Template talk:Human evolution

Horizontal/vertical

i see that this template is not fitting well in most articles

i think a horizontal instead of a vertical template would be nice

Mateuszica (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

ugly

I'm sorry, but this template is too ugly to place on every article. It's dominating the whole page. Maybe a template like Template:Mammals is better. Ucucha (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much in agreement! I've gone ahead and made the initial edit, both the vert -> horiz change, plus a few others. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

l

Two questions

1. Forgive my ignorance, but how can homo sapiens be a member of proto-humans?
2. Wouldn't it be better to title the box "Human taxonomy"?

Rich Farmbrough 14:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that really one question with a possible solution? *grins* Yes, I picked "proto-humans" a little rashly. However, "human taxonomy" is both inaccurate (our taxonomy is Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, etc.) and would really extend to the older species at the top of the box. I'm open to other suggestions. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And two more

1. What do we mean by "human" in this context?
2. What about H. s. idaltu etc?

Rich Farmbrough 14:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Which context? "proto-human" or "human evolution"? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Kenyanthropus platyops

I think that this would fit better in the australopithicenes rather than the proto-humans. 68.97.8.174 01:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

additions

I am thinking about adding some related links like Timeline of human evolution, Graphical timeline of human evolution and List of human fossils. To do so I would probably need to reorganize a bit, I also don't like how the first section doesn't get a header. I will post some alternatives here so people can comment. Nowimnthing 23:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowimnthing 00:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the series on Human Evolution

Hominini

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Orrorin tugenensis

Ardipithecus: A. kadabba A. ramidus

Australopithecines

Australopithecus : A. afarensis A. africanus A. anamensis A. bahrelghazali A. garhi

Paranthropus: P. aethiopicus P. boisei P. robustus

Humans and Proto-humans

Kenyanthropus platyops

Homo: H. antecessor H. habilis H. rudolfensis H. rhodesiensis H. cepranensis H. georgicus H. erectus H. ergaster H. heidelbergensis H. neanderthalensis H. floresiensis H. sapiens idaltu H. sapiens sapiens

Topics related to human evolution:

Timeline of human evolution

Graphical timeline of human evolution

List of human fossils

sidebar option, maybe I can reduce the text to make the bar a bit shorter Nowimnthing 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the sidebar, but now that I think about it, it won't work well on the species pages with taxoboxes. Nowimnthing 13:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Option 3

Part of the series on Human Evolution

	Hominini	Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Orrorin tugenensis
		Ardipithecus: A. kadabba - A. ramidus
	Australopithecines	Australopithecus : A. afarensis - A. africanus - A. anamensis - A. bahrelghazali - A. garhi
		Paranthropus: P. aethiopicus - P. boisei - P. robustus
	Humans and Proto-humans	Kenyanthropus platyops
		Homo: H. antecessor - H. habilis - H. rudolfensis - H. rhodesiensis - H. cepranensis - H. georgicus - H. erectus - H. ergaster - H. heidelbergensis - H. neanderthalensis - H. floresiensis - H. sapiens idaltu - H. sapiens sapiens
	Topics	Timeline of human evolution - Graphical timeline of human evolution - List of human fossils

---

option 4

Part of the series on Human Evolution

Hominini	Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Orrorin tugenensis
	Ardipithecus: A. kadabba - A. ramidus
Australopithecines	Australopithecus : A. afarensis - A. africanus - A. anamensis - A. bahrelghazali - A. garhi
	Paranthropus: P. aethiopicus - P. boisei - P. robustus
Humans and Proto-humans	Kenyanthropus platyops
	Homo: H. antecessor - H. habilis - H. rudolfensis - H. rhodesiensis - H. cepranensis - H. georgicus - H. erectus - H. ergaster - H. heidelbergensis - H. neanderthalensis - H. floresiensis - H. sapiens idaltu - H. sapiens sapiens
Topics	Timeline of human evolution - Graphical timeline of human evolution - List of human fossils

option 5 (adding subspecies)

Part of the series on Human Evolution

Hominini	Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Orrorin tugenensis
	Ardipithecus: A. kadabba - A. ramidus
Australopithecines	Australopithecus : A. afarensis - A. africanus - A. anamensis - A. bahrelghazali - A. garhi
	Paranthropus: P. aethiopicus - P. boisei - P. robustus
Humans and Proto-humans	Kenyanthropus platyops
	Homo: H. antecessor - H. habilis - H. rudolfensis - H. rhodesiensis - H. cepranensis - H. georgicus - H. ergaster - H. heidelbergensis - H. neanderthalensis - H. floresiensis H. erectus: H. e. palaeojavanicus - H. e. pekinensis - H. e. soloensis H. sapiens: H. s. idaltu - H. s. sapiens
Topics	Timeline of human evolution - Graphical timeline of human evolution - List of human fossils - Human evolutionary genetics

Since there is no comments, I guess I will be bold and try it out. Nowimnthing 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... I really don't like the "patchwork" options. Your first revision above is the best, although the sidebar is very nice, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It did feel a little clunky when I got it on the real pages. I am just going to update the other one for now and try to work on on wiki table markup skills. Nowimnthing 17:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Chimps

Okay, you people won't think its important, but we should the two species of chimps into the template. We could change it to Template:Hominini.--4444hhhh (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the chimps (Pan) have been added to this template. All the other linked pages relate to species which are either potential human ancestors (i.e the Australopithecines ) , or are actually of the homo genus i.e Homo floresiensis. Chimps are neither of these things. I know that the Panina are our closest living relatives, but that does not mean they are part of Human Evolution , the common ancestor of chimps and humans would be, but not the currently living members of Panina. Including chimps here seems misleading, as it suggests human's evolved from chimps, which is simply not true. Both Chimps and Humans evolved from our last common ancestor. If we continue to add further species based on evolving from the same common ancestor why not add the great apes, then the gibbons...and so on. It gets ridiculous. After all we share a common ancestor with every living thing if you go back far enough.

Any objections to removing these and the links from the Chimp pages? GameKeeper (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see how chimps and other great apes fit in because primatology usually falls under the umbrella of anthropology, but it doesn't really fall completely under human evolution. Both human evolution and primatology are sub disciplines of anth as is ethnography. I would support primatology under an anth template, but not on this one. They are more like closely overlapping areas than primatology being a subset of human evolution, which this seems to imply. Nowimnthing (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Pan links GameKeeper (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal controversy

I realize there is still controversy regarding the nomenclature for Neanderthal people. The present choices are:

1. H. neanderthalensis
2. H. s. neanderthalensis

Since the Neanderthal genome has been found in present-day humans, and since by definition of "species", only members of the same species can interbreed successfully, the second choice above is the correct one, or am I missing something? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not 100% clear if Neanderthals are a sub-species yet. The species definition is not that simple. TL565 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to discuss, not to revert my edit from the "status quo". Your argument is ambiguous and you appear to be careless about how it may affect your ability to edit Wikipedia. Rather than harp about edit wars and the 3RR policy, you have me curious about your response. There is no doubt in the sources about finding the Neanderthal genome in amongst the rest of our genes, and one definition of "species" covers the ability to reproduce itself. If, for example, an animal mates with another and produces offspring, but the offspring is infertile, then the parent animals are of a different species. Examples are lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, chimps and bonobos. Can you provide a source that shatters all that? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What makes your edit more important than mine? It is not widely accepted that neanderthals are a subspecies as it is still debated. Defining a species/subspecies is not that simple. You can't just come to the conclusion that it is a subspecies due to some sources saying they may have interbred. Even in the main article there is no definite classification. Until then, leave it as a separate species as it is the most accepted classification at this point. TL565 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question re: importance of your edit over mine; however, since I never said my edit was more important than your edit, that would be pointless. It's been over three years since the DNA evidence was found that was measured to definitively show that all modern humans with the exception of African people possess 1% - 4% Neanderthal genes. So there is no doubt that H. s. sapiens bred successfully with H. s. neanderthalensis. So if your argument holds up, then you should be able to point people to a reliable source where this is still debated. Same goes for your species-definition argument. Sure, there is much debate about the classic definition of species where bacteria, a few birds and mammals are concerned, and yet if this debate reaches the level of humans, genus Homo, then please point people to that one as well. We're not talking about defining any subspecies; we are talking about defining human subspecies, so please keep that in mind. Stop being so defensive and keep to the point, please. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing: your edit summary accused me of edit-warring against consensus. Please show me the discussion where this consensus was reached. I would like to AGF, but I don't take too kindly to your accusal. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 00:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source where Neanderthals are definitely a subspecies. You have not given any sources of your own. If it is so crystal clear that they are a subspecies, why does the main article give no definite classification? Also when I said against consensus, i meant that there was no consensus to change it to subspecies. TL565 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No consensus to change it to subspecies still implies past discussion(s). Where are these mysterious discussions that resulted in no consensus? There are sources that bring out that there had been interbreeding among H. s. sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans such as this interesting article, and since the sources all agree on the percentages, 1 - 4% of today's human genome is actually from the Neanderthals, there can be no doubt that some interbreeding took place before the Neanderthal genome disappeared altogether. I grant you that the taxonomic concept of a species may not always follow the classical reproductive definition, but it usually does. When the definition of species is examined, it is found that the meaning usually becomes exclusive when offspring are infertile, which implies that even some of those infertile matches may be considered to be from members of the same species. The offspring of sapiens and neanderthalensis would have to have been fertile to have left parts of their genome to be found in today's scientific studies. The Neanderthal article is still wishy-washy on this subject and should be changed to reflect recent findings. Wikipedia is sometimes slow to change. If we can get the lead changed to reflect recent studies, would that not convince you? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

None of these sources say anything about them being a subspecies due to the interbreeding. You are using the traditional simplified definition of "species" which is not the same in this case. In this case, we are talking about something that is long extinct and so closely related to us. It is obviously still being debated, shown in this article. There is even more recent studies that cast doubt on any interbreeding, such as this article. As for the Neanderthal article, the findings have been added to the lead, but that obviously is not enough as it is still classified as H. neanderthalensis in the info box. So what I'm saying is you can't simply come to the conclusion that they are a subspecies based on a few articles saying that there was evidence of interbreeding. TL565 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since you and I and the other contributors on both sides of this issue are probably not going to settle it here, let me suggest that we adhere to WP:MULTI and go to Talk:Neanderthal#Lead question to continue discussion. I've searched and can't find any consensus on this either way, but maybe there are others who have? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary Models

I've added a list of evolutionary models that are available in Wikipedia, also a list of topics (may include various models inside). ChakAzul (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Aquatic ape

I noticed that Aquatic ape hypothesis was part of it, but is also not mainstream (disproven). I wonder if it should remain, —PaleoNeonate – 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

H. e. palaeojavanicus

New studies place this species as Meganthropus palaeojavanicus, as a non-hominin hominid ape(and as I suspect, a pongine). Shouldn't H e. palaeojavanicus be taken off this template entirely, or placed in a different row? MrSpikesss (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Color vision to remove

Evolution of human colour vision has just been merged - and now redirects- to Evolution of color vision in primates. See the discussion. In a nutshell, there has been virtually no evolution of color vision in the last 30 million years. Therefore there is no evolution of human color vision just like there is no evolution of human Hemoglobin - a process that was "complete" prior to the existence of humans. Should it remain in this category as a redirect to the primate page or get removed completely? Curran919 (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)