other changes are needed. 1. The lead states that both gorillas and chimpanzees diverged 4-6 million years ago, whereas the current consensus is that gorillas split off earlier. 2. The lead states that Sahelanthropus or Orrorin is considered to be the earliest bidedal hominin, and in the next sentence that they may be the last shared ancestors with chimpanzees and gorillas. This is confusing. 3. The section on 'The genetic revolution' states that a divergence of four to five (sic) million years is correct. This needs correcting, and I think it is worth mentioning the latest findings. Others may disagreed with the last point, and I will leave it to editors more expert than me and with better access to sources to carry out any revisions. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We need more data than mtDNA and more peer review than using one article to change the general consensus of the divergent timeline. Again the paper should be discussed with adequate references in the body of the article. I'm strongly opposed to changing the lead and giving the impression that timeline is a done deal. It needs to be introduced with proper weight. Jobberone (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I understood Looie496 (and I agree) to be suggesting that the lead should be altered so as to remove the impression that the old timeline is a done deal, not to suggest that there is any agreement on a new one. Giving a divergence of 4-6 million years as unquestioned fact is misleading. There are also other errors in the lead as I have pointed out above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead was changed to read as if the new data was a done deal. There are some problems with the lead including the divergence of gorillas. My objection is taking a small sample of new data and changing the lead because of it. Timelines based on genetic data is just not that reliable. I do agree the new data should be included in the article in the appropriate area giving it the right amount of weight. I realize the lack of gorilla and Pan fossils makes that timeline problematic but we need to be careful changing the consensus of that community of scientists prematurely. Jobberone (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, I accept that my revision was wrong to state the new data as fact. I do however think that it is wrong to keep the old timeline in the lead as a done deal. It should make clear that the timeline of 4-6 million years is not proven fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What's with all the removals of factually correct material that is now referenced from the stone tool section. I'm a Palaeolithic Archeaologist with a PhD in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of East Africa... I get that it wasn't referenced first of all but now it is...so leave it be please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.225.5 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

First point: if you want to get negative responses, edit warring without registering an account and without using edit summaries is the ideal way to guarantee it. Second point: the passage you keep trying to add begins, "it is worth noting...", but it isn't clear to me at all why the information is worth noting. Can you clarify why the average reader needs to know this? Looie496 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the summary of stone tool use throughout the Palaeolithic is incorrect and largely dates from 1960's - 1980's typological studies that are nowadays highly questionable. You cannon simple try to fit stone tool 'types' into strict chronological periods because almost all of the earlier or 'simpler' tool forms were used throughout the world by highly variable populations (both chronologically and spatially). Yes more highly developed tool types appear later, but that does not mean they completely replace simple and easily attainable technology. The point that my edits make is that simple technology is used throughout. If you don’t appreciate the way it's added on at the end then feel free to re-edit it but it is important and is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.33.181 (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I think the edit I just made may be a compromise for both of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.33.181 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything in your edit that says that the material above it is incorrect. It seems to merely add an additional fact, without any indication of why that fact is important. Looie496 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. I fail to see the relevence of this material. It doesn't seem to fit in. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, it's always greatly appreciated to have a subject-expert here! (Especially because the most up-to-date knowledge often isn't presented together in a format which is comprehensive yet introductory and accessable to people from outside the field.) Anonymous original poster, would you be willing to sketch here what you see as an appropriate summary of what is currently known (and important) about tool use over the last several million years, and suggest where we can find references that together would be able to verify it all? That way there's a good chance that someone else (perhaps with extra patience for the wikipedia process) will update the article appropriately. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The article on the Aquatic ape hypothesis can use a few more eyes on it. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is even backed by secular arguments. It is still defined in the dictionary as a the dictionary and a even a recent Live Science article supporting Darwin's theory noted it is a theory as well.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.157.103.28 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Evolution/FAQ, answer to question 3. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw a scheme on youtube which identifies the differences between man and ape as follows, but it doesn't give the source.
Man vs Ape:

• Large cranial capacaty vs small (i.e. 900-1400cc vs 350-370cc in apes or autralopithecines)*
• Flattish vs prognathous face*
• Short arms, long legs vs Long arms, short legs*
• anterior nasal spine vs no nasal spine
• generally steep forehead vs little or no forehead*
• small canines vs large*
• high rounded cranial vault vs low(*indirectly)
• no diastemata vs present
• little body hair vs thick*
• bipedal locomotion vs predominantly quadrupedal locomotion*

Some of the above may be added to "other changes", as I only see those marked with a star being mentioned in the article. JMK (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A WP:RS source would be needed to make these changes. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Differentiating between man and ape is pointless anyway, since humans are apes... WegianWarrior (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• "DNA Shows Neandertals Were Not Our Ancestors". University Park, Pa.: Penn State University. 7-11-97. Archived from the original on 1997-07-25. Retrieved 24 June 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• BBC: Finds test human origins theory ("Homo habilis and Homo erectus are sister species that overlapped in time"), retrieved June 2013
• Researchers say human foot not unique, more like those of great apes

These are nice, but they're too specific. They're mostly news stories. They can be useful as references though. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1. The information in this article is very broad. The article doesnt explain whether the evolution of humans came from one select early hominid species or from a variations of many different intermediate species of mixed early hominid descent. The article should try to focus on a specific hominid species to detail its evolution instead of bouncing around focusing on different species to explain.

2. The article speaks of severeal different genetic conclusions thats were used in deciding some of the logic behind human evolution but does not go into detail what these genes were. The article would be more effective in supporting some of these details with some explanation of how these genetic findings correlated exactly to the evolution of humans, also visual conformation, like graphs or charts of the genetic similarities would help in convincing the reader that the information is valid.

3. The article could also explained a little more about the disappearances of many of the intermediate species that arose in early hominids. Many of the species were said to have merely just "disappeared", but this statement cant be true knowing that there had to be some kind of evolutionary force or selection force that drive the other species out of existence. The article should have included information about what evolutionary changes occcured making one species more fit than the other?

Givens.87 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

3 ways article could be improved:

The article needs to adress other hominid movement from Africa (not just modern humans).

2) The article only mentions the possibility of denisovan mating with melanasians, new evidence shows that denisovan DNA has been found in parts of Europe too.

3) The article doesn’t needs to talk about how new evidence has found that hominid like bones have now been found in Western Europe (Spain) that show the movement of hominids from Africa to Europe was over double as long as Archeologists had previously thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meakin.2 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of you, be bold and make the edits yourself. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"On the other hand the more widely accepted view is that farming slowed down if not stopped evolution in humans as there is substantial evidence to show that early modern humans such as the Cro-Magnon were larger and physically fitter than modern humans."

In general this section should be improved, but specifically this does not further the argument. Whether or not Cro-Magnon was more or less physically fit than modern humans has nothing to do with whether evolution "slowed" or "stopped". It could very well be argued that development of musculature was selected against in lieu of a more sedentary lifestyle supported through agriculture. Or it could be argued that we evolved in some other ways which have nothing to do with how strong we are.

Whether or not humans are more or less physically fit than Cro-Magnon should not really factor into a statement about evolution slowing or stopping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.253.55 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This section is still unsourced for both it claims, that it is a widely accepted view and that Human Evolution stopped or slowed down. The articel cited does not answer these question. It should be changed or removed entirely. BernhardHeid (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The relatively new concept of the cerebellum as a more important organ in the development of the individual including tasks previously attributed to the neocortex makes me think it is time to incorporate this into this part of Wikipedia. Speech is a significant part of the function of the cerebellum amongst other child development and adult ongoing processes. This needs to be considered in the evolution of man along with its other cognitive related functions. I look forward to hearing from you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobberone (talk • contribs)

The importance of the cerebellum and its contribution to speech and higher cognitive functions as well as emotions, feelings of well being, and pleasure needs to be introduced as possible and even probable contributors into the evolution of hominids. [Special issue: Review, The cerebellum and language: Historical perspective and review, Bruce E. Murdoch, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia. [4] 2009]

Jobberone, I disagree. Yes, it should be obvious that language is by far the most important unique feature of humans (no other species spontaneously exhibits grammar), and equally obvious that its development involved changes to the brain. But these changes were certainly not restricted to the cerebellum (which is already well-known to contribute to agility of thought not only of movement); it would be WP:UNDUE (given the current state of neuroscience) to devote a paragraph to the cerebellum and not, for example, Broca's area and Wernicke's area.

There are entire textbooks written on evolutionary neuroanatomy. Our coverage should be founded upon those, not on a single paragraph (about the work of a group decades ago) from one review article which I notice is careless enough as to be guilty of the evolutionary-ladder fallacy: "expanded [reciprocal connections] from the cortex to the cerebellum present in human brains but not in less evolved species" (based on the degree of soft-tissue preservation in fossil hominids we can presume the comparisons were to other modern apes which are in fact no less evolved than us). (Also, other papers by that author have been retracted... This article can work from better sources.)

Lastly, your source says nothing about feelings of wellbeing and pleasure (it barely mentions emotion whatsoever); you seem to be injecting your own views (and writing with an inappropriate tone, e.g. instructing how researchers "need" to act, and predicting which hypothesis will be fruitful). Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I remember why I don't contribute more to Wikipedia anymore. It's one thing for you to disagree which I welcome but you took it upon yourself to revert my edit which is basically one sentence to allow others to expound on the topic. Why couldn't you post here and wait for me to respond or better for others to chip in?

I agree we not need to get into a detailed neuroanatomical and neurophysiology review but to deny the entire topic of encephalization of the brain one lousy sentence about the cerebellum is ridiculous. Do you have information that the evolution of the cerebellum is NOT important to human evolution? Because if not then you are detracting from the body of work not enhancing it by deletion.

It is noteworthy that the cerebellum has increased in size while the neocortex has decreased since the Pleistocene. There's nothing about the fact the cerebellum increased in size substantially BTW over the last few million years although the neocortex increased moreso. I think this is perhaps the strongest point for discussing it here some. Why does the cerebellum have more neurons than the neocortex? Could that fact have anything to do with our evolution? And yes there is ample evidence the cerebellum is important in pleasure, well being, speech, and attention to tasks.

I don't have a problem with the discussion of other anatomical areas of the brain as long as it is kept very basic and introductory. The cerebellum is a major structure of the brain and not just an area of the neocortex involved in speech or motor function. To get into a more detailed discussion should probably be reserved in an addition of a new topic.

Speech is significantly delayed or aborted in those with cerebellar agenesis. That's important so I don't agree with you it doesn't belong. A paragraph is probably enough here though.

I suggest you add some references rather than bemoan the fact I didn't put enough up. One ref is enough for a sentence or so although a few more would be better.

I'm not going to get into a reversion war with you but I fine your approach here to be unhelpful.

Joberonne, it's clearer if you sign (~~~~) your comments.

We are in agreement that we should improve (and add detail to) the article's treatment of neuroanatomy. I reluctantly removed your good-faith contribution because 1. based on my background knowledge it created a distorted view of the topic (expounding too much weight on fringe ideas while omitting far more important ones), 2. the source was dubious, and 3. much of it was unsupported by the source.

Notice that the human cerebellum has become smaller in proportion to the rest of the brain (even if it is still larger in absolute terms). This might be interpreted to mean that, although the cerebellum is valuable for any brain, it is not a part that was critical to the evolution of humans as distinct from other apes. (Likewise, the total area of the neocortex is also no larger after regressing out the increased volume of the brain as a whole. Likewise lateralisation is not uniquely human. Likewise our number of neurons is not disproportionate for primates.) This is unlike particular areas, such as the pre-frontal cortex, which really did recently evolve to be greater relative to the rest of the brain (displacing sulcal patterns to accommodate it), and so might be more widely interpreted as (potentially) special for human evolution. (Such an interpretation might also be bolstered by the fact that a person born without a cerebellum entirely can still function quite effectively as a human.) It is true that the cerebellum is larger in apes (including us) than in monkeys, but our focus here is more specific than primate evolution.

Some better sources of information would be the books Butler & Hodos Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy: Evolution and Adaptation or Hofman & Falk Evolution of the Primate Brain: From Neuron to Behavior. Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the role of the cerebellum or the fact it has grown considerably as has the neocortex. You are dismissing the role of the cerebellum as it relates to speech as well as it having other roles in our individual development including emotions and cognition. People without a cerebellum have very late speech development if at all and have gross and fine motor dysfunction. They also have cognitive dysfunction. All of these are considerably important to an individual as it is to the evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens and its predecessors. So it certainly should be considered for inclusion. I cannot even fathom why you would object to its inclusion esp one sentence.

I think we can find some mutually agreed upon references although they don't need to be exhaustive. The anatomy, histology, and a lot of the physiology and function of the cerebellum can be gathered from basic texts including the ref I gave which has an adequate bibliography itself. I don't think it appropriate to the topic but you may wish to do some comparative research as to the role of the cerebellum in different phyla and species.

I'm trying to be assertive here but I'm finding it difficult as I have with some prior dealings with you. Now unless you have some information which shows that my contribution to this body of work is non-factual or irrelevant then I'm asking you nicely to either revert it back with any references you feel are necessary or to deal with me in a less dictatorial and dismissive manner here and help the conversation out rather than extinguish it. Can you help me out here?Jobberone (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reintroduced a brief introduction of the cerebellum and its possible role in human evolution. I have added three references. There are many many more I could add but too many is cumbersome and not necessary IMO. If you disagree with anything including everything then please be courteous enough to discuss it here without unilaterally just reverting it as before. Thank you.Jobberone (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Two of your three sources do not mention evolution whatsoever. These clinical case studies would make useful contributions to the cerebellum article, but are not relevant here.
• Your remaining source shows that the evolution of the cerebellum has been at a lower rate in humans than what it is in gibbons, orangutans and gorillas (fig.2). It shows that we have no more (in fact slightly less) cerebellum than is expected for any other ape with our sized brain (fig.3). The paper indicates that the cerebellum was important in the divergence of apes from other primates. It presents no reason to suspect that the cerebellum was more significant (than numerous other brain areas) to the divergence of humans from other apes. (Have you considered contributing to the article on primate evolution?)
• It is true that many decades ago neuroscientists didn't appreciate the cerebellum's non-motor functions. However, in this part of the article, I think sentences discussing the history of neuroscience are straying too far off-topic.
• If we write "Traditionally the cerebellum has been associated with" instead of "Parts of the cerebellum are sometimes called" then it may sound to the reader as if we don't understand what we're talking about. Why is it relevant to introduce such terms to this article anyway, considering we aren't defining or using them?

Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No two don't mention evolution but are there to satisfy basic science and to show what happens without a cerebellum. Prior to the advent of PETI yada either the absence or more commonly infarctions, injuries, etc is all we had to ascertain what the function of organs and parts of organs were and it is still the gold standard. I don't insist they be there but you were the one person who objected to my one source and lack of other sources. First you said these were fringe ideas. Well, I've shown that cerebellar function includes speech and I can provide many more references that show that it is important in cognition as well. This wasn't taught 40 years ago but the body of knowledge relating to other functions of the cerebellum has grown over the last decade plus. This article is not the place for a detailed review of the cerebellum or neocortex nor is it an exhaustive one of human evolution. For the purpose of this article and especially this subtopic of encephalization we only need to briefly discuss the fact the brain and cerebellum got bigger and how that ties in to our evoution. The detailed 'proof' of how we got to where we are via our brains is way beyond the scope of an en encyclopedia. In fact much of the how did it happen is still a matter of conjecture although we all know that the size of the brain as well as the kind and efficiency of processes are important. One final thought. Why is it so important to you to exclude this information from the encyclopedia?Jobberone (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This paper says that human brains have a larger medulla oblongata (which is important for tool use and communication) than other primates. What criteria would you advise to decide whether I should add a paragraph (and how many sentences long) about the medulla to this article? Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How does the medulla affect speech, cognition, attention, distraction, or emotions? The answer is it does not. How is the medulla different in primates and especially how is it different in higher primates mostly Homo vs Pan etc? It is not just the fact the cerebellum has increased in size (along with the neocortex) but the fact it increased in size and function enabling the ability of Homo to behave in ways differently than most organisms esp the ability to use tools, speech and social skills. All these would have given early hominids a great deal of advantages over its environment.Jobberone (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Who says it does not? For example, the medulla contains major cranial nuclei which are involved in driving the larynx (speech), and early processing of sensations from the face (human social behaviours), or connect to the hypothalamus/amygdala (emotion), and also contains tracts used for manipulating objects with the hands (tool use). As for the cerebellum, while it is different in apes (compared to other primates) it isn't particularly different in humans (compared to other apes), and thus isn't highly salient to hominin evolution. (Sure, the human cerebellum may have a larger portion of connections to the association cortex, but that is hardly unexpected since the association cortex is the part where the growth of the hominin brain was concentrated.) I suggest a better way to decide how to allocate weight in this section would be to look at current textbooks on hominin evolutionary neuroanatomy, and follow their lead. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I say I know of no information that the brainstem has anything to do with the development of speech. If you have information otherwise then I'd love to see it. AFAIK, the brainstem is autoregulatory although certainly there are pathways thru it. The pathways for touch and proprioception pass thru the nuclei of the medulla. Any modulation and affect on motor response is unknown to me and I don't believe they exist. Furthermore they are not 'cranial' nuclei and they have nothing to do with speech or facial expressions. These are a function of the cranial nerves which arise from the neocortex and are in no way related to the medulla or any part of the primitive brain. The motor control of the hands also has nothing to do with the medulla. So now you are making assertions which are not factual. You keep referring me to textbooks although I was formally studying them 40 years ago. If you have the proper references to refute what I've written then let us all see them so we may act accordingly.Jobberone (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My fear in all of this is that we are putting WP:UNDUE weight on this. I really don't think that, until this is a generally accepted idea, we mention this cerebellum stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand this better. This information has been out there for some time; decades for some of it. The relationship to speech and the cerebellum is well known. What's relatively new is the study of the evolution of the cerebellum as it relates to man's evolution. So I don't have a problem 'dialing' this down but not out. I don't see this as an issue of undue weight as we really don't have a great grasp on the neocortex's evolution as it relates to speech and man's technological evolution/ascendence either.

Perhaps a sentence about the evidence of the cerebellum's role in speech and the emerging evidence for cognition and emotions playing a possible role in man's evolution??

It is true there is not wide acceptance nor volume of data for this although I personally believe it must come more into play in the fields of modern medicine as well as paleoanthropology. There is enough evidence, data, and references for a small introductory role now, IMO.Jobberone (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is not wide acceptance then really it should not be in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Acceptance was a poor choice of words. Perhaps not as popularly well known is a better choice. But this isn't a popularity contest. This should be science. Does anyone have anything backed by science esp references to be so negative about this? I'd like someone to step up with their own scientific facts and opinions based on that rather than this be a democratic, non-democratic, or beauracratic decision.Jobberone (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, is it well known in academic circles? Is it a standard thing one sees in textbooks? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand the process well enough here. I have 6 years of formal postdoctoral training much of it surrounding this topic. I did my homework and decided to put in a very introductory text. Now one comes in who doesn't even know the subject matter and challenges the minute introduction. Ok. Now one comes and thinks its too much information and undue weight as well as not being broadly accepted. And when I ask for scientific rebuttal I keep getting asked questions about what's out there about it. Don't you think you should be your homework and then ask me specific questions? Do you know the basic science here and the current literature? I don't expect anyone here to be an expert in the field but you should be knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion. I don't think this topic has to be something that is so well known you were taught it in school. It certainly wasn't taught to me but then a very large volume of information wasn't 20-40 years ago. That is why I think it should be introductory. I realize this is going to sound condescending reading it on a flat screen. That is not how I mean it and I apologize for my awkward approach in advance. I think it fine to bring up the questions but if so then bring some debate with rebuttal rather than questions I've already thought about and put aside.Jobberone (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jobberone. What we are trying to do here (here being wikipedia) is summarize reliable academic sources. The mainstream academic view. Your credentials, and mine, really don't matter. What matters is sourcing, and secondary sourcing. We don't get to interpret stuff here. Leave that to your academic publishing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dbrodbeck. That's very fair and reasonable and is a great goal for the encyclopedia. I agree credentials are not necessary for fair contributions but when someone knowledgeable about the subject thinks we should introduce the material then I find that more palatable than someone who sees a shiny new object and thinks it belongs in the home and has no or inadequate knowledge of the subject matter. It also makes my statements about anatomy and function have a bit more weight. That is all. There is data out there that makes me think this should be introduced. You want to be cautious. That is a good thing.

But if you are going to be cautious you need to state why rather than just say because. I know a reasonable amount of the literature but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say I know everything out there. I haven't discussed this topic with an author although I might. What I'm saying to you is if you think it shouldn't be there then you need to know the literature and give me your reasons. If you want me to give you a thesis or give you a more extensive bibliography then it will have to be here and not in the body of the article. And I will have to decide if I want to give it my attention. I think if you were to try to prove to me why the increase in size of the neocortex caused us to evolve you'd have some problems with it. At some point the cerebellum needs to be a part of the discussion of human evolution. Too many neurons and too much influence on behavior especially speech.Jobberone (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Polyphyletic evolution theories of human races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors may like to review the above article, created 20 December 2014‎ and now at AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a recent change. Can we get some verification of these numbers that were changed? I looked at the document, doi:10.1002/bies.950181204, authored by Bernard Wood, that is cited, but it doesn't seem to directly support either set of numbers, neither the ones before nor after the change.

— Mwatts15 (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. Numerical changes by IP addresses without a reasonable explanation should be reverted as a matter of course. In this case the altered numbers probably appear somewhere, but the article would at least have to be updated to show the correct source. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• One storyline of Li'l Abner shows a picture of Li'l Abner identified as "the missing Link" between Ape and man
• One episode of The Simpsons shows after Homer Simpson going a rampage and then being tranqualized-in which doctors are unsure as to tell of Homer Simpson is a Ape-man or a man-ape! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.44.56 (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

In many of the WP articles touching on human evolution, there is a requirement to update and align the taxonomic structures around the family clade and below. Partly, this is a result of changes to taxonomic inclusions made evident by unfolding genetic data, but also reflects a greater emphasis on adhering to monophyletic organization. Two principal areas are the redefinition of Hominid to encompass all great apes, and introduction of new taxa at the tribe (and subtribe) level to provide for a close-but-not-quite-trichotomic division between humans, chimps, and gorillas. Subsequently terms like Hominin, Hominine, Hominan, not to mention Hominid, are proving challenging to set strait (and clear!). Regardless, that is the general gist of my edits (along with some minor wordsmithing, and, weirdly, a very recent revision of an unsophisticated hack of the article by an unregistered user with very strong anti-evolutionary ideas). RES2 11:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Among other edits, seems "User:Res2 (talk | contribs)", (WP:SPA?), is replacing the word "Hominin", a defined word, with the word "Hominan", an undefined word(?), instead - is this *entirely* OK or Not? - (edited articles may include "Human evolution", "Homininae", and "Homo ergaster") - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any need to talk about SPAs, but I agree that there is no clear basis for using the term "hominan". Res2, what is the rationale here? Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done - attempted to revert article to last clean version - hope it's ok - also - @Looie496: Thank you for your comments - please see related discussion at "User talk:Res2" - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Looie496, the rationale for using Hominan is to enable the use of a term that collectively describes only bipedal apes (Homo & closely related genera), while remaining consistent with monophylogenetic processes. The New World Encyclopedia article [5] describes the composition of the tribe Hominini to include chimpanzees (but not gorillas which are joined at the subfamily rank) due to progressive understanding of genetic data. The chimp inclusion at the tribe rank (Hominini, hence hominin) leads to the requirement to introduce the subordinate clade of subtribe to allow for the divergence event of the chimp line from the human line (and extinct biped genera). The subtribes thus introduced are Hominina (hence hominans) and Panina (panins or chimps). The alternative classification, that is if Hominins exclude chimps, requires a trichotomic divergence event with the African apes (subfamily Homininae) splitting into three tribes: Hominini, Panini, and Gorillini. The genetic data does not support a contemporaneous single divergence event. I certainly appreciate the difficulties associated in resolving the situation and hope I have not adversely contributed to it. Trust that helps explain the rationale. RES2 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Res2 (talk • contribs)

A fundamental policy of Wikipedia is no original research, which among other things means that we are not allowed to invent terminology that differs from the terminology used in the literature. Unfortunately this holds even when the terminology in the literature is completely borked -- I've confronted that situation in neuroscience articles a number of times. So hominan won't work. However the other changes made by Res2 that I looked at seem okay to me (I may have missed some), so maybe it would be better to globally change "hominan" back to "hominin" rather than reverting everything? Looie496 (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Looie496, Jbeans, and Ugog Nizdast: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce my edits if you like of course - no problem whatsoever - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as proposed above I change hominan to hominin everywhere but left the other edits in place. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering where the newly announced discovery of Homo Naledi will go on this Wikpedia page. Perhaps it should be a separate subtopic, because there seems to be some uncertainty about the dates for it, and even some question as to whether it belongs under genus Homo? Drewkeeling (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For convenience, I'm adding a link to the now-existing Homo naledi article. As to where on this page, I think we should hold off until the (considerable) "uncertainty about the dates" is resolved. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have fabulous references for this, but some anecdotals for evolution of humans in the last say 50-100 years. - Most 19th and early 20th century references to body temperature give a figure of 98.4F/36.9C degrees. 21st century references give 98.6F/37.0C degrees. Whether this is evolution of not is obviously disputable.

- The human jawbone, particularly the lower one, is getting smaller. Yet we still have the same number of teeth. Witness the ever increasing number of people who need to have their wisdom teeth removed because they "dont' fit" . Again anecdotal, but many dentists will support this.

- There is apparently much evidence that the maximum age at which children can still digest lactose is increasing. Has increased from about 1.5 years to nearly 4 years.

- A very controversial one, and very difficult to phrase. The proportion of people who are, well, ugly, has greatly decreased. Yes, I know how that sounds. The most casual scan of 100 year old photographs of crowds will confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.144.92 (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Evolution is a largely proven theory, yes, but I find this article to be treating it as complete and undisputed fact. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, right? Why do articles on religion still treat them like 'widely disproven theory' and yet articles on atheism and evolution treat an even less proven theory like fact? This needs some review and perhaps some real editing. 50.66.40.169 (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Two words: Scientific theory. Or in slightly more words; "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.". WegianWarrior (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Evolution" is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is the fact that all complex animals, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor living hundreds of millions of years ago. The theory of evolution is the theory that natural (Darwinian) selection was the primary force driving that process. The fact of evolution is considered by the great majority of scientists to be definitively proven. Looie496 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A theory is just a law you can't observe directly. I can't explain evolution very well, but if you want the answer to your question, Talk:Evolution has some great answers.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As Dunkleosteus77 says you are mistaking the common vernacular meaning of the word "theory" with its alternate meaning in the scientific community. A theory in science is considered to be supported by a very large body of evidence. Some other examples of scientific theories you might of heard of: Theory of Gravity, The Germ Theory of Disease, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

I wonder, have you made similar objections on the wiki pages for those theories? If not, why not? HappyGod (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

hi guys.

i wanted to share a paper i've had for a few years, by Hudson Hoagland called Science and the New Humanism.^{[X 1]} not only is this paper a very enjoyable read, but it was among the first to promote science as a tool that promotes human evolution. specifically, what hoagland was getting at, was that the proper use of neuropsychiatric research stood to benefit humanity greatly.

it seems Hudson Hoagland's wiki page was deleted (i recall him having one, he wasn't a nobody). The importance of this paper cannot be understated, and i was wondering if someone could incorporate it into the appropriate articles involving evolution?

cool aside about how i found this: i bought a first edition of Sir Charles Sherrington's Man on his Nature, which actually was owned by Hoagland himself! he even earmarked pages and wrote on inlays backing the hardcovers, telling me where to look.

seems like he knew that someone in the future would care enough to want a first edition, and took the pains to direct this person to the appropriate sections in the book! HOW COOL IS THAT? :) 174.3.155.181 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Drbogdan (talk · contribs) reverted my (indeed good faith) edit today (see). While I must agree the current image (used also, and with the same issue at stake, for Anatomically modern human) is of better quality, I must insist that the choice of a non-generic image (particularly if ethnically and geographically restricted) can be taken badly, misinterpreted or worse. We are talking about evolution here. A generic drawing, a picture showing the outline of human evolution or some homo skulls/skeletons, would be much more welcome, useful and appropriate. --90.34.84.97 (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - yes - agree with your comments about the images - at the moment, I'm flexible - Comments Welcome (including other suggested relevant images) by other editors of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think some illustrations of skeletons would be better than the suggested drawing which is also not in fact culturally or ethnically neutral/generic. I have added three more suggestions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus: FWIW - Thank you for your comments - and your suggested images - although flexible, "suggestion 3" seems preferred at the moment - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The current photo works very well as a lead image. Elsewhere in the article, the reader will find images of skulls and skeletons, as well as illustrative diagrams. The photo shows two modern humans who are part of a tool-making culture, wearing clothes. The woman's neck is adorned with a necklace. Some of their personal effects may indicate the presence of manufacturing and trade. The apparently fertile background landscape shows signs of agricultural activity.

An anatomically modern human from any epoch might be able to drop into that scene and get along, assuming their efforts to learn the local language were successful. The image shows modern humans with their feet on the ground and their eyes open, each engaging the viewer's gaze in their own way. In the current context, it does not matter what ethnic or geographic categories they may belong to. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Just plain Bill. The people shown seem very typical of our species, bearing in mind that both light and very black skins are more recent adaptions.Charles (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The photo is an apt illustration of modern humans, and it is indeed used as an illustration at human. It does however not illustrate the topic of this article which is human evolution - a topic that is an entire process, not simply the current stage of the process, and which includes the evolutionary histories of all of our hominin ancestors.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair point about representing the current stage of the process. Given the glacial pace at which modifications accumulate, I'm wondering how any image, still or moving, can convey the essence of human descent at a glance. The "march of progress" type images may be iconic, but they come with their own set of flaws. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose that this article be re-written. Its sequencing seems really strange and I heel needs to have a more chronological basis. At the moment out of Africa homo sapiens dispersal comes before the evolution of homo erectus! Is there anyone else who agrees with me? John D. Croft (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. The lead is good, but the rest could really use some help.  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made a little start. Please join me. I have joined all the anatomical changes together as the second paragraph was repetitive of what was said in the anatomical changes. I have also tried to gather the history of the search of human evolution together. John D. Croft (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In the book Some Answered Questions 'Abdu'l-Bahá explains certain differences between human and animals. I am searching for a page on Wikipedia that puts this subject into a broader perspective, from different angles, physically and spiritually, from a scientific, philosophical and religious viewpoints. Does such a page exist? If not, can someone make a start? I am not an expert in this subject. Wiki-uk (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to try Mirror test, Theory of mind, Ethology and Cognitive biology (Harvard University has a Cognitive Evolution Lab that's published ::papers on the matter). There really isn't just one place for that info. 2601:405:4300:DB28:E552:2423:79F6:9D96 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have added some Wikilinks, to make it easier to find the articles on these subjects. Wiki-uk (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean Difference between humans and other animals?Charles (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminder that this is WP:NOTFORUM. Do you have any specific ideas for improving the article? Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The article begins with "Human evolution, also known as hominization", and this is problematic. If the two terms are indeed equivalent, as this would suggest, then the two articles, this one and hominization, represent a content fork. If the two are not the same, justifying two pages, then we shouldn't define them as being the same. Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hominization is essentially an extended disambiguation page. It gives human evolution as one of the possible meanings of the term. I'm not sure anything needs to be done here. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Homo floresiensis, Neanderthal and Homo sapiens woman.Musée des Confluences.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is some fossil being the first discovered hybrid all that relevant to human evolution? We already had a great-great-grandchild of such a mating in hand so what makes this one so special? Surely being the first is not something that needs celebrated here. I just do not understand the obsession with this latest 'shiny object'. Agricolae (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources do not support the comment "which allows for extensive comparative genetic studies". Extensive comparative genetic studies having been going on for years, and are not allowed for the first time by this discovery. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Fact: additional fossils complement the DNA gaps not retrieved in previous samples. Additional understanding comes from additional samples for additional genetic comparisons: "[…] and is helping shape our understanding of hominin interactions."[6]. How do you think this understanding happens? What technique could possibly be used? Comparative genetics. The entry does not suggest Denisova 11 is the first, or only Denisova sample, it states its relevance because it brings additional understanding.

• "The landmark find, published this week in Nature, marks the "first definitive evidence" for offspring that came directly from interbreeding of these ancient species and is helping shape our understanding of hominin interactions."[7]. Now, when a reliable secondary source states: "The landmark find marks the first definitive evidence for offspring that came directly from interbreeding" chances are that it is indeed landmark.When a reliable secondary source states it is "the first definitive evidence" for something, chances are that it is. When secondary reliable sources state its relevance because it brings additional understanding (through comparative genetics) chances are that it is.
• "Now, with the discovery of a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid, the world as it was tens of thousands of years ago is coming into remarkable new focus: home to a marvelous range of human diversity. [8]. When a reliable secondary source states that this hybrid brings a remarkable new focus, chances are that it does. How? Through comparative genetics.
• “All experts contacted accept the finding." “Evidence is growing…”. When a reliable secondary source states that "All experts contacted accept the finding." and agree that “Evidence is growing" (through comparative genetics), chances are that it does.
• "It's amazing to be able to find something like this,” says David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard who was not part of the work.”[9]. When all experts contacted agree, and most remark the relevance of this hybrid, chances are that it is. What is amazing about it? The information it brings for additional comparative genetics.

It must be remarked that this is a section on hybrids, and there is absolutely no doubt of Denisova 11 notability and value for additional studies, as expressed by both primary and secondary references. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

To be highlighted on a page, a specimen must not only be notable, or a landmark, or amazing, it must be of noteworthy relevance to the subject of the page. As Dudley Miles points out, this is just a well-publicized shiny new datapoint that tells us absolutely nothing we didn't already know about human evolution from the already-characterized introgressions in modern and ancient hominin genomes, and more specifically, from the Oase 1 specimen. Shiny object, nothing more. Agricolae (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the multiple cited secondary references disagree with you. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course the Max Plank Institute is going to celebrate the work done by their own researchers. Such institutions employ people full-time, to publicize the importance of their findings, and the journals likewise have a vested interest in such PR. The research report itself and the accompanying press release are almost always going to call it the first 'X', however, obscure X has to be to allow priority to be claimed. That is how it works. No scientist, journal or PR department is going to describe the reported discovery as incremental, but from the scale of something like human evolution, it usually is, in spite of the hype. What exactly does this new study tell us 1) that in the Altai, one Neanderthal and one Denisovan managed to produce a female child about 90,000 years ago - at one particular time in history, one specific hybridization occurred, and by implication, that interbreeding events occured; 2) that the Neanderthal in question belonged to a population different from that seen in the 120,000 year old Neanderthal from the same site and as seen in Neanderthal DNA introgressed into the Denisovan population about 95,000-100,000, and instead it was closer to the Croatian sequenced Neanderthal of 10s of thousands of years later - that one particular Neanderthal belonged to a different population than earlier ones in the same area, and by implication, that human populations migrated and perhaps replaced others. Now, we already knew that humans had interbred at least seven times, among Neanderthals, Denisovans, other unidentified ancient hominins and anatomically-modern humans. Now we know of eight. Woopty-f'in-doo. We also already knew that human populations, throughout human history, have migrated and displaced other populations. This has been shown time and time again since we started typing human DNA (and isn't exactly a big shocker in the context of evolution, more broadly). So, again, incremental knowledge, not breakthrough. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that this user Vsmith has deleted a sourced section by saying "Rmv content cited to recent primary source". I do not want to enter an edit war so if someone can re-add the content that would better than arguing with someone who brags about ("179347" Edits Deleted) on his user page, and he even tagged his edit with the (TW) !

The content was:

In 2018, a study on sediment cores taken from Lake Magadi in Kenya, concluded that intense aridification some 575,000 years ago, might have urged hominin evolution; in which there was a correlation between climate change and the development of more sophisticated stone tool technologies sometime between 500,000 and 320,000 years ago.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.252.119.22 (talk • contribs)

refs

It would be nice if you could explain why the recently-published material is important enough to include, rather than making backhanded swipes at other editors. And the TW is an automatic tag that indicates the editing accessories used, Vsmith did not append it. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion: you can read at least the abstract of the article instead of asking me ! In short, they explained the circumstances behind the development of tools which were previously different without a reason. 61.252.119.22 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is: is this recent research significant enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia article, and does it represent a broad consensus of scholarly views? The abstract will not tell us that. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I would say that this article highlights the influence of climate change on homo sapiens development, the answer regarding the importance is subjective and differs from one to another. Regarding other scholarly views, you can add any other skeptic study that might come later. For example, arguments about Metallic Hydrogen#Claimed observation of solid metallic hydrogen, 2016, and earliest colonists in Madagascar#Early period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.252.119.22 (talk • contribs)

What did I say about backhanded swipes at other editors? I'm asking you why this study merits inclusion, and whether it enjoys broad acceptance among scholarship. And since you can ping me, perhaps you can manage to sign your posts? Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In the Dutch version I recently added a paragraph to the 'Encephalization' section. A new study demonstrates how it is posible to determine the bloodflow to the brain in ancient humans. See the sources:

• Don't tell 'Lucy,' but modern-day apes may be smarter than our evolutionary ancestors, scientists say, CNN, Health november 16 2019
• Cerebral blood flow rates in recent great apes are greater than in Australopithecus species that had equal or larger brains, The Royal society, 13 november 2019

PS: In the Dutch version the many adaptations (birth canal etc) for the increased skull size are described. Maybe an idea?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the universities of Leeds and Porto and as published on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22284828 the origin of humans was from/in Arabia [12]. does this information warrant inclusion on here? thanks all Grandia01 (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Grandia01: The source does not suggest that the origin of humans/modern humans was in Arabia. It instead suggests that Arabia was the first region (the first "staging post") settled by (modern) when/after they left Africa (the first region they settled from Africa), and thus it agrees that the origin of humans was from/in Africa. It's not about the origin of humans/modern humans in general, but rather the route the ancestors of non-Africans took from Africa.

The study is entitled "The Arabian cradle: mitochondrial relicts of the first steps along the southern route out of Africa." It is about the "cradle" of non-Africans - the region from which they dispersed after they left Africa

From the study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22284828):

A major unanswered question regarding the dispersal of modern humans around the world concerns the geographical site of the first human steps outside of Africa. The "southern coastal route" model predicts that the early stages of the dispersal took place when people crossed the Red Sea to southern Arabia..." "the three minor west-Eurasian haplogroups, N1, N2, and X. These lineages branch directly from the first non-African founder node, the root of haplogroup N, and coalesce to the time of the first successful movement of modern humans out of Africa, ∼60 thousand years (ka) ago.

From the journalistic source (https://www.thenational.ae/uae/science/dna-evidence-suggests-the-whole-world-is-a-little-bit-arab-1.408619):

"When modern man decided to make a move out of Africa 60,000 years ago, there was one big question on his mind. Which way should I go? Many scholars believe our forefathers left the Horn of Africa and headed north, which would take them to what is now Egypt. From there, it is theorised, they spread through North Africa and the Levant to the rest of the world. But another theory suggests the world's first modern immigrants might have taken a different route: the so-called southern route through Yemen and across the Arabian Peninsula. This would mean that most non-Africans in the world today are descended from those pioneers who made their home in what are now Arab lands."

and:

"A major unanswered question regarding the dispersal of modern humans around the world concerns the geographical site of the first steps out of Africa," said Dr Luísa Pereira, from Porto. "One popular model predicts that the early stages of the dispersal took place across the Red Sea to southern Arabia, but direct genetic evidence has been thin on the ground."

The article refers to the ancestry of "non-Africans" (i.e. those peoples whose ancestors left Africa) having lived in (passed through Arabia), not all humans (The article's title - "...the whole world is a little bit Arab" - is thus misleading, since the study and article are about the ancestry of modern non-Africans, not Africans, whose ancestors remained in Africa.).

The source supports the Southern dispersal hypothesis (that modern humans left Africa by a southern route through Arabia, rather than the hypothesis that they left Africa by a more northern route through the Levant. This seems to be a reliable source and seemingly could be added to a section that discusses the southern-dispersal-route-from-Africa hypothesis (if applicable) Skllagyook (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: dear Skllagyook, i understand and thank you much for your time to answer my question. much highly appreciated Grandia01 (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadirylmz2 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this

Danny My Ha (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: dear Skllagyook, do you think this article can be added as an online citation/reference in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Human_dispersal ? thanks again Grandia01 (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grandia01: Hello. I'm not sure I understand. That article is seems simply to be a link to this Wikipedia page. Did you intend to link something else? Or are you referring to the article you cited above at the beginning of this topic? Skllagyook (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I apologize for the mistake:

previously you said "The source supports the Southern dispersal hypothesis (that modern humans left Africa by a southern route through Arabia, rather than the hypothesis that they left Africa by a more northern route through the Levant. This seems to be a reliable source and seemingly could be added to a section that discusses the southern-dispersal-route-from-Africa hypothesis (if applicable)"

so my -corrected- question is, do you think that adding this article as a citation to the paragraph "There are still differing theories on whether there was a single exodus from Africa or several. A multiple dispersal model involves the Southern Dispersal theory" (under the "Dispersal of modern Homo sapiens" section ) is appropriate? Grandia01 (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grandia01: I see. My appologies for the confusion. Since it seems to be a reliable source, I think you could add it. Skllagyook (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your valuable help and assistance. Regards Grandia01 (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Grandia01: I thought you were referring to the academic source you had linked rather than the journalistic article. I believe, that in Wikipedia articles on scientific topics, academic sources are strongly preferred (though journalistic siurces can sometimes be used as a suppliment to them). Thus, I think the scientific study (that the journalistic source was reporting) should be added as well. This source (that you linked initially): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22284828 Skllagyook (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I apologize. i have added the original source now. and thank you for the correction sir/madam Grandia01 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There was a tag present from May 2020, but the other side was not available for the discussion to start. There has been no explanation of why this article was created outside the main Human evolution. scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It was created as a Wikiedu assignment [13]. The course is finished now, so I think it's OK to merge it with the existing article. There are probably more completed Wikiedu assignments that might be merged with existing articles, so that people can find the information easier. Menemenetekelufarsim (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've redirected the article here. The article didn't contain much if any mergable information, it read sort of like a school essay and only really said that we're good at running and hunting. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Louis Leakey.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Homo erectus new.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Homo habilis-2.JPG
• Homo heidelbergensis (10233446).jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Homo erectus new.JPG (discussion)
• Homo habilis-2.JPG (discussion)
• Homo heidelbergensis (10233446).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Neandertaler reconst.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

SimplisticReps You have added an image you created, File:Skull evolution.png, to the article. Thanks for your contribution, but there is no source information in the file details and no way for a reader to check whether your interpretation is correct. Please supply details of a reliable source or the file will need to be removed. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brain size and tooth size in hominins.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Louis Leakey.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Neandertaler reconst.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence_from_the_fossil_record There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages. This points towards the idea in many Abrahamic religions, e.g. Islam, that humans, including the genus Homo, were created by a miracle. Any DNA or phenotype similarity to chimpanzees, orangutans, etc, is only coincidental.

Because of this, I suggest changing

"and, in turn, the subtribes Hominina (humans and extinct biped ancestors) and Panina (chimpanzees) separated 4–7 million years ago.[8]"

to

"and, in turn, the subtribes Hominina (humans and extinct biped ancestors) and Panina (chimpanzees) are thought to have separated 4–7 million years ago, according to DNA analysis.[8]"

MDaxo (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not just according to DNA analysis. Also, this draws a false and non-scientific distinction by being weaselly about this one branch point while leaving all of the other branch points unqualified, when they are all based on the same types of evidence. We describe non-scientific religious beliefs in the articles about the religion or designated cross-over articles about the religious beliefs regarding those topics, not in the main articles about scientific topics (except sometimes in a historical preface, where appropriate). Oh, and as to 100% certain proof, that doesn't exist for anything except mathematics, and even that depends on one's assumptions. All scientific conclusions are provisional, even the ones we think we know for certain, so we don't bother saying that dropped objects are thought to fall due to gravity. Agricolae (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me get that straight. Because the fossil record is incomplete, we conclude that the poorly-thought out mythologies of the Abrahamic religions must be true? I think that only an intoxicated person would be convinced by such an illogical argument. Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

No, we conclude that the Abrahamic religions still MIGHT be true. No need to be so rude. There is, in fact, some evidence for creationism too. MDaxo (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place. This page is for discussions about improving the article Human evolution and not for spreading easily refuted pseudoscientific propaganda. Go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

MDaxo, I respect those beliefs, even if I don't share them. Agricolae's response best describes my own thoughts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no 100% proof that the external universe exists, but it's a good working hypothesis. There are massive data supporting the evolutionary hypothesis, but no data supporting creationism, much less the creation myths of monotheistic religions, or distinguishing between, e.g., Flying Spaghetti Monster creationism and Norse creationism. Perhaps you should create Theological ideas on human origins, in which creationism would fit well. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae and North8000. All the evidence supports a scientific approach, not religious ideas such as creationism, but we should disagree courteously and stick to Wikipedia:Don't be rude. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if creationism is true, I don't think it would be possible to support it with scientific evidence. If a desk miraculously pops into existence (which I believe is not impossible, due to things like quantum fluctuations), there's no scientific way to show that with evidence. MDaxo (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not use this page as a forum to discuss ontology, epistemology, positivism, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brain size and tooth size in hominins.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)