Talk:Human evolution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Evolution of the human diet

The article is surprisingly spare (if not silent) on this topic. The modern primates (chimps, etc.) generally stick to eating small insects, leaves, fruits, and maybe very small animals (correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see any of them hunting in the usual sense). The section for Homo erectus suddenly mentions they eat "meat". Kind of a sudden transition here? Is there information on this topic, or have we just overlooked it? Cheers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Chimps actually have been observed hunting monkeys quite a bit, there's even film of such hunts. (common chimps atleast, I'm not sure about bonobos). Its a supplementary diet (although the same can be said for most human hunter-gathers), but they do in fact hunt, its a proper hunt too, its a communal effort, and the spoils are shared among the hunters. While monkeys are smaller than them, its still a hunt. Brentt 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Jane Goodall witnessed and studied many hunting episodes involving various chimpanzees and (victims) smaller monkeys-I'll double check this though.--Read-write-services 00:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In their 2005 book Man the Hunted (ISBN 978-0813339368, ISBN 0813339367) authors and scientists Donna Hart and Robert W. Sussman present the case that early man was more prey than predator. Also billions of modern humans live perfectly well, even healthier lives without eating meat. This seems to directly contradict the statements made in the beginning of the "Use of tools" section. Is there any evidence to support the argument presented in the article? What is the current consensus on this subject?

"Using tools is not only a sign of intelligence, it also may have acted as a stimulus for human evolution. Over the past 3 or 2 million years, human brain size has increased threefold. A brain needs a lot of energy: the brain of modern man uses about 5 Watts (about 400 kilo calories per day), one fifth of total human energy consumption. Early hominoids, like apes, were essentially plant eaters (fruit, leaves, roots), their diet only occasionally supplemented by meat (often from scavenging). However, plant food in general yields considerably less energy and nutritive value than meat. Therefore, being able to hunt for large animals, which was only possible by using tools such as spears, made it possible for humans to sustain larger and more complex brains, which in turn allowed them to develop yet more intelligent and efficient tools." -

166.70.40.184 20:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, I've done some searching and these papers seem relevant Tim Vickers 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Milton K (2003). "The critical role played by animal source foods in human (Homo) evolution". J. Nutr. 133 (11 Suppl 2): 3886S–3892S. PMID 14672286.
• Larsen CS (2003). "Animal source foods and human health during evolution". J. Nutr. 133 (11 Suppl 2): 3893S–3897S. PMID 14672287.
• Leonard WR, Robertson ML, Snodgrass JJ, Kuzawa CW (2003). "Metabolic correlates of hominid brain evolution". Comp. Biochem. Physiol., Part A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 136 (1): 5–15. PMID 14527625.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Wow Tim. Nice job. I hope that Hart, Sussman, et al. will see fit to contribute to this discussion.

166.70.40.184 23:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to Prof. Hart and received this response.

Very interesting to see the inner workings of Wikipedia! I read over the section you pointed me to and have some comments:

Hominins (newest taxonomic category for modern humans and our fossil relatives) do not possess the teeth (Teaford and Ungar 2000) or the gut tract to digest large herbivore muscles, i.e., meat from what has typically been imagined as prey, unless the meat is cooked. Our teeth have remained much the same throughout the seven million years of hominin evolution; our gut tract is also basically the same design as other plant-eating, omnivorous primates so that has remained fixed for even longer. The first possible evidence of controlled fire has been found in Israel and dates to approximately 700,000 years ago (Goren-Inbar, et al. 2004), so prior to that time there is no possibility of meat as a major dietary component. The first evidence of a javelin which could be thrown is dated at 400,000 years ago (Tattersall and Schwartz 2000, Klein and Edgar 2002) -- and its effectiveness against herbivores is questioned since it has been likened to a large toothpick -- so there is little possibility that tools were available to include meat as a dietary component before that time. Klein (1999) states, and I concur, that true large-scale directed hunting did not make an appearance in our human history until about 60,000-80,000 years ago; this is based on the fact that all of the supposed kill sites in Europe before this date have been found to be dependent on causes other than human hunting.

Meat is not necessary for brain expansion -- lipids are necessary, and there are many sources of high-quality lipids in the plant world. Based on the fossil record the big spurt in hominin cranial capacity seems to have occurred with the apperance of Homo erectus at approximately 1.75 million years ago, long before meat could have been a part of hominin diets. As one of your contributors noted, most of the six billion plus humans on the planet today eat meat only as a supplement to a plant-based diet. We in the Western world are an anomaly, and our high rates of cancer and heart disease are evidence of how detrimental meat-biased diets may be.

One last cautionary comment, inflated importance has been attributed to hunting and meat-eating observed in one chimpanzee population (Gombe in Tanzania). Chimps are not carnivores, nor are humans and our fossil relatives.

References:

• Goren-Inbar, N (2004). "Evidence of hominin control of fire at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel". Science. 304: 725–727. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Klein, R (1999). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins, Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226439631.

• Klein, R (2002). The Dawn of Human Culture. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0471252522. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Tattersall, I (2000). Extinct Humans. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 0813334829. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Teaford, M (2000). "Diet and evolution of the earliest human ancestors" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 97 (25): 13506–13511. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Hope this is of value to you and your readers,
Donna

Donna Hart, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
University of Missouir - St. Louis
One University Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63121

166.70.40.184 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I question the Dr.'s statement: ". . . there are many sources of high-quality lipids in the plant world." in regards to the question of early human diet. I have gone over various sources and find the richest sources of fats (lipids) found in the "plant world" are grains, certain legumes, and nuts. Apart from some nuts (those that can be eaten raw) grains and legumes must be cooked before they are edible in any sufficient amount. It should also be pointed out that prior to settlement by man (agricultural revolution) that NO cooking implements (pottery) were produced.

Exactly where would these "high-quality lipids" be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.28.5 (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A comment to the person who was talking about the relationship of cooking, agriculture, and pottery: Jomon pottery is the first (or maybe second) oldest in the world, possibly as old as 14,000 BP. Jomon people are clearly non-agricultural. Other independent inventions of pottery occurred in pre-agricultural Africa and South America, 10,000 and 7,000 BP respectively. The earliest pottery appears to be tied more closely to sedentism than agriculture. Just a clarification. TriNotch (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ever said humans were carnivores. But to claim we are not omnivores would be a position hard to hold. Whether we should eat meat is a different story (I think not personally, and don't) but the fact that we do, and have for a very long time, and the fact that some chimp populations do, is undeniable. Whether its had a major impact on evolution, and lead to "increased brain capacity" is a different story (I always found that theory suspect). It might be that incorporating meat into the diet had helped people get over times of scarcity, simply by opening up more options, and therefore did provide a little extra energy and nutrition to allow certain organs, in this case the brain, to consume more energy.

As an aside, not really any info suitable for the article because I haven't seen any research on it, a trained runner (read that as "someone participating in run-intensive hunts since they were a young") have a very unique ability to outrun just about any extant animal over a distance (even a TRAINED animal, like a race horse). For the purposes of fleeing a predator that ability is useless, because almost any predator can outrun us over a short distance. I can't think of any other reason we would have evolved the ability except for hunting. But maybe thats just my lack of imagination. Brentt 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some mention of this in the article on running. That article cites the following:

• Bramble, D., Lieberman, D. (2004) Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature, 432, 345-352. Abstract

Should this be discussed in another section? SlowJog (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are probably other articles with more direct relevance to the issue of whether modern humans are carnivores, omnivores, or scavengers. I have read that omnivores require meat and scavengers can consume meat but do not require it. Personally, I have no idea. I was (and still am) confused by the information in the main article. It seems to me to defy common sense since I know that billions of modern humans live perfectly well on vegetable only diets. If our brains required meat this would seem to me to imply that billions of modern humans would be suffering some serious problems. However, I am certainly no expert. I have no idea whether the issue of the role of ASF (Animal Source Foods) in human evolution (in particular the development of large brain size relative to body size) is controversial within the academic community. I certainly agree with you that this theory appears suspect on the surface. It is just as clear to me that ASF must have played an important role at some point. It would simply not have been possible for humans to move into regions where the climate restricts adequate access to plant foods during winter months without relying on ASFs. I only hope to encourage experts in the field to correct or at least clarify, as needed, the information presented in the primary article. I am beginning to read the articles referenced by Tim Vickers and prof. Hart. But, since I am not an expert this is difficult going.

166.70.40.184 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The section titled "Use of tools" certainly doesn't reflect the current mainstream opinion on the subject as I understand it. Early stone tools of hominins were likely used not for hunting but for scavenging, to extract marrow from thick bones by crushing them. I think that's the element that's missing from this discussion. Tool use was most likely a consequence of brain development, not a cause of it. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you count fish as meat? High quality oils for brain development are found in fish. Javalins and spears are tools for 'hunting' fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.82.167 (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to those lipids; hempseed, for example would have both essential fatty acids (linoleic and alpha-linolenic), and their immediate metabolites (GLA and SDA, respectively). All four of these fatty acids make up about 80% of the oil content of the seed, which is about 30-35% oil, in addition to a protein that accounts for about 20-25% of the seed. This protein is easily digested raw. A source of durable fiber and perhaps even medicine, at least some varieties, all in the same plant! How could early man, woman and child possibly miss it?Jace1 (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence fabricated addition

An anon IP keeps trying to add in a sentence about evidence of evolution being fabricated. I and other editors have reverted, but since it keeps coming back it seems sensible to make sure there is clear consensus here.

Here's my feeling on the edit: There are several problems with the addition - for a start Nebraska Man wasn't a forgery, it was simply a mistake. That people make mistakes is not a particularly relevant point, and while it might be an interesting see also in a smaller article, with evolution there's far too much other, more significant information to point people. This leaves us with Piltdown Man. While it was a forged fossil, the assumption that it was forged evidence of human evolution is a big stretch, it was a bump in the path evolution was understood to have taken then - not support of it.

Overall it seems like a POV edit designed to cast doubt on current evidence by insinuation - but this is not a significant POV held by experts in the field. If we should be linking to the two articles (which I tend to think is a bad idea given all the other articles we could link to) the context needs to be very different. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, your always going to be getting nonsense edits like that. Just have to revert. Brentt 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of intelligence

someone fix this travesty: Evolution of intelligence--87.194.72.129 09:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I made it a stub. It was too horrible to even work with. It needed to be reworked from scatch. Brentt 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pliopithechus

"Early Man" from "Life Nature Library" from Time-Life Books is the source mentioned in the following text I've seen has received no answer yet:

In an "old" time-life book a graphic showed human evolution from the "simian" pliopithecus to the human "homo sapiens sapiens" with demihuman and humanoid links between these two... Now I find out that being out of date that information was incorrect... Althought theorical, a similiar graph from the latest "simian" ancestor through humanoid and demihuman link onto modern humans would be a good addition... The graph (names only) presented in here has the flaw of 1.not being precise whether an ancestor is so only in theory or indeed and 2.it gaves no general ideas of whether such ancestor would or would not be thought of as "simian" by any of us (for, of course if get to see a boisei, let's say in the fictional circumstances of dna-restituion, like in Jurassic Park, we would easily identify the creature as something somehow human and somehow simian, even if we were ignorants of taxonomy)...

Herle King 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with it

"The validity of evolution and the origins of humanity have often been a subject of great political and religious controversy (see Creation-evolution controversy and Hybrid-origin)." Most scientists don't see evolution as a controversy so why write it, I understand that there is a controversy, but only political and religious (created by the discovery institute) and not a scientific controversy so, again, why write it?80.109.79.136 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A NPOV way of putting it would be to state the facts: "An overwwhelming majority of scientists and scientific evidence supports evolution as fact, but a minority (of religious groups, etc) question these findings in light of their own (scientifically unfounded) (creationism, etc) theories."

THEPROMENADER 10:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters greatly but its facts that support explanation through evolutionary theory and not vice versa--204.112.136.212 14:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is certainly a noteworthy aspect of human evolution. I don't see why only scientific controversy could be relevant to this article. The discovery of evolution has created a certain amount of political and religious upheaval, which is certainly one important aspect of the topic. Also, the Discovery Institute hardly created religious objections to the theory of evolution out of thin air.0nullbinary0 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oldest Ancestors

after watching an eppisode of walking with monsters it showed a fish that all vertibrates decended from, it got me thinking, how far back can we trace human evolution, further back from apes into mammals and lizards and so on, is there any sort diagram, im sure it would be useful in showing how our species relates to others, I heard cetaceans such as dolphins and apes such as humans were decended from a recent ancestor. can any one help? Catintheoven 00:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Most recent common ancestor and Phylogenetic tree. For an in-depth discussion, see the book The Ancestor's Tale. Fred Hsu 01:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

its a bit vague

Yea, the Ancestor's Tale is an entire book about what your asking. It traces what ishe known about human ancestory backwards from humans all the way to the first life on earth (what is thought to be known of it anyway.) Each chapter is complete with a diagram at the beggining. If you just want to see a diagram, I reccomend flipping through the chapters at your local bookstore (almost every bookstore has the book, its very popular.) I reccomend reading the book too, its awesome, a book you could read several times, and once you get sick of it wish you could forget what you read so you could enjoy reading it again for the first time. IMHO anyway. I'm pretty sure cetaceans are not very closely related to humans. We certainly don't have any "recent" ancestor. We are more closely related to Cetaceans than we are to many other land animals, and perhaps even many land mammals, but not "recent" in any sense.

Interestinly though, we are more closely related to some fish than some fish are related to each other. (yes, I know dolphins aren't fish, it was just an interesting aside) Brentt 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And to answer part of your question, we can trace human evolution all the way back along with the evolution of all life on Earth to a single-celled, prokaryotic ancestor, as Fred Hsu mentions above. I strongly recommend The Ancestor's Tale; as Brentt mentions, it will take you in detail through this course. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Another informative source is Neil Shubin's book, Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body, Vintage Books 2009.Digthepast (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting point of "Human evolution" ? Split from chimps or appeance of life on Earth ?

I wonder where the subject of current article starts. It looks like it might be the split from the chimpanzees 5 MYA, but article does not say so. But article Timeline of human evolution starts with appearance of life 4000 MYA !!! So Wikipedia clearly needs to decide where "human evolution" starts and remove the 800 times timespan difference of its two articles with the same subject. My opinion is that earlier chapters should be added to this article (about Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, ancestor of humans and greate apes, Eomaia scansoria ancestor of placental mammals etc.) Warbola 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chart timescale is meaningless

The timescale axis of the chart "Hominin species distributed through time" is incomprehensible to other than experts. Please change to a meaningful one, or explain what units it uses. 80.229.250.120 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Steve Kirkby

I'm a doctor, not an expert...but to me it appears that the major divisions are millions of years, right? And the minor ones therefore are 250,000 years. Perhaps the scientific notation is what's confusing you: 1e+06 = 1×10⁶ = 1,000,000. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Kirkby. There are likely many readers who will be unfamiliar with using “E” for scientific notation (and likely many who will be unfamiliar with scientific notation itself). I wonder if we could change the label to “million years” and reduce the numbers accordingly. What do others think? I looked at the source to see if I could make the change, but there were a lot of numbers and I wouldn’t be confident I wasn’t altering something incorrectly. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to be more accessible. Did you know that there is a talk page just for discussing this chart? It's at Talk:Human evolution/Species chart. I think User:Moverton created the chart — I'll check with him. I think the horizontal axis should probably be Millions of years ago, although it seems that the Easy Timeline code used to create this chart doesn't support increments of less than a full integer (which would be needed for the intermediate lines). Figma 05:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The scale is in "years ago" so that 1e06 is 1 million years ago. Figma is correct that it has certain limitations. Additional text could be added indicating that the major increments are in millions. —Mike 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The first man was "homo –erectus" before that man did not exist

Hi all

The true first man exist was a “homo –erectus” that lived from about 1.8 MYA to 70,000 years ago, and that the "homo-sapiens" were “homo-erectus “ too, but a different race.

The other previous “Homos “ like “Homo habilis” were different or variants types of apes species…...is this True or False? ...please explain.

Cheers and Regards.

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows. There is no clear dividing line. What constitutes a "species" and determining if something is or isn't a member of that species is fuzzy. That fuzziness is created by both time and space. The usual definition of a species is "organisms that under normal circumstances, when living amongst each other will breed with each other (creating viable offspring)" An example created by spatial seperation is instructive on this point (the probelm with human ancestors is temporal seperation, but its completely analoguous.):

There are two distinct species of seagulls that nest amongst each other in the north of Britain. They are similar species, but do not breed with each other outside of human intervention. You find one of those species of seagull in Iceland also. The Icelandic ones are slightly different, but clearly the same species as the british ones. You find a slight variation of that variation in Greenland (still clearly the same species), then Canada, then Alaska, then Russia. By the time you get to Britain again, it turns out to be the second species. There are also two species of lizard in the mountains surrounding the Salinas valley in California where the same phenemenon happens, but with the gradation happening along the valley rim (since the lizards can't live in the valley climate, only the mountain climate.)

The problem with determining where one species becomes the next is not possible. So you kind of have to do it by convention. Unless you could send a population of modern humans back in a time machine, and see if they would breed with what is thought to be our ancestor's species (and actually, there is an issue with whether or not H. Erectus is actually an ancestor species, or a species that was just related to our ancestor species at the time--a species which we may have not even found fossils for) then your not going to be able to make that determination. Brentt 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Skinner article on selection by consequences from Science magazine showing parallel in selection mechanisms in biology, culture and behavior. Florkle 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)florkle 4-05-2007

Thank you very much Mr Brentt & Florkle for your answers..I will read more about that seagulls interspecies breeding

cheers & Regards.

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 17:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Human hair

I have a question, how is human hair explained? you know, it grows. and pre humans did not use tools so how did they cut it? also men go bald, how is this an improvement chosen by nature to be superior to the fur covering of apes? Kljenni 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for discussing the topic, but for discussin improving the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hair falls out naturally after achieving a certain length. Early humans likely wore their hair much longer than we do today. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would improve the article to call it the "Theory of Human Evolution" or the "Myth of Human Evolution" either one would be true. Kljenni 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, you are in the minority. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can do better than that. Ahem. We can't use those names for three reasons.

1. There is no scientific theory of human evolution, only of evolution itself.
2. Myths have to have a longer history and involve supernatural explanations, at least, as used by scholars.
3. Both of these words in common parlance imply that the subject is a falsehood, which would defeat any purpose of even having an article.

-- trlkly 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Male baldness is likely to be a side effect of the male sex hormones. i.e. the benefits of having the hormone outweighs the side effect of going bald at some point. also, for most of human existence, the baldness would have occurred at an age after the average life expectancy or after the male had already procreated - hence no natural selection to weed it out. MW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.180.126 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Before primates

I added a section Before Primates. I know some people think that human evolution is just about monkeys, not bacteria, fish and reptiles, but I disagree. I tried to keep the section about same size as Before Homo.Warbola 15:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would make sense to put a summary of the whole history of life on earth in every evolution article. Perhaps you could find someplace else for this? We really should have separate articles on primate evolution and on the evolution of other groups.--Pharos 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about creating Human ancestry line of evolution or something similar? Evolution of human line is extremely different thing than 'the whole history of life on earth', because it is just one ancestry line of billions. The other articles are not interested in human ancestry specifically. Also, it is the matter of great general interest and it would be absurd to suggest that Wikipedia readers should read that information from some hidden sections of 20 different articles instead. The same 'offtopic' information is also present in Timeline of human evolution and the chart here. That was main reason I added the section here, because Wikipedia should be self-consistent. Warbola 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

K, but just get a better title than Human ancestry line of evolution;) Its a bit awkward, and I'm not sure about the whole "line" thing.

But I think it is definitely relevant to the article. Not a detailed "journey" back like in The Ancestor's Tale, but a rough outline is definitely a good idea for this article.Brentt 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

skull anatomy and timelines

Hi all,

I was wondering if someone could provide thumbnail links to the various cranial anatomies of the particular species. Perhaps the thumbnails could be linked to the more detailled articles to allow for quick comparison? This would probably look nice along the bottom of the article. It's just a thought. --Read-write-services 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

see the human evolution info box at the bottom, there are links to various timelines and fossil pages that do just that. Nowimnthing 05:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. I think it should be here though.--Read-write-services 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot

I don't know how to add this :x Slashdot (a high-traffic information website) has linked to this page, as you can see here: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/02/07/1442229.shtml Angel Of Wisdom 14:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So? LilDice 14:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done it for ya. :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed now, it is a temporary template. -- kenb215 talk 16:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

chimp-human interbreeding?

In my view, the article could be improved by altering the following statement on chimp-human inter-breeding to reflect its current scientific status:

"Modern humans are actually hybrids created by millennia of interbreeding between early hominids and chimpanzees," according to geneticist James Mallet and other MIT and Harvard scientists, as quoted in the newsmagazine This Week, June 9, 2006. The interbreeding began about 6.3 million years ago. Then, for a million years, the ancestors of the human race "continued to acquire chromosomes from chimps until a second and final break about 5.3 million years ago."

The original MIT/Harvard article (by Patterson et al: Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees, Nick Patterson, Daniel J. Richter, Sante Gnerre, Eric S. Lander & David Reich (2006) Nature 441, 1103-1108), though it received much press, contains several severe scientific flaws. As Prof. Nick Barton, a leading evolutionary geneticist has written, the article failed to carry out a basic test of the 'null hypothesis' that speciation did not occur:

“Such a scenario [that human lineage hybridized with the chimp lineage]— or a

range of kinds of population subdivision—can indeed account for diversity among loci in divergence, but Patterson et al. do not test whether their data are consistent with the simple null model of abrupt allopatric speciation of a single well-mixed population. A simple calculation (H. Innan, personal communication) shows that their data are consistent with an ancestral effective population size of Ne ~45,000, which does not seem unreasonable, and is consistent with previous studies. Thus, there is no statistical evidence for hybridization.”(Curr Biol. 2006 Aug 22;16(16):R647-50) Similarly, Prof. John Wakeley of Harvard, also a population geneticist, has criticized the calculations in the Lander et al article, in the same manner as Innan. It would seem then best to present this possibility of inter-breeding as a so-far unconfirmed speculative account - it is just not known at present. If you want to stick strictly to consensus views, then it might be considered for removal. Prof. Robert C. Berwick MITRcberwick 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) account.

I can't see how apes and humans can inter-breed successfully, they have different chromosome numbers. 81.159.82.167 (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Different chromosome numbers aren't necessarily a barrier to interbreeding. In any event, the reference is talking about interbreeding between human ancestors and chimp ancestors in the distant past, possibly before the chromosome fusion in humans. thx1138 (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Why is this article so fantastically sparse on citations and references. There're five footnotes and a half-dozen vague books listed. Where did all this information come from? Corvokarasu 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Genealogical Tree of Humanity

It would be great if someone could update the Genealogical Tree of Humanity picture, it could use a more modern font (so it is easier to read) and a better diagram.

Seconded! In fact I was just getting ready to make that same observation/request myself. Even an explanation of the terms used in the diagram would be really helpful. DougRWms 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of intelligence

Please help expand Evolution of intelligence. It's an interesting subject imo or could also be included here since it's very related to human intelligence. I added the model of "EDSC" there that I find quite interesting. --Leladax 11:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

future evolution

are there any rational predictions to be mad so far as the future of our evolution? and if so, who made them and how credible are they?

The attempts I've seen has been at best a wild guess, at worst, completely off-base. So I would say no. Evolution is too chaotic. Dependent on gazillions of inter-related variables. Brentt 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Although evolutionary changes are impossible to predict, the major selective pressures on our species are malaria, tuberculosis, HIV and childhood diarrhoeal diseases. Tim Vickers 04:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Really anything about future human evoloution is just a theory, for example a documentry i watched ages ago said that humans are loosing hair because we're spending more time indoors and brain power gets to such a level that telepathy will be possible on a low scale. But like i said we can only made theories not educated guesses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hunters guild (talk • contribs).

Not even a theory really, more like a guess. A theory is in principle testable. Guesses about future evolution are not testable. Brentt 05:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

General loss of body hair on humans has been attributed by some scientists (refs?) to male sexual selection of less hairy females. This would carry over to both sexes of offspring, and the cycle repeats. Diseases are among the few remaining natural pressures. Welfare, which I am strongly endorse as a humanist, is a massive stymie to evolution. Sexual selection remains, people have been observed to settle down with mates of a similar "attractiveness", which has led at least one scientist (media frenzy - but where are the references? *sobs*) to claim that we will diverge into discrete attractiveness/wealth/intellignce caste/subspecies. I'm first expecting a more uniform mix of racial groups.

I'd think that telepathy is not likely to happen by any natural means. Variation-and-selection first needs the trait to manifest before it can be favoured. We'd be looking at some form of augmentation or modification for this to happen.

We have a massive gene-pool which will self-dilute, and a relatively astronomical survival rate. I'm not expecting much any time soon (even in evolutionary terms). --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually have to take issue with you on the welfare notion. Saying that it "stymies" evolution, assumes that selection occurs on an exclusively individual level, which is patently not true. If anything welfare is a trait that has been selected for by evolution, as it increases the fitness of whole populations. ornis (t) 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe most evolutionary theorists think selection does occur on a strictly individual level, actually many think it occurs on a strictly GENE level see Gene-centered view of evolution. I think the problem with saying it "stymies evolution", implies that evolution has a purpose to be stymied doesn't it? It certainly changes the selective pressures, but so do a lot of things--like say murder laws, anti-civilian violence laws and government in general (without say, murder laws, people who weren't good at protecting themselves physically would be at a sever disadvantage). Brentt 06:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah no, evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. ornis (t) 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, hence evolution occurs within a population, but selection occurs on genes, as opposed to populations (leaving the question of whether it happens on individuals aside, thats a bit more involved).

The problem is that If you see anything that could be considered selection happening on populations, then there is no meta-population (poplulations of populations) for evolution to occur within. Or if there is a meta-population, its too small (say p<10) for the process to create any sort of functionality. Basically when you start getting into group selection your just looking at the population as an individual, and expecting that natural selection can create some functionality working with only a very small group of individuals (the "very small group" being the meta-population)--which is why group selectionist theories are frowned upon these days. Brentt 12:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on future human evolution. It was agreed that the section would be moved from the main human article to this one. P.W.Lutherson 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its a really horrible section. None of it anything but wild speculation, and none of it is widely accepted. Its all very minority opinions. Most biologists think its not possible to predict. It should have its own article, not be in this one. I love this "markedly superior minds"?!? WTF? Has wikipedia timewarped to the 1930s? 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm making an editorial decision: the section IS NOT about what it says its about: future human evolution. It is simply about eugenics and dysgenics, and articles arleady exist for those subjects. Please do not add it back unless you can find some solid info about current human evolution that is not simply about eugenics and dysgenics (you of course will be hard pressed to find any, as not many authorities speculate on it.) Brentt 03:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Brentt, I tried to fix this twice now and have been reverted each time - despite me pointing out that the added section containing two entire paragraphs that were just straight duplicates of each other. Such unthinking disregard for the quality of the article is simply unacceptable. Tim Vickers 03:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm astounded that the direction of future human evolution isn't obvious to everybody. Simply look at the factors that cause people to have children or not. Do not forget that evolution includes invisible changes to the mind and to the biochemistry. The primary selection force today is birth control, by far. There is simply no contest. It is not very likely that some purely physical change will overcome this. There could be an arms race with hormones, but modern medicine will win that one too. Mental changes will do the job though, without a doubt. In the short term, we may expect people to become more impulsive, more careless, and more religeous. The ultimate winning trait however is a burning desire to actually produce children. Prior to reliable birth control, sexual desire was equivalent to a desire for children. As we look to the future, we can reasonably predict that a desire to produce children will come to have a similar power over people. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

After birth control, the next strongest selection pressures would be our diet, our law, possibly addictions, and of course viruses. Future humans will either grow best on a diet of junk food, or they simply won't crave it like most people do today. They might crave vegetables with fiber instead of salt, fat, and sugar. Future humans may be less faithful and protective, because broken families won't result in starving offspring. Future humans might not have much interest in tobacco and alcohol. Future humans will be resistant to today's HIV, but unfortunately HIV will evolve too. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

homo sapiens sapiens vs homo sapiens

Are there still living homo sapiens that cannot fit into the sapiens subspecies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.57.149.193 (talk • contribs).

No. And article talk pages are not for anything but discussing the article, not its topic. We're not here to do your homework. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not fruitful to be snarky to our contributers. Did it occur to you that the user might not have been able to find this information in the article, and wanted to add it? WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are still important here. (I'll assume you were just trying to be funny or were in a bad mood.) -- trlkly 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this article sometimes refers to modern humans as Homo sapiens when Homo sapiens sapiens would be more correct. Don't all behaviorally modern humans belong to the sapiens subspecies? This article suggests that behavioral modernity coincides with the rise of the sapiens species, when in fact it is more closely linked, I believe, to the sapiens subspecies. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Human Evolution

It was decided here to add dysgenics and eugenics to this page rather than the main human page. As I have said before, this article is on the entirety of Human Evolution, including what is occurring now. As far as I have seen, there are no references to human evolution occurring at this very moment. Otherwise the page should be known as Past Human Evolution. Evolution is a process which never stops and is still happening to humans, and to not include it is unforgiveable. Gold Nitrate 04:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics and dysgenics are not what is happening now, so at the very least the section is misnamed. Eugenics is certainly not happening, and dysgenics is only thought to be happening by a small minority of of people and is rejected by most evolutionary biologists. So giving it a section here is undue wieght. There is not a lot of material by evolutionary biologists on current human evolution, because evolutionary biologists know it is just wild speculation. There are a lot of wild speculation by people, somtimes who refer to themselves as futurists. But it is not a significant area of study, and like dysgenics, including too much info about it, more than a paragraph, will be undue weight. Brentt 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Brett, it has been decided on the said talk page, there are many reputable sources, and it is a balanced POV. There really isnt that much more to talk about Gold Nitrate 06:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But it hasn't been discussed on this talk page, and in any case much of the edit has nothing to do with evolution as such. --Michael Johnson 06:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont let this become an edit war. This page is a subset of the main Human page and discussions there pertain to this page. Gold Nitrate 15:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. If you want your racist pseudoscience in this article, you're going to have to convince the the regular editors here on this talk page. thanks. ornis (t) 16:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the talk page of human, I see that in fact there is no consensus to include this BS here, but consensus that it has no place in that article, with a couple of editors suggesting that you might try here. ornis (t) 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your the only one who seems to want it here. There is very little about evolution in the section, and the subject matter is only tangentially related to evolution. It appears that people at the "human" article just wanted to slough off the issue here to avoid dealing with it. I have a better idea, why don't you add the sections to the eugenics and dysgenics article eh? Again there are already articles on the subject matter. There is next to nothing known about "current human evolution". These are very controversial issues, and extreme minority viewpoints, while they do deserve mention in wikipedia, the info is not directly related enough to the current state of knowledge about human evolution to warrant mention here. Brentt 17:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a notable topic please find a review article published in the last ten years dealing with this topic. All I can find are articles dealing with muscular dysgenics, a disorder of muscular development. Tim Vickers 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Informal Vote about "Current Human Evolution" section

Lets have a informal vote about the section. Say Delete or Keep.

• Delete--there is nothing in the section about current human evolution, it is simply about eugenics and "dysgenics", which are very controversial and which most authorities discredit. If there are any widely held views on the state of current human evolution then it might be appropriate to have such a section, but as it stands the section is misnamed, and actually about a subject matter which already has several articles dedicated to it, articles which are only tagentially related to the actual state of knowledge of human evolution. (If there are any sources for any actual knowledge of where human evolution is supposedly heading, which I doubt since it is such a chaotic process, then they might be worth mentioning in such a section. But most evolutionary biologist wouldthat it is impossible to predict evolution, which leaves the speculation to a wide variety of people, most of whom are not experts in the field, who have contradicting views, none of which is itself popular enough to warrant mention in this article. ) Brentt 18:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• There is no need for a vote. Only one editor is trying to place this material in the article, without trying to gain any consensus. It is a nobrainer. Delete. --Michael Johnson 22:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes there is no need to vote on this, the consensus against inclusion on this fringe topic with no reliable, modern sources is overwhelming. Tim Vickers 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep I find it saddening that many of you who are poor scientists are unable to make a sensible logical argument either. You mean you're not going to vote because there isnt a need? With all due respect, it sounds like a bunch a ramblings between extreme liberal elements to me. For example, polls conducted show that one in five Americans are willing to marry across the color line. Mind you. This is a poll of all Americans, and White Americans are considerably less likely than blacks to say yes. Yet, miscegenation contains no negative references and all my attempts to bring a semblance of balance such as the inclusion of Bobby Cutts and Jessie Davis as a famous example of an interracial relationship, far more notable than any other on the page have brought only deletions. The point is simple. Articles should reflect what most people/scientists believe. Accordingly, evolution is occurring right now. The human species is not immune to the evolutionary processes that happens in every species. There is genetic variation in all species, and such is the main agent by which evolution acts on, humans notwithstanding. There is no information in the article about current human evolution. However, there are sources about it, including hundreds on related pages such as Race and intelligence and all its sub-articles and the point of view has been more than counterbalanced by anti-evolutionists. What that said, it is critical to add such a section to this page. Gold Nitrate 05:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you have agendas completely unrelated to Evolution. The degree of intermarriage between persons of different "races" in the United States, or indeed the opinions of US citizens about that topic, has no relevance to this article. --Michael Johnson 05:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is to show that all articles must reflect what the majority think. Gold Nitrate 06:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, all articles must reflect what the majority of reliable sources state. Tim Vickers 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll find a majority of people think that the corialis effect determines which way the water in thier sink, bathub, and toilet drains. Should the article on the corialis effect propagate that bit of misinformation since a majority of people believe it? Perhaps you want to add that "fact" there? Brentt 07:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Evolution happens on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years. The trends you are quoting are insignificant on an evolutionary scale. The majority of scientists do not believe that any of the trends existing today have any impact on human evolution, and indeed many scientists believe we've taken ourselves out of the evolutionary process with technology. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're quite wrong about the time scale. It can go slower or faster. This depends on selection pressure, protection of the genome (DNA repair, etc.), population size, generation length, and more. A real example of fast evolution is the fact that modern game animals tend to reach sexual maturity younger and have smaller horns/antlers than ones of years past. Another example would be dog breeds. We humans apply truly massive selection pressure to ourselves. Right now, we're selecting against all the people who find birth control to be useful and usable. We're selecting against all the people who enjoy food that causes heart disease and diabetes. 72.40.45.79 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad this section is gone. I also agree with "vote-schmote" below, this stuff doesn't belong even if a majority thinks it does. Reasonable-sounding but unfounded speculation is the bane of Wikipedia, and your comment is a perfect example. "We're selecting against all the people who enjoy food that causes heart disease and diabetes," you say. Two points. First, heart disease and diabetes generally kill people after they've already reproduced. Second, there may be any number (or no number) of other ongoing trends that completely swamp the ones you've thought of. That is why article material needs to be reliably sourced and topic-relevant, not just anyone's personal pontification.0nullbinary0 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• vote schmote no way, no how is this fringe nonsense even close to notable enough to warrant inclusion here. Take it to dysgenics... oh wait, that's where you copied it from in the first place. ornis (t) 15:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It has no place in this article. thx1138 05:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on "Libanus Africanus"

I've removed this until we can find sources on this topic. Tim Vickers 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC) "Libanus Africanus are nomadic and semi nomadic species which migrated from East Mediterranean Basin into Sub Sahran and West Africa. The ancestors of these species were hunter gatherers which later evolved into sedantry farmers and traders. The species are best known for its adabtabilites to different climatic zones and preference for bartering and trading with and other species. Libanus Africanus had distinct molars and mid-size brains as compared to the Homo Erectus, and made tools from stone and perhaps animal bones.

Origin of religion

I created an article origin of religion, that is based on recent findings in human evolution. The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. Looking for comments from anyone who has some knowledge on evolution. Muntuwandi 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Significant new support" for "dysgenics/race" section?

Please outline the new publications in this field. Links to the PubMed abstracts would be useful so include these if you can. Tim Vickers 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a mainstream view of the topic. Perhaps a link to dysgenics would be sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Savanna theory

Savanna theory looks like a coatrack for the aquatic ape hypothesis, and my human evolution isn't up to correcting it. Thought it might get good traffic from contributors over here. I'm having a look at AAH, but I thought the savanna theory was pretty big and the article is pretty small and light. WLU 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Until there is verifiable, reliable evidence that the AAT is the other main school, of the two main schools of thought on the origins of humans it's out, and I removed it:

There have been two main schools of thought about the factors that drove human evolution . The earlier theory, the Savannah Theory, first propounded by Raymond Dart, says that the arboreal existence was replaced by a move to the savannah for hunting animals, even though major adaptations occurred in human ancestors long before the savannahs existed. Several anthropologists, such as Bernard Wood, Kevin Hunt and Philip Tobias, have pronounced the Savannah Theory to be defunct. The other theory, which is still strongly disputed by many researchers, is the aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH). This asserts that wading, swimming and diving for food exerted a strong evolutionary effect on the ancestors of the genus Homo and is in part responsible for the split between the common ancestors of humans and other great apes. The AAH attempts to explain the large number of physical differences between humans and other apes including bipedalism, hairless skin, increased subcutaneous fat, descended larynx, vernix caseosa, greatly expanded brain size, a hooded nose which prevents water from entering the nostrils, and greasy skin with an abundance of sebaceous glands, which can be interpreted as a waterproofing device. There are several variants on the broad theme that early or proto-humans lived in close proximity to water, gathering much of their food in or near shallow bodies of water and developing and adapting new modes of locomotion in order to move and gather food such as wading, swimming, and diving. Specific fossil evidence for an aquatic ape has been difficult to find, possibly because the covering with sediment is the most common fossilisation process even for non-aquatic species and because changes in sea level have put much of the coastal habitat 100-120 meters below sea level.

The "evidence" and "references" provided, when checked, are either solely based on two works on the AAT, with no additional support in the scientific literature, are unrelated to the AAT, or, the first one I checked, doesn't exist except for this article and its derivatives all over the web. If you search for a term, get five hundred hits, then removed (-Wikipedia) the wiki from the hit lists and come back with zero, it's a rumor propagated by inefficient editing on Wikipedia. Until this rumor propagation, unsupported information, unreferenced information, and the basic premise, that it's the "second main theory of human origins," is supported well by evidence from peer-reviewed scientific literature, it's out.

--KP Botany (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place to gather human knowledge and ideas, provided that they are sourced. So I wonder why the standpoint of Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which is a valid hypothesis on human evolution and has relevent literature (scientific papers and books), cannot exist in this article about human evolution. Even the references are "solely based on two works on the AAT", is there any criteria of a Wikipedia article that accepts only mainstream theories with lots of literature? If "creationist theories" or "aliens/UFO theories" are rejected from this article, I can understand why (they are not scientific enough). But I consider AAH as a valid scientific hypothesis, I don't see any reason to entirely wipe out the above original paragraph.

I put back the paragraph and modified it, remove the claim as a "main school" because it is not widely recognized, and remove "savanna theory" because there is no such theory (or is it already accepted as a scientific fact?). I found there is no reason why we cannot include this paragraph. If you have, please discuss.

Chakazul (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

See "Undue weight": "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.

I also think that the paragraph about AAH is quite long compare to other models, given its less popular status. Let me shorten it to a brief mention.

Chakazul (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

References:

Human vs Ape Chromosomes RFC

I came to wikipedia looking for information and an explanation of the difference in human/ape chromosome numbers.

Specifically, I was looking for info as to how this could have occured and also how the change became fixed (since I assumed that a single mutation with a different number of chromosomes would not be able to breed with the general population).

I couldn't really find the information on wikipedia - I'm sure it's here somewhere, and there are individual bits of the story in various articles (e.g. Chromosome 2 (human)), but it would be nice to include something that specifically covered this issue - e.g:

• What occured (fusing of 2 chromosomes - evidence via comparison and telomares, centromares, etc.)
• When it occured
• How change was propogated (i.e. breeding between proto-humans with different number of chromosomes was possible and, via either luck or advantage, the reduced-chromosome carriers became dominant).

I'd be happy to try and draft something, but someone with a bit more scientific background might be better. I found a good article on this subject at http://thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229

Tomandlu 13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check out Human evolutionary genetics first. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really cover it - there's a link to the Chromosome 2 article, but no other reference in the article itself. Tomandlu 13:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're purely looking for an opinion, you could try at the reference desk. WLU 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An opinion from the reference desk? Not really - I'm just noting that, for this aspect of human/ape evolution, it is hard to find the relevant information in wikipedia, and I thought it worthy of inclusion. I'm not sure I'm the right person to make the edit, since I don't have the background and I'm not sure if this is the best article to include it in. Also, to be honest, the wikipedia-warfare that tends to congregate around evolution articles makes me reluctant to offer edits... Still, I'll give it a go and draft something up. Tomandlu 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know the chromosome number of the other homo genus members apart from H. sapiens? 81.159.82.167 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of human intelligence

In what article do these controversial theories regarding the evolution of human intelligence belong? See Evolutionary. The article where the theories are now is being proposed for deletion. --Jagz 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of tools

The first paragraph of the use of tools section seems to be highly speculative. Not uninteresting, but without references. Or is it just me? Tomandlu 23:26, 15 November 2007

That paragraph about tools aiding hunting and leading to larger brains was very interesting, so took the liberty of restoring it with a reference. Chris goulet (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some re-wording. Worth checking to see if it's still accurate, I did a significant amount of paraphrasing. WLU (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the information in the section is accurate. See the discussion under "Evolution of the human diet" above. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal Image

Since there is now some question as to if Neanderthal is an ancestor to modern humans, should the image near the top of the page be replaced? -- Cozret (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've a better image, go ahead. Another alternative might be to modify the caption. WLU (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The genus Homo

This "cognate virile and werewolf" information seems like someone included a private joke?

Following the link to werewolf we find: Etymology Late Old English werewulf, probably from wer ‘man’ + wulf ‘wolf’.

(mythology) A person who is transformed into a wolf or a wolflike human when there is a full moon.

I don't see a relation to gender male.

visitor W 20.12.2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.27.236 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted "werewolf." Relates to etymology, not human evolution. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparative osteology/anatomy

I've been unable to find any articles or diagrams about the comparative osteology or anatomy of the hominids. I would suggest that something of that nature should be present in this article. It would be interesting, and I think important, to see diagrams or some sort of written analyses of these forms in this article or another devoted to that particular topic - an article that brings together all the anatomical descriptions from individual wikipedia entries about different hominid genii/species within one article for an anatomical comparison, and describes which anatomical traits are present in H. sapiens sapiens. Skylarken (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Be sure to avoid any original research. WLU (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin belief vs. Creation myth

I changed the link at the top of the page from Origin belief to Creation myth. It was reverted and the reason given was that Origin belief was more acceptable. I'm not sure what exactly "more acceptable" means here, but creation myth seems to be the accepted term when searching. Together with the fact that origin belief is just a redirect to the creation myth article anyway, I'm really at a loss as to why this was reverted. Thanks. Ben 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Darwin

You know that sketch Darwin made that starts with a monkey and evolves through like six monkey-people into a human? Can get this on here? Is it already on Wiki? I'll check.Д narchistPig (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be such a good idea, as the intervening species are probably inaccurate. The only way I can think that would be useful is if it is contrasted to a modern recreation. -- trlkly 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The current evolutionary tree gives a much better idea of human evolution, since it does not imply a simple linear "progression", instead human evolution is like a large bush, with most of the branches now extinct. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Coon

Guettarda, it is not your job to determine whether or not Coon is reputable, it is the reader's decision. This is violating Wiki NPOV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view

The opponents of Coon such as Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin and Leonard Lieberman have never disproven craniofacial differences among ethnicities. The book was published when he was a member of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Can you provide a reputable source proving all ethnicities share the same craniofacial structure? You are making an assertion. Please provide a source.

GordonUS (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is well known that the theories behind cranofacial differences have been dismissed decades ago by regular science. It is outrageous to suggest otherwise.--Filll (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Filll. Coon is a source that is almost 50 years old. The notion that it would be at all reliable for modern day ideas about evolution is like using a a biology book from 1960 to talk about genetics. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, Coon's work has been broadly discredited, and not simply because he was a racist. Something that's both wrong and out of date doesn't belong in the article. Simple enough. Guettarda (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PMID 6935981 is a more modern publication on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem remains, what is a race in human terms? That can't be defined. So even Tim Vicker's suggested article requires a lot of serious assumptions, which may or may not be valid. Therefore, to apply PMID 6935981 to this article will require numerous other articles to support that one, and it will be a lot of OR. The coon article is not a reliable source, and I do not believe there is anything to support racial differences. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is more genetic variation among the "races" than between them. Case closed. JPotter (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Craniofacial differences has never been disproven. It has just fallen out of discussion because of Nazism. Please post a source proving ethnicities share the same skull shapes. This was covered by anthropology 40-50 years ago. Has evolution changed our skulls in the last 40 years?

Craniofacial difference does not necessarily mean race. I do not really believe in race, personally. While I understand Coon and the possible interpretation of race is emotional for many, we need to be objective.

Orange, you say you do not believe there is anything to support racial difference. The trained eye can very easily tell one's ethnicity. Again, I don't know if I believe in race but its an interesting fact to note.

GordonUS (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As PMID 6935981 demonstrates, most of the observed variation is due to geography, not race, so ascribing this to a genetic or social group (of whatever definition you choose) is unsupported. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The trained eye can very easily tell one's ethnicity.? Also sprach die Ubermenschen? Fuck off. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid cranofacial differences, or eyefolds, or nose shape, or skin color, or hair type, or body types, etc really are very minor distinguishing characteristics of human beings. And there are many examples of "race" or ethnic background that are not easily determined by appearance, and there are many disagreements about what constitutes a "race". Are the Aborigines the same race as the Ethiopians? The Dravidians? The Agta? The Aeta? Inuit? Lemba? In the modern world, with DNA and other advanced understanding, this sort of material is from a different age; obsolete and only of historical interest.--Filll (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Never been disproven? So because it's not disproven, it's proved? Shot info (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Statements backed by PMIDs >>> unsourced personal pet theories. Antelan^talk 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not expressing yourself clearly. Are you saying that statements that comply with our WP:V policy violate our W:NPOV policy? This makes no sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That was meant as a "much much greater than" sign. Read as, "Arguments backed by the scientific literature, such as those made by Tim Vickers, have greater merit than unsupported claims to the contrary." Antelan^talk 05:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah!! Not only did I misunderstand you; I agree with you a gazillion percent (gazillion >>> 100) Slrubenstein | Talk 08:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Entirely my fault for using nonstandard ("evolving?") symbols. Antelan^talk 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent human evolution

Human evolution isn't just about "the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species". Human evolution has come quite a way since Homo sapiens emerged, and diversity is a part of that. See for example the December 2007 paper Recent acceleration of human evolution, and articles on that paper in The New York Times and in The Sydney Morning Herald. Of course just because we cover diversity doesn't mean that the article should be turned over to "racial" nonsense, but I hope that the "controversy" isn't preventing us from covering the evolution of recent human diversity (most of which is totally unrelated to "race") in scientific terms.--Pharos (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a great article on this at the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences called 'Are Humans Still Evolving?'. We're really far behind on this - do we even have any articles which attempt to answer this? Richard001 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Homo Antecessor

When someone will decide to reconstruct some concepts in this article? Nature

Source?

"Current research has established that human beings are genetically highly homogenous, that is the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the Toba catastrophe." Any exact source? Professor Alan Templeton? Centrum99 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fossil Record/Comparative Table

I am pretty new to this whole discussion page thing so bear with me. I was wondering if anyone could find/cite the source for the fossil record column on the Comparative Table section since in my mind there is some debate about the reliability of the fossil record. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickbyfleet (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

see List of human evolution fossils there is some play in the age ranges for each species, but no major disagreements with the fossil record. Nowimnthing (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

I've just read this: http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html . Can it be put into the article? -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I further suggest adding this: http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/McKenna/Evolution/ , and maybe, more theories on human evolution, as the article seems too 'narrow-minded' -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also this: http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/4582.html -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For those not interested in reading the links, it appears that they posit a theory of linguistic evolution that was dependent on psilocybin-containing mushrooms. From one of those articles, In addition, because McKenna (who describes himself as "an explorer, not a scientist") is also a proponent of much wilder suppositions, such as his "Timewave Zero" theory, his more reasonable theories are usually disregarded by the very scientists whose informed criticism is crucial for their development. Probably not notable enough to merit inclusion, and the sources certainly aren't reliable enough. Antelan^talk 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

L Liberman and his view

There is somehow POV section devoted to only 2 authors. Some of L Liberman works [1]

He write a lot about races how 'this' affect his predisposition to compare scientific result in paleoanthropology? 71.201.241.2 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Leiberman-Jackson section could be condensed, and the subject of race should be expanded to include other points of view. More importantly, though, a true comparison of the Multiregional and Out of Africa models is called for. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Origins in Humanity in Cross-breeding discusses human evolution including cross-breeding between Chimpanzees and other early primates and should be merged into human evolution since human evolution can sufficently cover the topic. Suntag (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is nothing in Origins in Humanity in Cross-breeding that is of any value. The New York Times is not an academic journal, and unless there is actually a scientific paper about that subject, the article should be deleted. The only reason the article hasn't been deleted in its two years of existence is probably because it is uncategorized and no articles link to it (except this one, now that it has been proposed for merger), and so it went unnoticed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the link to the paper in Great Ape, where it was already described. I suggest deletion of the Origins article, which has close to zero content, and no references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. First the "Origins in ..." article is about a single hypothesis, and as such hardly has notability. Second the place to merge it would be in Hominidae (Great Ape), where this hypothesis already is mention in the section Great Ape#Evolution - so the better answer is to delete the Origins article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is also covered by Animal sexual behaviour#Other evidence of interspecies sexual activity and Humanzee. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Merge into Animal sexual behaviour#Other evidence of interspecies sexual activity instead. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added this to the Origins in Humanity in Cross-breeding talk page:

"I'd like to point out that the premise "Chimpanzees and other early primates" is misleading of the hypothesis. Chimpanzees as they are now (or bonobos) did not exist during the time in question. Chimpanzees, as well as human ascestors, continued to evolve after this coupling supposedly was happening. Chimpanzees did not become chimpanzees when they split with the human evolutionary line. They, like Homo sapiens ancestors, continued to evolve." --humanevolutiongeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to do it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw what you did, but there is still the element of so-called cross breeding that may in fact have had a hand in human evolution. does this need to be addressed? --humanevolutiongeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dominant view and weasel words

I would like to solicit some response regarding the merits of this edit. According to both articles recent African origin of modern humans and multiregional origin of modern humans, the RAO hypothesis is the dominant viewpoint. According to WP:WEIGHT, the article must present the dominant view as such. It should not give equal validity to alternative hypothesis; see WP:NPOV/FAQ. Also there is the problem of weasel words: "some consider..." This is clearly an attempt to cast doubt on a sentence which is, apparently, attributed to a mainstream textbook on the subject of human origins by Richard Leakey. I don't have access to the Leakey source, but if it truly does say "some consider", then we can go with that, preferably with a direct quote. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that MRH has enough supporters that it has to be included, but is definitely the minority view. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit doesn't ask for the MRH to be removed, only that the article should give the RAO more weight, as it is the dominant theory. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

History of paleoanthropology

Why is this section even here? This article isn't about paleoanthropology itself. Aurora sword (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gracile?

What is the meaning of gracile in this article? The link takes me to a disambiguation page, so I have no idea what it means. Could this be cleared up by someone in the know please? Thank you! Nonagonal Spider (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gracile is the English word that describes graceful-looking and slender animals. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable Humans

Shouldnt we include a section named "notable humans"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.12.11 (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to add that list to any article, let alone one on human evolution. Ben (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles on a species don't list notable members of the species, even when there are many examples. Even if we wanted to add such a list it would go into Human and not here. Hut 8.5 15:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead

The last sentence in lead is:

“ About 50,000 years ago, human technology and culture began to change more rapidly. ”

It will be good to provide a reference for this. It was Upper Paleolithic and technological advancement was achieved during Upper Paleolithic. But what does this sentence suggest? The sentence needs clarification which period it is talking about and on what basis it is saying "human technology and culture began to change more rapidly". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would say discovering fire, tools, clothing etc was a far greater change than anything since, so this needs a citation with attribution to who believes it (ie Anthropologist Foo said...). Otherwise it should be removed, as it seems like OR at the moment.Yobmod (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeframe inconsistencies

I'd like to invite the authors to review the time frames given in the page to make them consistent. Here are some inconsistencies that I've found:

(a) Homo habilis is said to have lived 2.4Mya to 1.4Mya in the graph, 2.2Mya to 1.2Mya in the table, and 2.6Mya in the "Stone Tools" section

(b) Homo sapiens is said to have evolved 0.2Mya in the graph and table, but 0.25Mya in the "Homo habilis" section, while the prolog describes archaic Homo sapiens 0.4Mya to 0.25Mya; as the 0.4Mya date in the prolog is not repeated anywhere else (and archaic Homo sapiens is referred by only in a passing way afterwards), the prolog ends up looking conflicting. Better stick to 0.2Mya (or 0.25Mya, whatever) in the prolog.

(c) Still on the issue of archaic Homo Sapiens (cited as having "evolved between 0.4Mya to 0.25Mya" in the prolog), it is also referred as an alias for Homo rhodesiensis, this one referred to having lived between 0.3Mya and 0.125Mya.

(d) Homo erectus is described as 1.8Mya to 0.2Mya in the graph, 1.8Mya to 0.07Mya in "Homo erectus" section, and 2.0Mya to 0.03Mya in the table.

(e) Homo neanderthalensis is described as 0.25Mya to 0.03Mya in the "Homo neanderthalensis" section and 0.35Mya to 0.03Mya in the table

(f) Back to the "Homo rhodensiensis" section, it says that archaic Homo sapiens is a designation of Homo rhodensiensis. That is incredibly confusing, as further research on the "archaic Homo sapiens" page in Wikipedia describes archaic Homo sapiens to be a somewhat undefined group rather than to Homo rhodesiensis in particular. Perhaps the paragraph should say that "Homo rhodesiensis" may belong to the group of archaic Homo sapiens?

Thanks in advance for any corrections! Cheers :^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.26.210 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Homo rudolfensis, Homo georgicus, Homo cepranensis, Homo antecessor

This article is overwhelming on the amount of information it gives all at once. I've been reading it up and down for 3 days already, and had to resort to side notes and additional research on the net to get my bearings back on what the articles tries to say. The problem is that it gives 13 different species of Homo all at once, including several speculative species, and leaves it up to the reader to digest it.

I'd say the human species need to be reorganized and introduce first the major branches: habilis, ergaster/erectus, heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis/sapiens and neanderthal. Describe them, so the casual reader knows the basic facts that are firmly established from major fossil remains.

After the firmly known facts, you start a new section and describe the speculations, single-remains, theories, unknowns and current discussions: rudolfensis, georgicus, cepranensis, antecessor and florensis. These are interesting species/subspecies/whatever and should be described, but to mix them in the middle of the well-known, major species is a mistake as that overwhelms and confuses the reader. Just my opinion.

Thank you ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.26.210 (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to be BOLD and start edited mercilessly. You might also like to consider creating an account, since there are many benefits in doing so. Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable human evolution researchers

Why is there this list? It's only a brit list. Why isn't there German, French, Italian etc other Europeans. You would think the brits were the only ones that did anything. - 217.42.103.198 (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're complaining that the list only has British scientists, then you suggest the only thing it's missing is other Europeans? What about non-Europeans? Anyway, the list isn't final, so feel free to add non-British scientists. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A theory on five critical events sequence that suggest a renewal in our understanding of our primate evolutive origins

This is the hyperlink -->>; the text seems a bit long to be copied here. Best regards. --Faustnh (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Um

Is there a place where I can complain and point out that evolution is a still-unproven theory? "Religious groups" (mainly Christianity) have proven just as much about the Bible to be true as scientists have regarding evolution. Yet this page seems to make evolution sound fully-proven, while the religious pages sound more like theories then what's agreeable. 67.65.58.46 (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Hut 8.5 10:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is a scientific proven fact. Have you read the article!? -_-

And.. Religious pages are based pure faith, in contrary to scientific pages (this one) which is based on knowledge and science ::procured by the scientific method. It's your choice wheter to believe or not believe evolution, just as you may choose to believe ::in the theory of gravitation, relativatation, quark theory and the big bang theory.. Pick and choose which does not fit with your ::*faith*?.. Uchiha Thγmφ (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble 67. Evolution is a proven fact (a fully proven fact) and has been plain obvious for decades, even more so in recent times thanks to great leaps in technology. Some people, however, are reluctant to consider this true, as they may believe that evolution contradicts their religious beliefs. When it comes to religion I am extremely tolerant, but one should always have an open mind and live by science once in a while. Through science we can experiment and apply evidence and henceforth, truth. --DarkKunai (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You can complain about it here, but many of us have addressed the issue before. Evolution is nearly universally regarded by scientists in a variety of fields as a proven fact. It is a "theory" in the scientific sense, as it is a unifying concept used to make sense of other facts and observations. But it is not a "theory" in the popular sense of the word (which often means an unproven or untested supposition). In science, theories give rise to propositions called "hypotheses," which are tested through experiments and observations in the real world. Over the last 150 years, evolutionary theory has given rise to many hypotheses, which when tested, have increased confidence in evolution to the point where it may be regarded as an established fact. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin. As paleontology progressed during the late 19th-century, many hypotheses about how species would evolve were tested and found to hold. Advances in genetics, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s, provided mechanisms for evolution that were unknown in Darwin's time. Subsequent developments, such as the discovery of DNA in the 1950s, and genome sequencing in the early 1990s have radically altered our understanding of how evolution occurs, but the fact that it does occur remains Darwin's great contribution to science. So, you see, statements that "evolution is an unproven theory" are contradicted by the scientific evidence, and have no place on a page concerning human evolution.--Digthepast (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates

The dates tend to clash with each other between the text and the table. The article says H. Erectus lived from 1.8 M to 70,000 years ago The table says 2 M to 3000 years ago It's like that for all of them :( Somebody fix it to be correct. (Or at least be in agreement of dates) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jxre (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit skirmish over a statement identified as POV

"The validity of evolution and the origins of humanity have often been a subject of great political and religious controversy within the non-scientific community"

The bolded phrase in the above sentence should be removed. This statement presumes that there has never been such a debate within the scientific community, that the controversy is endemic to the political and religious communities. In fact, the scientific community was divided on the issue for decades after On the Origin of Species was published. It wasn't until about the 1930s, with the modern evolutionary synthesis, that other ideas were quickly discarded.

This phrase is also phrased insensitively. The conceit of this statement is that the political and religious communities are part of the "non-scientific community", wholly self-enclosed, leaving the scientific community uninvolved with this matter, as though no one in the political and religious communities holds any science-based views or makes any science-based decisions. Granted, the bickering about evolution is infinitely stupid. And sure, many of them don't consult with scientists. But that doesn't mean no one from the scientific community is involved in these controversies. In reality, it is scientists and educators at the forefront of these controversies, challenging and questioning the conservative religious nuts who deny evolution. So while the scientific community does not question the validity of evolution, it is indeed involved in the controversy surrounding the matter.

I also commend Johnuniq on recognizing "The Wrong Version" when he sees it! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "The Wrong Version" applies to me (I'm not an admin protecting the page). I checked the page history and saw that the text quoted above has been in the article for several months, so it seemed reasonable to make one of the two reversions to restore the article to its stable state. I also believe that the stated reason for removing the text ("Just sticking to NPOV") is not applicable here (more on this below). I've now looked more closely, and it was this edit on 18 February 2007 that added "within the non-scientific community" with the edit summary "Added something to note that it's non-scientists who have issues with evolution and not scientists themselves".

When I read the sentence in question I cannot see the problems eloquently described above by Twas Now. Bear in mind that the article is about "Human evolution"; it's science from start to end. It is not about the history of scientific debate (although some major developments are described), and this article is not the place for the opinions of non-scientists on the origin of humans. I would be quite happy for the entire sentence to be removed on the basis that anyone who cares does not need to be told that creationists question the validity of evolution. However, it seems reasonable to link to an article dealing with the "controversy". But adding that link in a scientific article on human evolution requires that some words be used to clarify that the controversy discussed in the linked article is supported only by the non-scientific community (see WP:UNDUE; in particular, if including "non-scientific" is POV, it should be easy to provide a reliable source describing a scientist working in the field of human origins who believes evolution is "controversial" in the sense implied by creationists). Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole article reinforces that evolution is the scientific reality, which makes that last phrase seem somewhat smug. Even without that phrase, it should be clear that scientists don't question the validity of the basics of evolution. I also wonder why "within the non-scientific community" was used instead of "outside the scientific community". Whoever added this should contribute at Smugopedia. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We could delete the entire sentence. However, it has been in the article for a very long time. If we keep the sentence, we must keep the bolded text, otherwise it is miselading. I see no need to bring in subjecvtive feelings - smug, cringing, whatever. The sentence needs to be accurate - it is. It needs to comply with our core content policies - it does. The overwhelming majority of scientists - and virtually all biologists, which is really to the point - consider the theory of evolution to be as valid as all mainstream theories in physics; the facts of evolution are as uncontroversial as the fact that the the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. The only people I know of who claim to be scientists and claim to have significant doubts about evolution (say, more than one has doubts about the laws of thermodynamics) are people who also admit to wishing to further Christian ends, which they claim includes a rejection of evolution. There really is not any debate about this. If a consensus emerges to remove the sentence in its entirety I will not oppose it, but if the sentence stays, so does the bolded text. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If, as Johnuniq points out, this article concerns only the scientific aspects of human evolution, then there is no need to include the sentence in question at all. Among scientists, there is sometimes disagreement about the specifics, and the scope and nature of disagreement changes as scientific knowledge progresses, but overall, the sort of "controversy" envisioned by creationists does not exist within the scientific community.--Digthepast (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tishkoff et al.

A very interesting, comprehensive study of genetic variation just came out in Science.[2] Figures S2 C and S28-29[3] offer a surprisingly precise model of where humans arose in Africa. (The point of origin they mark isn't quite at ancestral Lake Makgadikgadi, of which the Okavango delta is a remnant with its famous wading Chacma baboons,[4] but the proximity to this environment seems interesting in the context of a much toned down version of the aquatic ape hypothesis for some superficial characteristics and behaviors) All speculation aside, I think this paper will have a strong influence on this article. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

neanderthals do not have any human DNA their a offspring apes like us but are NOT homo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.23.84 (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Call them Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, just don't call them late to dinner. See Homo (genus) for a helpful scorecard. I do wonder how many "human races" this region of seasonal extremes might have produced. Of course, this sort of a study of genetic variation in Homo erectus, Neanderthals, etc. would be more than a little more difficult... Mike Serfas (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)