Talk:Human evolution/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Future of human evolution

This would need to be addressed by an expert. I think it would be a good addition to this page to have theories or popular hypotheses about the future of human evolution. The obvious problem may be a plethora of opposing opinions, but if anyone can find a bit of solidarity among the researchers, it would be a good addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091124-origin-of-species-150-darwin-human-evolution.html72.187.99.79 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no scientific theories about the future evolution of humans, absolutely none at all. Science requires evidence, and publication in reputable scientific journals. The purpose of this article is to summarise the present state of scientific knowledge about our evolutionary past. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is an link to a publication about the future of women's evolution inside the national geographic article I linked to. That sort of undermines what you said in my view. Do you agree? A scientist publishing future of human evolution materials leads me to think it is science. As for the purpose of this article, the title is human evolution. Besides that, I see no indication of 'the purpose of this article.' So, I have to say the purpose is human evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

While the page should be about the theories relating to the observed evolution of humans, there might be a place to link to theories that relate to either ongoing processes of evolution although it is a sensitive and generally poorly researched area.Ninahexan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

One reason it's poorly researched is it's very hard to predict in advance how species will evolve. There are too many unknown variables. thx1138 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know, though people still try. Much of the research being done centres on resistance to pathogens, the expression of genes and cortical evolution.Ninahexan (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is incomplete without this section. - Ewigekrieg (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

New information on phylogenetic relationships

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001342 A. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

See also...

The 'See also' section is now of quite ridiculous length, and contains pages of little relevance. I propose to cut it down as per rule: if it's not about biological evolution of humans, out it goes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate the "see also" sections of almost every article. They become a wastebin for any link that is even peripherally related. I'll be shocked if Planet of the Apes isn't one of the links. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Info on Physical Characteristics Needed

This article seems very short on physical characteristics of homo erectus and other alleged human ancestors. Not very convincing. 71.177.132.170 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Tom Snyder.

Alleged? Well your point of view is clear. But I'll play along. What do you mean? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is information on physical characteristics of homo erectus at the homo erectus page. thx1138 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Current trends in human evolution"

The discussion here may be of interest to those who watch this page. Rivertorch (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is Homo floresiensis

The "Hobbit" of Flores is not included in the phylogenic tree. Why is this - it needs updating. John D. Croft (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Homo floriensis is listed in the excellent "Comparative table of Homo species". The chart is a graphic and so is changed less often. In any event, the hobbit's place in the evolutionary tree is uncertain at present, except so far as being a member of the genus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Refs on 'Out of Africa'

I wanted to give a brief report on refs 5,6,7,8,9 supporting the intro statement that 'OOA' is the dominant view. Ref #5 is a useful and competent survey; ref #8 is by a top-level expert palaeoanthropologist, and well worth reading. Both clearly support the view expressed in the sentence. Unfortunately both refs 6 and 7 are not free access, except for readers covered by an institutional or personal subscription. They don't even provide abstracts. Ref #9 is worthless trivia.

I think refs which do not provide at least abstracts free are to be deprecated. We should try & find replacements from sources which are more accessible, such as from PNAS and Proc Roy Soc B.

Another point is that Smackbot keeps flagging this one saying 'build p609'. I have not the faintest idea what this means, but bots should keep the hell out of this while humans sort it out! Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• #8 was a 10 yer old (May 13 2001). How you can equal "most hotly debated issues" to "dominant view..is". Did you skip phrases : "For the moment, ", "The current best explanation" ... (curent only 10 yers ago)

Agree - i just added ref #5 (was hopping its 2011 date would help the [Citation needed] from being added again) and also agree ref #8 is good - as for the rest do we even need them regardless of there content since we have 5 and 8 now ?Moxy (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is, on which page, exist the phrase "the dominant view...is" in relation of this recent human replacement? The #5 point to page #36 which is about "Widely accepted view" but timeframe around .9-.8 Ma not .1-.055 Ma. It may hepl if you just quote, since is dificult to gues 1 what you reding, 2 how you interpret what you reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On the next page one can read, (about years 89-92) "althought the out-of-Africa gained tremendous - 'in our judge higly undeserved - support" ; "Jurnalism-driven science.. Unprofesional handling of the fosil speciments ... is discredited to "paleopoesy" and looses in credibility ... para-scientific tretment"; "garden of Eden" . How you can (if you bother to read the other page) misunderstand it as "the dominant view ..is" ? Can you compromize to use word "was" insted of "is" for past and not true ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok what is the problem ? - we have added no less then 5 refs - what would you like the worded to be? "predominate" instead of the dominant view? Its clear that "Widely accepted view" and "higly undeserved - support" indicates its the predominate - but has problems in its current infant state. SO what do you propose we say? - or do you simply belief the whole consecpt is wrong to begin with?Moxy (talk)

• in #5 in conclusions: "After 25 years of heated discussion Brauer's RAOM aproaches the MRE" - either you are not able or unviling to understand source you .. necessarey to say misquoted. You asking "what is the problem"?

On chat this links it will be spam flooding, but what the puropse is here? 99.90.197.244(talk)

So you agree that even the book about Neanderthal discoveries says - the higly undeserved - support and Widely accepted view - thus meaning they agree its the main view even thought they disagree with it as you have pointed out. Do you have any references that describe the two theories with equal weight or that MRE has surpassed Out of Africa? I have seen a few papers (DNA) suggesting that findings may indicate this - however have not seen an overall shift in views to this affect as the findings seem to be inconclusive.

• Human evolution: an illustrated introduction 2005 "the out of Africa is still the most strongly favored, with little or no suppor for the MRE"
  
• Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity: phonological papers.. 2008 -The currently dominant view of evolution assumes that modern humans evolved in Africa appox 200,000-100,000.
  
• A new history of anthropology 2009 - "The multiregional model has also been discredited...."
  
• Asian Paleoanthropology: From Africa to China and Beyond...2010 - "Although the "Out of Africa I" model is widely accepted ....."
• Out of Chaos: Evolution from the Big Bang to Human Intellect 2011 - The more likely and generally accepted out of Africa model indicates modern human ...]

Moxy (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"So you agree that even the book"...

It is not about you or me agree heere. Did you saw/read what is just before your qoute: the contextual timeframe '89-92'. If you ask "do you agree that even the book about Neanderthal discoveries says - the higly undeserved - support' and Widely accepted view - thus meaning they agree its the main view"... And understaning its as it is the anwer is NO 'its or it is' are false beter use word 'WAS'.

You can't take direct qoute qoute form:page261 disregarding the when was it writen and how sourced. Sourced on papers from 1997,1997 1997,2000; p 262 on 2002,2000,1992,1992. Do you see this inconsistency? Did you note what is the date of this book ? did you noted (puting date 2008) that beside is 6 year old (2005) it mseem to be older reprint. No one should agree to methds where chronological disorder replace total order. Methodoligicaly if you like to save my time just put few more words befor cuting elipsis or put line# & page in source. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

ps:

Short yes/no answer to question - the answer is no.

I have proven my point above by books from 2005 - 2011 - I see you have been reverted again and again and again and have not provided any refs- I have reported your unwillingness to talk before you act at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:99.90.197.244 reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Y because many editors have voiced a concern ovre your actions here. Moxy (talk)

As per Moxy qoute: "So you agree that even the book about Neanderthal discoveries says - the higly undeserved - support and Widely accepted view - thus meaning they agree its the main view"... i adding the two beginning higlighted words. (About proven:) now you can prove the words do not exist in citation, you yourself pointed to. Do you agree when citation has string "not exist" but one 'quoted partialy' as "exist" whithouth the word not one commit an act of misquoting? 99.90.197.244 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

semiprotected

I have semiprotected the article for three days, instead of blocking the IP - the result is the same. IP you can't revert 10 times like that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not the same results at all - not sure this is sending a message that his behaviour is wrong. 10 reverts is way over the top for anyone, Moxy (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are we covering the multiregional hypothesis at all? There's only one scholar cited to support it, which makes it nothing more than a fringe viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

far more than one scholar supports it. it is very much a minority view, but if you think we should remove these from articles you are opposing NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree - we need to mention both - as they are both still researched.Moxy (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How you get the statistics what minor what major? Did you consider whch conception is contradicted by fact which is not? Which hypothesis stay in original form which has to change ... how many out of Africa version exist? Why? First was not good, second was also ..e.t.c. Multiregional evolution theory hold ground and was not yet contradicted. all partial admixture are in fact MRE even if for political/pr resons caled othervise African. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Leadwind you reverted to version misqouting source. Also you left two sentences contradicting out African replacement hypothesis (those about genetic exchange). If you hoped to "rm .. viewpoint from lead". You should remove those sentences to. Do you know what view they support (the % of mixed genes). 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ps. I had to communicate outside idea: that you may get it, that the word recent in recent African replacement mean this is more more valid, deminant view, becouse it mean more current (mean recent) hipothesis. Is it true :?

The evidence indicates the evolution of modern humans in Africa, with anatomically modern humans 200KYA, behaviorally modern humans 50KYA to 100KYA, an exodus from Africa by a small portion of the modern human population 50KYA, and limited hybridization with soon-to-be extinct human populations (Neanderthals and Denisovans). That's not the multiregional hypothesis. That's the out-of-Africa hypothesis with limited, local hybridization. Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So what? Why write this? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say, is unknown how old he are... but if you say when your parents hybridized to brought you to this world, substracting 9 months may give quite acurate answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 citation

1 genus Homo is still highly controversial. In spite of obvious major advances concerning the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the fossil specimens there currently remain unbridgeable disagreements concerning the origin, speciation and dispersal of our genus. The polarized positions result foremost from different methodological approaches for species recognition (e.g., Tattersall 1986; Wolpoff and Caspari 1997; Schwartz 2000a; Wiesemüller et al. 2003; Jobling et al. 2004; Rothe and Henke 2006). Beside the Multiregional Evolutionary Model (MRE) there are different Recent African Origin Models (RAOMs) with varying numbers of speciation.

2 Neanderthal extinction is still under debate and there are two main schools of thought on this topic: (1) Neanderthals and modern humans are two distinct species and (2) Neanderthals and modern humans are a single species, with or without two subspecies. Recently, a new hypothesis has risen up, which takes into account arguments from both schools: the Neanderthal speciation by distance (i.e. Voisin 2006c).

3...late Nenderthals and early modern Europeans and have suggested that the former evidence indicates genetic exchange betwen these populations.

4 4Восточная и Юго-Восточная Азия была заселена, видимо, ок. 1,8 - 1,6 млн. л.н. двумя миграционными потоками архантропов с оддувайской индустрией и нижнепалеолитической микроиндустрией [Деревянко, 2009]. С первоначального заселения и вплоть до 30 тыс. л.н. на этой территории индустрии развивались преимущественно на автохтонной основе. (mainly in the autochthonous basis)

5The proximal type, which was observed in Anatolian populations with high frequency, was attributed to Europeans (Hanihara and Ishida, 2001; Jidoi et al., 2000). Proximal type of MHB is often observed in the Neandertals (Smith, 1978, Jidoi et al., 2000). Thorne and Wolpoff (1992) regard MHB as one of the characteristics, based on relatively high fre- quencies of this trait in upper Paleolithic and recent Europeans that form the morpho- logical basis of the multiregional model for the origin of anatomically modern humans in western Eurasia

6..."experimental discovery of Green et al that present day non-Africans have 1 to 4% of their nuclear DNA of Neandertal origin"

The question of whether all of us, living humans, descend exclusively from an anatomically modern African population which completely replaced archaic populations in other continents, ... known as Out of Africa model, .. The latter, known as Multiregional model, on the contrary, has been more supported by morphological studies [25], but recently it has also been found consistent with genetic data [23].

Could list thousands of studies that support both - whats is better and harder (like i did above) is to use refs that compare the different scenarios and there current state. Like with --> World history encyclopedia. Also not sure that its a good idea to base the whole Multiregional model on simply the Neandertal DNA data. Reading over the multiregional model article i see that great weight is given to the Neandertal DNA data - that has been interpreted in many different ways. All this said i will let others talk from now on as i see from above some think that multiregional model should not be mentioned at all (i disagree with this and think they both should be mentioned) Moxy (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

a1 You wrote not sure that its a good idea to base the whole Multiregional model on simply the Neandertal DNA data."

You wrote it just below sentence: Multiregional model, on the contrary, has been more supported by morphological studies [25], but recently it has also been found consistent with genetic data [23].

Could you see that you assertion is false ? Do you know what mean morphological. You didnt perhaps read the article since there is more broad qoute

Out of Africa model, is based mainly on genetic evidence [2] further supported by paleontological [22] and archaeological ndings [14]. The latter, known as Multiregional model, on the contrary, has been more supported by morphological studies [25], but recently it as also been found consistent with genetic data [23]

If you want to dismiss genetic data know: "Out of Africa model, is based mainly on genetic "

a2"different scenarios and there current state. Like with --> World history encyclopedia" < this source do not have online citations. It may be not walid for WPWER. Read another more proffesional paper of author of the source you like; [Willoughby, Pamela R][1] , page 84. She is concern about time gap : The "failure" of Midle Paleolitic/MSA Africans to become behaviorally modern as soon as they became anotomically modern is either a key research question or a remnant of the priority ....... why is there such gap between anatopmical modernity and the onset of this Upper Paleolitic behavioral modernity."(one page before) .. She consider FOXP2 but it was then (in 2005) unknow FOXP2 is present in Neanderthal aDNA (discovery November 2008) and possibly interogested from them. Actually her key question is now explained in MRE and contradict OAReplacement before 50 ka.

a3 "Could list thousands of studies that support both" < show just one contradicting MRE (or easier, show proving AOReplacemnt in timeframe as in wp.article, from 2011 in scientific journals) 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a problem here

Is a problem here to misqoute a source? Is a problem here to threat a force to misqouted thesis enforce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

M Eve, Y Adam, MRCA, and identical ancestors point

We mention M Eve, but only in the out-of-Africa section. I'd like to see a section devoted to our common ancestors. The section would cover Mitochondrial Eve, Y-Chromosome Adam, the Most Recent Common Ancestor, and the identical ancestors point. Leadwind (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You added this citation request. If you red (with understanding) evolutionary species definition the sentence should be clear enought. But if you elaborate why this is not clear or whathever, or anyway need citations ... "hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected" (p < 10⁻¹⁷).99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're off-topic, but OK. The abstract refers to out-of-Africa migrations, and not to multiregional evolution. It says that modern humans evolved in Africa. If this paper actually confirms MRE, could we see a quote? Leadwind (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree of topic but is not a place to write epic story Adam hybridized with Eveor she stil husband of Lilith. But in oftopic meritum:

1 "The abstract refers to out-of-Africa migrations" Can you confirm is also about migration around a million year ago?

2 ^^^^^ What prohibit you to read down the article or use CTL+F to serch for string "multiregional" ?

3 "If this paper actually confirms..could we see a quote?" < Most important in science 'hpothesis are rejected not proved or confirmed. You schould read abot scientific method. Good starting point will be Scientific_method#Certainty_and_myth and this hopfully may conclude this topic about jelous myths you started to inject here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

unwillingness or something else?

Leadwind put comment "cited text does not say that out-of-Africa is contradicted, only total Eurasian replacement".

Below is continius excerpt form cited paper: ..."and that hypotheses must be tested. One hypothesis about recent human evolution was the out-of-Africa replacement hypothesis, in which anatomically modern humans arose first in Africa, then expanded out-of-Africa as a new type (or even species) of humans, and drove the older \type" of humans found on the Eurasian continent to total genetic extinction. The early work on mtDNA haplotype trees was often presented as proof of this hypothesis, but there was no effort to test the replacement hypothesis vs. alternatives with the mtDNA (Templeton, 1994). With multilocus data sets, the hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected (P < 10-¹⁷). Thus, the hypothesis of total replacement can no longer be regarded as tenable."

Leadwind just see this "the hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected" but something is blind to see text few lines above located on the same page in the same column. Leadwindis folowed by Moxy after Ohnoitsjamie. When bot or bot user action may be somehow reasoned ... what else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I read this twice. I have no clue what you're saying. I'm guessing that English isn't your first language, so make it easy on us, ask a question. If you're here to rant, no one will be interested. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The question to Orangemarlin may be: what do you not understand? Did you get a clue: the text above is quotation from scientific publication? Here on page 56 you can red it twice again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point i am simply not sure what to do. He just keeps repeating himself over and over with the "P < 10-17" data and now is even deleting the link to multiregional hypothesis in the lead. I see this as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and believe i will be reporting this if he does not stop this.Moxy (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"He ...now is even deleting the link to multiregional hypothesis in the lead" < it is not true; the link to multiregional evolution was deleted by Leadwind . He also deleted it on May 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be better to pay attention to your edits then because you have removed it.Moxy (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"because you have removed it" < again not true. Anyone who is looking, schould see there the link to multiregional hypothesis was not removed. Would be better to pay attention to your edits and do not misrepresent the truth. The repeated patern of false stetments may not indicate a random coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted him too. The problem with individuals who are opposed to the "Out of Africa" theory (not a hypothesis) are usually linked to white supremacists in the US. I have no clue as to whether the IP is or isn't representing a POV, because I really never understand what he/she is saying???? I'm glad I'm not the only one.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The many passages by unregistered user 99.90.197.244 are blog-like rants, and almost completely incomprehensible. His/their changes to the text have been rejected, and we should not tolerate more from him. Go right ahead and report him. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a note with Casliber, since he has warned the IP previously. Right now, I'm going with WP:SHUN. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer to title question: aparently argumentum ad hominem show its something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

At least 4 editors have no clue what you're saying. That usually means the one who's making the claims has an issue. And learn to sign your posts. It's not that hard.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement that "the problem with individuals who are opposed to the "Out of Africa" theory (not a hypothesis) are usually linked to white supremacists in the US" is nonsense. Regional continuity does NOT imply that there is anything special about whites. In fact, one reason to be opposed to "Out of Africa" is that replacement implies ruthless competition, see cooperative eye hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.201.122 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of Africa hypothesis vs Multiregional hypothesis

Looking for input on a content dispute about if the "Out of Africa" is still the predominate view held by the scientific community. The article currently (and stable over many years) holds to the fact that "Out of Africa " is the "dominant view". Pls see above for latest talk that has led to this. Main reason i am here is we have and edit war going on that needs to be resolved and so we have a definitive talk we can point to over this matter that keeps comming up. Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Support current wording

Support current wording - as i simply don't see the evidence that the community has changed its views as per bellow.Moxy (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Human evolution: an illustrated introduction 2005 "the out of Africa is still the most strongly favored, with little or no suppor for the MRE" Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity: phonological papers.. 2008 -The currently dominant view of evolution assumes that modern humans evolved in Africa appox 200,000-100,000. A new history of anthropology 2009 - "The multiregional model has also been discredited...." Asian Paleoanthropology: From Africa to China and Beyond...2010 - "Although the "Out of Africa I" model is widely accepted ....." Out of Chaos: Evolution from the Big Bang to Human Intellect 2011 - The more likely and generally accepted out of Africa model indicates modern human ...] Moxy there are numerous meritoric allegations to your edits in previus disscusion. Show one just one, one you cleared out. In last your edition you again misqouted source, adding unexisted word to qoute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC) You keep saying this ...but no one is quoting anyone!!! DO you see any quotes on the text? What do you mean? Moxy (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC) The red word > "However" <- is this word linked to your edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC) I've asked to have the IP indefinitely blocked. This is tendentious editing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Orangemarlin your out of subject statment has been moved down to make space for Moxy. This may be symptomatic, to see if he can admit, he added into "qouted citation" a word not existing in source. Sory for inconvinience, but if you must cover it again. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC) OOOOO i see what your saying now! I have fixed it i think - did not realizes you were copy and pasting the info directly from the source (As i am having trouble understanding your comments and edits)- I have made it so the quote is seen as a quote as done here. So your all done then ???? Moxy (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 'O...'+ Ok good, small plus, now we see you can see. "I have fixed it i think -did not realizes you were copy and pasting the info directly from the source " not good - Leadwind were copy the info 'almost' directly from the source. "I have fixed it i think -" 2 You did not... is still misqouted. Think more. You changed your statment 7 times(1234567) and it is still false stetment. The qoute, you 'think', you fixed is 7 hundred by quadrillion times erroneus, but more precisely, by definition - imply complete nonsense. You say: 'having trouble understanding' ... so hang on simpler subject the education take time. If you try ask; perhaps somebody may help - but you resorted to agression.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2011 ????????Moxy (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I'm here due to the RfC. To the question of whether the "Out of Africa" hypothesis is still dominant in the scientific community the answer is yes. I don't have any sources, I just have the experience of talking with colleagues who all agree the other hypothesis do not explain the current data. I think there is plenty of RS out there, but this question was more about what researchers think about what has been published, something far more difficult to document or source. So this is my professional opinion on the subject. Asinthior (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC) RFC as well. My strictly amateur reading on the matter suggests that OOA is the dominant paradigm (always wanted to use that phrase) and that other theories are measured against it. Also http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html Greglocock (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Which one? since there exist many OoA models. Do you persuade rejected hipothesis, are in your science, tenable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2011 Why should we respond to someone who can't sign. No one is supporting your edits, not one single editor. Why don't you find something different to pursue around here. And please learn to sign your edits on the talk space. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC) sign boot terminated with nonzero exit code , now should work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:47 UTC 2011 Support current wording. Gerardw (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support current wording. And Moxy, there's not a content dispute, it's one Anonymous IP who refuses to even sign his name engaging in 8RR, getting blocked twice. And refuses to provide ANY reliable sources that state there is a new scientific consensus. But if this stops this annoying dispute, I'm all for it. There's nothing here. Even two uninvolved editors say "there's nothing here." BTW...what RFC? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC) This Out of Africa being predominate vs the Multiregional "hypothesis" keeps coming up (as i am sure your aware of besides this IP) - so was thinking time to have a "new" talk with a few outsiders, thus making sure all is ok with the "current" wording (implemented in 2006) - Having a nice "NEW 2011" talk while "showing new refs" is something we all can point to for the next time this comes up - thus solving some of this repetitiveness we have to deal with.Moxy (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support current wording. And this discussion has gone way past its usefulness. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Comment I agree this RfC has probably served its purpose. i just want to register that while I agree completely that OOA is the dominant theory, paleoanthropologists still take the multi-regional hypothesis as a serious scientific hypothesis. I am not arguing for a change in language; I am arguing only against anyone who argues that the article must take one position. NPOV requires us to present all significant views, in context. That means making clear that OOA is the mainstream view, and also making clear that MRH is still considered and debated. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The competavoidor model.

The competavoidor model of the evolution into modern humans are based on the observation that apes cooperate well and are altruistic in situations without interest conflict but are selfish and cannot cooperate in situations with interest conflict, as shown by experiments in "Human Ape". It holds that modern humans evolved because prehumans avoided to compete against each other. It is empirically supported by the fact that the oldest evidence of care for sick and disabled (Dmanisi), are from Asia shortly after prehumans first left Africa. Support for the long period of no rivalry required for the model to work are provided by studies that show that early humans actually avoided overpopulation constantly as opposed to being decimated by bottleneck events (1 Million Years B.C.: Humans Rare). Because it implies that early humans successfully avoided competition against each other, it is at odds with the Recent African Origin model, which claims that modern humans evolved only in Africa and outcompeted other early humans. But the Recent African Origin claim that all modern humans must have a recent common origin, based on DNA studies that show that different "races" are similar enough genetically to cast doubts on the very justification of the word "race", also assumes that most of human evolution were based on non-repeatable mutations, a assumption that is undermined by the discovery that the chimpanzee genome is 10% longer than the human genome (medicine.jrank.org: Molecular Anthropology: Caveats About Sequence Comparisons), proving that much of human evolution were loss of DNA, which means that apparently "common ancestor" mutations may indeed be parallel, because the traces of the details of how the mutations happened, which is normally used to distinguish parallel mutations from common ancestor ones, are of course lost if the mutation is just a loss of DNA. The competavoidor model predict that the first proto-humans to leave Africa were the first to successfully avoid competition and that those who stayed in Africa had to wait until sufficient numbers of proto-humans had left Africa to end competition over resources and territory in Africa as well. Since trust was certainly crucial for the origin of storytelling (what is the point in telling stories if everyone thinks you are lying?) and competition causes motifs for deception and necessiates distrust, the descendants of the first proto-humans to leave Africa should be most adapted to storytelling, while africans should be least adapted to storytelling. That humans outlive reproductive years are of course an adaptation to teaching knowledge to following generations, and research on race and cardiovascular disease show that people of african descent are more susceptible to cardiovascular disease than people of european descent, who in turn are more susceptible to cardiovascular disease than people of east asian descent. The model explains the greater genetic diversity among africans with that they, because they had least time to adapt to storytelling, archaic DNA that has been eliminated in other populations still survive among them, but because the gap is fairly small, the lack of those archaic DNA bits is also fairly common, generating lots of individual variation. According to the competavoidor model, it is logical that the first proto-humans to leave Africa ended up in East Asia, which is also supported by the age of proto-human fossils there. That some people have 1-4% neanderthal DNA show that different populations of early humans were not fully isolated from each other, and the lack of mitochondrial and y-chromosome evidence for such admixture show that one type of mitochondria or y-chromosome can become the only one in a mixed population. This opens the possibility that a mitochondrial or y-chromosomal form spread from one (proto)-human population to another and be fixated in it as well, just like any gene can. There is evidence that neanderthals during ice ages starved and had to eat each other, which caused temporary competition among neanderthaloids during ice ages, halting their storytelling evolution in several periods. There is dispute among geneticists about when neanderthaloids became their own lineage, ranging from merely 325000 years to almost a million, and that disagreement fits with the theory that some parallelism occured during certain periods (possibly in the breaks between the famines). Recent studies show that humans are more diverse in some parts of the genome than thought, and even Toba eruption theorists reluctantly concede that some of human genetic diversity is as old as 2 million years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.95.1 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Larger brains because of ability to cook

There was an article What's cooking? in The Economist (19th Feb 2009) that discussed an idea by Richard Wrangham of Harvard University of why humans can afford the extra energy cost of a large brain. It suggested that early humans discovered fire and started to cook food before reaching the peak of their brain size, and this was the cause rather than the effect of brain expansion. The reason being that cooked food is much easier to digest, so once humans started cooking they suddenly a significantly larger amount of energy to use from the same amount of food.

Considering that the "Use of tools" section starts by discussing the brain, and has a picture of a fire, I was rather expecting to see this theory discussed, if only to be discredited. If anyone knows anything about this theory, I think it would make a great addition to that section. If nothing else, the use of fire and especially cooking needs more mention than in a picture caption. Quietbritishjim (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on that topic is Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. There has been some back-and-forth at that article where there has been, in my opinion, a somewhat over enthusiastic desire to point out defects in the hypothesis, to the extent that at times it has been hard to see from the article just what Wrangham's hypothesis was (I haven't read it for a while, so I'm not sure of its current state). Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing information - Out of Africa Vs Multiregional

I've been studying this lately for a dissertation and what I've been led to believe doesn't seem to marry with alot of the information here.

The entire section on Brain development seems to ignore the importance of pleistocene climatic variation. Current consensus is that homo sapiens evolution is almost completely climate driven, the development of bipedalism was a reaction to climatic conditions that necessitated a) walking upright to save energy / stay off sun and to migrate away from forests (this was why most of previous ape species died so quickly). Use of tools developed considerably after this.

This was Leakeys Big Brain theory which is arguably of massive importance to the debate. Theres a special edition of Journal of Quaternary Science about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.8.34 (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

misquotation

• The 'closed - support' to current wording... it is a support to misquoted citation. The numeric value is misqouted 7 hundred quadrillion times.

Is a shame to support misquotation, but we are still hoping is only due to insufficient precision in knowledge. We want to correct the quote, but being threatened here and blocked asking (forth time in row) the wiki activist's : do you allow us to to correct the article text ? 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the wording of the quote in ref #9, and I absolutely guarantee it is identical with the text in the abstract to the published paper. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You can check but you can guarantee because is wrong. It is numerically erroneous 7 hundred quadrillion times . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Is still wrong after month elapsed. This looks like intentional disinformation and is easy correlate where spread pandemic of genofobia and who benefit from spreading lie.

The above guaranty was face valued. How can argue about nonsense value?

     10(-17)= 10 - 17 = -7 

The value -7 is nonsense. Probability take value in range [0:1] . Just typing may give correct result , however here is better. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Alright this is about Human Evolution and man people from mackkilop college are working on this now and I have a question what is the difference between perhistoric man and modern man. I'm going to answer this question myself. They are differnt in the way they used there tools and the way they communicated and the different places they lived in :) Love Amy :) to all the btiches who need help with there work :) this might help you and if you have any more questions just put them on this page and i will answer them even if it is about Puberty ♥! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.120.96 (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

dominance in science ?

Since one want to talk:

07:41, 23 October 2011‎ 99.90.197.87 (talk)‎ (75,412 bytes) (Undid revision 456946250 by Skysmith (talk) you should not remove {fact} especially when comprehensive source contradict flagged text) (undo) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

the dispute is related to text:

The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the hypothesis known as "Out of Africa", recent African origin of modern humans, ROAM, or recent African origin hypothesis, which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe. Advocates of this view almost succeeded in neutralizing academic dissent.

Scientists supporting an alternative to replacement hypothesis, the multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago. Evidence suggests that an X-linked haplotype of the Neanderthal origin is present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to modern humans. Archaic genetic contribution contradicts total Eurasian replacement around 100,000 years ago.

So why's not OK?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk • contribs)

Because its tone is accusatory and not needed. And the "citation needed" is not needed, either. There are sources. Or do you want to discuss what "is" is? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

1 Well you say (accuse?) it is "accusatory". < It is as is in the source. No any by editor added accusation, just source & quoiting. Don't you like wp:neutral & wp ver?

2 "not needed" < to who or for what not needed? The source you are trying to throw out may explain the dominant view - phrase, help to understand by reader how dominance in science, to data contrary, can be achieved. So that's why it is so badly needed. One can also see, other editors doubt too these unwarranted words. How thesis probable as 0.00000000000000001 (10^-17) can be accepted consciousnessly today? So is the "is" or "was", "probably is" or "probably not".

3 "There are sources" < While checking those 3 sources ...anything to comment on {1,2} ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

what in the sources ? Is there about forced dominance in science?

last one : "One of the most hotly debated issues" < If idea is hotly debated what it mean? The only one string similar to "dominant view" can be found in words: "our dominance of the planet" . Clearly {not in citation} and misquoted source. also : "The nature of this transformation is the focus of great deliberation between two schools of thought: one that stresses multiregional continuity and the other that suggests a single origin for modern humans." < So why not change "the dominant view" to "one view"? Even let for sake of inertia lay with replacement as first, however the website put mutiregional before replacement. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also if one use

wget http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html ; cat johanson.html |less #then /date

the date in this article is May 2001. So is it hangs there 11 months after the website was registered

whois actionbioscience.org

on 02-Jun-2000. Is this date fact in support of "is" or more of "was"? How current view, is snapshot of 10 years layman summary, on, using own website words "One of the most hotly debated issues"? Why nobody here dared to check the date before (or did but were put off line?) , the citation make false view the ref to this website is the most current from year 2009 or later. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If somebody will question the date (why not?: e.g. TX error) the literature on the website range from 1984 Spencer ea (replac.) to Wolpoff ea (multir.) from 2001. Nothing more current.99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

the fist (^ "Out of Africa Revisited - 308 (5724): 921g - Science). This is not an article! Firstly do not have an author. This 'note' has about hundred words (1.11kb). In regarded context contains string "dispersing out of Africa 60,000 years ago has remained unresolved". < Wording which by any mean can not suggest consensus in scientific community (or dominance of truth).

The "source" is listed as "This Week in Science" what prove is not an article but editorial foreword to other articles

• "tested alternative models" .. using (mt) DNA ..of Southeast Asian aboriginal populations" (10.1126/science.1113261)
• "mtDNA types among indigenous Andaman islanders" (10.1126/science.1109987)

Waste your $15 and verify it yourself for sly scam out-profiteering 14000$ per each MB in traffic to it for science.com. Completely {out of citation}. Even if context were supportive for wp.art. sentence, can not be considered "is" but as "was" since dated 6+ years ago (13 May 2005). If one blindly want to attach citation in context of replacement, future discoveries give a finger to replacement theory. Actually the considered in "Out of Africa Revisited" Assian Islanders DNA now very contradict replacement; DNA sequencend from old finger bone show: Asian Islanders "have inherited a proportion of their ancestry from Denisovans" Humans; thus further discredit 'geno-cidal African replacement' idea as false theory and support multiregional evolution thesis: of human evolution in genetically interconnected worldwide population, happily caring life through fertile generations, with a rich heritage, complex multiple & multidirectional gene flows, till today, to us&you. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The above is incoherent - what is it your trying to say you seem to have misquoted a bit.Moxy (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa? by Donald Johanson, who says "the current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model.

"the current best explanation" ? NOT, 2001 (and even then were contradicted by available pub.). AB website is not WP:RS if you think so - show which researchers commented on this website content) CI. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I still not sure what your saying. Will let others comment further. By AB do you mean "American Institute of Biological Sciences?" Moxy (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you will be able to understand you wont be flooding old entries on contradicted hypothesis. However a plus for, perhaps honestly, admitted ignorance. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• William A. Haviland; Harald E. L. Prins; Dana Walrath (24 February 2009). The Essence of Anthropology. Cengage Learning. p. 90. ISBN 9780495599814. Retrieved 14 June 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Peter Lafreniere (2010). Adaptive Origins: Evolution and Human Development. Taylor & Francis. p. 90. ISBN 9780805860122. Retrieved 14 June 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Renée Hetherington; Robert G. B. Reid (2010). The Climate Connection: Climate Change and Modern Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press. p. 64. ISBN 9780521147231. Retrieved 14 June 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Martin Meredith (2011). Born in Africa: The Quest for the Origins of Human Life. PublicAffairs. p. 148. ISBN 9781586486631. Retrieved 14 June 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• The edits go in good direction. Pleas take care about the citation described in this section You cant just remove date and author from citation. It go against editing ethic.

So have you tqaken the time to read the books above? Because it would help in your understanding of the data.Moxy (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

contradicted hypothesis

The place for contradicted hypothesis is in history section not in article summary. It is obvious that not every wiki-editor can absorb knowledge with the same fast speed. Some may never get what for other are obvious facts. It is perfectly correct in science when some hypothesis go down. The replacement hypothesis is already contradicted on every aspect. Some groups by various reasons like the replacement fallacy. The Human evolution seem to be scientific article and hoaxes and mythology can not be placed here. But the above may be questionable so lets ask first the question: should the Human evolution be regarded as scientific article? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Human evolution is a scientific article. What would make it not a scientific article.Moxy (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

not admitting "...the greatest scam in the history of paleoanthropology since the Piltdown affair early in the twentieth century." pdf page 33 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

misconception inertia

The contradicted replacement lag heavily on editors knowledge so is easy to understand following misconception: " exchange genes with them before out competing them". <misconception words stroked out.

Will be OK to quote one source about it? (the quote will be few sentences long) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on out of Africa vs. Replacement

The anonymous IP is suggesting that the recent admixture findings unequivocally support the multiregional hypothesis model and rejects the Recent Out of Africa model. This is not the general view expressed in the admixture studies. First of all the multiregional hypothesis generally proposes admixture form local forms of homo erectus - not Neanderthal and Denisovans. Secondly the papers by geneticist acknowledge that their results are not incompatible with a recent out of Africa model only with the complete rapid replacement model. It is much to early to let multiregionalists gloat in the lead. That is not going to happen untill human evolution review articles unequivoically adopt the position that ROAM is no longer tenable, even in a modified Out-of Africa>interbreeding>replacement model. This is not currently the case and presenting partisan sources does not show that consensus has changed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not The Anonymous IP , but the source you just removed [2]. Is it to difficult for you to grasp this highly cited paper? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bednarik (an autodidact specialist in rock art - not a paleoanthropologist) is presenting a partisan argument and a "novel hypothesis" not an objective review of the state of the art. It is also difficult to see how a paper published in 2011 can be "highly cited". In any case statements about the consensus of scholarship in a contested area have to rely on objective secondary sources such as textbook, not simply the opinions of your cherry picked favorite authors. There is no general consensus in favor or the multiregional model - neither before nor after the admixture findings published within the last year. When a new consensus emerges wikipedia will report it. Not before.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the source of quote: "novel hypothesis" ? String not found in the source "The Expulsion of Eve"pdf 99.90.197.87 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Its clear hes trying to push this POV and wont even responded to the sourced given. I have reverted again. There is not one source saying both models are in dough. Cant change the lead and leave the whole page the same. This argument above is old In fact the neanderthal findings are from 2001. Can anyone supply a proper reference to say that?Moxy (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Pääbo's 2001 paper concluded that there was no significant admixture - the findings of significant admixture is from 2010. Denisovans even more recently. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

These are the Pääbo lab's papers from 2004:

• Serre, David, André Langaney, Mario Chech, Maria Teschler-Nicola, Maja Paunovic, Philippe Mennecier, Michael Hofreiter, Göran Possnert and Svante Pääbo. (2004) “No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans.” PloS Biology 2:3 (March), 313- 317.
• Serre D, Langaney A, Chech M, Teschler-Nicola M, Paunovic M et al (2004) ”No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans”. PLoS Biology 2:E57

They were not contradicted untill Green, R. E.; Krause, J.; Briggs, A. W.; Maricic, T.; Stenzel, U.; Kircher, M.; Patterson, N.; Li, H. et al. (2010). "A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome". Science 328 (5979): 710–722.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• In anycase we cannot use primary sources to evaluate the scholarly consensus about the relative merits of the two models. This has to rely solely on secondary or tertiary sources such as review articles or textbooks. There is no way that we can say that consensus has shifted in favor of the multiregional model (or a third possible model) untill secondary and tertiary sources start reporting this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree no major shift has happen yet - All 4 papers indicate that there can be multiple explanations for this admixture - not just by interbreeding. One set of findings does not change 50 years of blood and dna research. We cant presume anything all we can do is regurgitate what is written in peer reviewed papers/books etc... not guess work as you have mentioned. PS did not mean to add back some of that to the lead - just getting fustrated and took a copy that was to old.Moxy (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Any gene flow contradict replacement and agree with ME. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And you have not presented any adequate source suggesting that that is the case. There are several ways in which geneflow and replacement scenarios can be integrated - some of them are mentioned in the sources that document geneflow. The multiregional hypothesis specifically requires flow between modern humans and continentally divergent populations of Homo erectus. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not paleo-forum (about scenarios) so to be more precise> Any gene flow contradicts this wording: "...which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Neanderthals in Europe." The original replacement conception was based on concept of species separated by infertility barrier. One spread out other was replaced. Any other fertile gene flow between populations is in fact thesis of ME. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Why isn't this article semi-protected for auto-confirmed users only? It is obviously a controversial issue and will face vandalism. Cadiomals (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We only semiprotect when vandalism is too intensive to manually keep at bay. Ideally articles are free for anyone to edit, protection has to be used sparingly. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Science News resource, regarding Australopithecus sediba

Fossil finds offer close look at a contested ancestor; Discoveries flesh out a species proposed as the root of humankind's genus by Bruce Bower October 22nd, 2011; Vol.180 #9 (p. 14) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

fix nedded part of history section

The classification of humans and their relatives has changed considerably since the 1950s. The gracile Australopithecines are thought to be ancestors of the genus Homo, the group to which modern humans belong. Both Australopithecines and Homo sapiens are part of the tribe Hominini.

Data collected during the 1970s suggests Australopithecines were a diverse group and that A. africanus may not be a direct ancestor of modern humans. Reclassification of Australopithecines that originally were split into either gracile or robust varieties has put the latter into a genus of its own, Paranthropus. Taxonomists place humans, Australopithecines and related species in the same family as other great apes, in the Hominidae. Richard Dawkins in his book The Ancestor's Tale proposes that robust Australopithecines: Paranthropus, are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecus are the ancestors of chimpanzees, the others being human ancestors (see Homininae).

There is past mixed with present. It is not clear what is no longer considered true and from what year. It seem to be open ended entry not good for history section. If it is open ended then it may [prevent other from adding more material to history section. What are the new milestones in paleo discovery. There is nothing about when sequenced mdDNA, when Eve theory pop up and much more . Lets clean this end so new can be added.99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So because you don't understand the section - you deleted it and its refs??? What do you propose we do? Perhaps you can suggest a replacement before the deletion. As for mtdna and Y dna they have there own section. Moxy (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm if you understand it could you explain it to all other at once by rewriting it? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This will be my last reply - dont understand most of what your ever saying. I have reinstated the long standing textMoxy (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, It is understand you do not understand. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If user Moxy is willing to edit, edit but do not user Moxy do senseless reverts. If user Moxy need a source (if user Moxy think some is not obvious) user Moxy is encouraged to insert fact so one can provide ref {fact}99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you pls stop removing references - why do you keep removing the references and making up dates? Moxy (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Show diff , perhaps is mistake. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC) (mopre probably is user Moxy mistake in diff perception. Perhaps small step by step may help understand the changes. Watch. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I simply not sure what your saying here or in the article. Can you explain why you keep deleting the refs? I don't want to report this as I do believe you are trying to do something positive. But blanking text and refs in not they way to go about it - nor is guessing on dates. Perhaps you can write here what you would like in the articel an we can review it....Moxy (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand what mean show diff ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Your question is ungrammatical, but here's a diff. I've reverted your deletion. Instead of removing the ref again, please explain your reasoning here. If there's consensus for your change, someone else will change it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why the IP user cant explain his actions properly - I have tried as hard as I can. Firstly "I" changed the word "dominate" as per his/her request in the section above despite some objections. Secondly I have added many references as per "his/her" request in the article by way of fact tags that asked for dates etc.. (that for some reason he/her removed a few times). Thirdly I added refs to a paragraph that he added with no refs and re-wrote it as it was a bit incoherent for the average reader. So thus far I have tried my best to understand what it is he/she would like/or are tiring to do but I cant get a straight answer? looking at the history of the article - I cant believe how many times his/her additions have been reverted by so many different editors...Got to give me some credit for trying - but now believe others should step in (as above) as my good faith in the users actions is fading fast, thus may impend my judgment towards his/her edits/additions going forward. Moxy (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

just blatant wrong

How on earth user Moxy and the [other reverter get in their head yDNA sequencing in 1980s. Just knowing the length of chromosomal DNA will be sufficient to knew that it is exponentially more complex comparing to sequencing of mtDNA. The yDNA it is next chapter at least a decade apart. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am "the other reverter". What may or may not be in my head regarding DNA sequencing is irrelevant. I reverted you the first time because you removed, without explaining why, what appeared to be a legitimate citation. I reverted you again because the next edit you made was indecipherable. (For good measure, I also left a note on your talk page about edit warring—the second such message you've received today.) In the previous thread, I suggested that you seek consensus here on the talk page rather than simply making these sorts of edits. Please consider that approach; it tends to work really well and keep everyone happy. Rivertorch (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Let seek . What is user Rivertorch (or other) consensus on the 1980s crucial achievement in paleo-science on human evolution subject ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, did you quickly pickup from talk and put into edit? Read carefully, you skipped least word introducing an error. Here was no intention to test the baloney. To be clear it's OK, copy and insert under your credential, no one say whizzing parrot plagiaries his master .99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

speciation

[3] 'arose' is an appropriate and more natural word. Note 'arise' in your definition of speciation.< "in your definition of speciation" ?. This qoute: "process by which new biological species arise" is a taken from speciation and the art is quite good sourced(if one need another a source use {fact}). Why or What it may mean "Note 'arise' ..."? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

'Arise' and 'arose' are different tenses of the same verb. It is an exercise in sophistry to suggest that you can accurately describe speciation using the verb 'arise', but that it is inappropriate to describe an act of speciation with the very same verb. 'Speciated' may be more precise, ('arising' with respect to a species, as opposed to just 'arising') but it is not more accurate, and it is bloody awkward - a made-up word that has entered the technical jargon through the verbing of 'speciation', and it requires an uninitiated reader to look it up to have a clue what it means. Vocabulary should serve comprehension rather than making comprehension a slave to vocabulary. Wikipedia does not exist just for the experts to talk to each other - it is here to make the body of expert knowledge available to the naive reader. Particularly the lede should convey the concepts using the simplest terms possible without sacrificing accuracy. 'Arise' is a plain-language word that carries sufficient meaning to get the point across, and no less accurately. Agricolae (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please answer: do you see a conceptual difference between the two: arose - speciated ? If yes what is the difference. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. 'Speciated' is what happened when it was a species that 'arose'. Thus 'speciated' is more precise, as it makes it clear that it is a species that is arising, but no more accurate. Further, when it is clear from context that it is a species that is arising, it is superfluous to specify that it speciated, because that is how a species arises. It is perfectly legitimate and perfectly clear to say that a species arose, rather than that a species speciated. Linguistically, 'arose' is obvious to the most simple reader and has a centuries-old history of use in such a context, while 'speciated' is (relatively speaking) neologistic jargon that is opaque to the naive reader, and all-around awkward. So, no benefit, all downside. Agricolae (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So what is the difference between multiregional evolution and the above (multiname hard to name) till yesterday called here "dominant" paleo conception ? Isn't it the newer postulate recent speciation to shallow inheritance depth? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No clue what you are asking. Agricolae (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1That the problem the ota frico theory do not have single name. Do you know how to cal it?

2 it mean that you are new to this subject and you didn't read the talk before jumping here with your POV.99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it meanS (you put an 's' at the end of that word when the subject is 'third person singular', such as 'it' - I mean, you mean, it/he means) that you cannot put together a coherent sentence when you get on your high horse. "till yesterday called here 'dominant' paleo conception" is just gibberish. "Isn't it the newer postulate recent speciation to shallow inheritance depth?" might as well have been generated by picking random words out of a dictionary. It makes no sense, and I don't mean technical, scientific sense - it is grammatical nonsense. That I can't parse some random string of words is not evidence that I am new to the subject, nor that I haven't read the talk page, which contains numerous examples of editors unable to figure out what you are trying to say. As to my POV, it is that wherever possible a lede should communicate the concept of a page with clear, simple yet grammatically correct and accurate language, rather than unnecessarily awkward technical jargon. If you think the pushing of this POV runs counter to the ethos of Wikipedia, report me to the proper authorities. Agricolae (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr look ed history, pathetic flood + have spare one more 'S'. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is clear as mud. Agricolae (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC).

get time 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps compromise between lame and scientific will be wording arose in process of speciation. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No. That is like 'fell in the process of plummeting', an ungrammatical redundancy. Agricolae (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you personally think the speciation postulated by recent African origin of Homo s is true or false ? Or rather do you have factual recognition of it existence in scientific literature ?99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You have established a false dichotomy and likewise asked it in such a manner as to beg the question. Two logical fallacies for the price of one. Further, the question is irrelevant as the goal here is to present scholarly consensus, not personal opinion. Agricolae (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I misread your questions the first time around, so the first part of my response is misplaced, although the second is still valid. Agricolae (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you do not going to dispute the edits.(sorry to say apparently but it appears as true) If you do not like something do not force but discuss. Read arguments in talk - if you want to back your edits answer them. Put your reasons on dispute - is it to much to ask? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A

some errors and POVs:

• 1 "An alternative view is" < this wording is false unary alternative (confusing implicit, adds words, do not add any information) (study manual style)
• 2 "limited number of interbreeding events" > do math , incorrectly drawn conclusion {not in citation}
• 3 across the Old World < is Australia, Papua, now submerged shelf popularized as 'Lemuria'(sometime fantastic) the so called Old World ? Do user Agricolae (due to limited terminology?) say 'Old' in semantic sense of 'old'? 2 do RAO posit Homo from world ? Hope not:) Why user Agricolae put here straw singleton .
• 4 evolving from predecessors in the genus Homo < only creationism do not posit Homo evolved from some predecessors. Evolution should be common for both Me & RAO conception. Are for user Agricolae good sounding some biblical references "arose Eve garden of eden scrolls compatible" frequent in RAO pop culture?
• 5 blanking Templeton 2005 paper rejecting RAO at uncertainty < 10^-17
• the genus Homo < Me postulate one species not genus. Edit show ignorance or intentional misrepresentation. (In fact one genus multiple species is RAO)
• 6 in anatomically-modern humans < user Agricolae is injecting undefined ghosty therm in Me section. This term is commonly used in RAO popularization but rarely (perhaps only in dispute or grants) in scientific papers.
• 7 clarity destruction. User Agricolae claim unknown abbreviation while remove the RAO acronym. If user Agricolae can't grasp what is RAO or ME user Agricolae should be kept away from editing HE article.
• 8 by enlarging 2x Me chapter in lede User Agricolae flood message muling it clarity.

there may be probably more. 6 essential errors in one edit is enough to turn back to earlier version)

If one want to return above phrases indisputably just do it. (hypothesis0 : modus operandi ag) If one do not understand ask, for prompt explanation. Do not write you do not understand if you do not want asking to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will try to respond here, but you really need to try harder making yourself understood.

1. No idea what you are getting at.

2. It is in the cited reference, as well as others.

3. Old World means everything but the New World - nobody thinks these events happened in North and South America, but as the Multi-Regional Hypothesis was first envisioned, H. erectus in each continent developed unique characteristics that were then passed down to modern human descendants there.

4. You can't take a phrase out of context and pretend the rest of that sentence wasn't there. Recent out-of-Africa predicts a replacement of the Homo erectus (and originally Neanderthal and other derivative populations) by a group of modern Homo sapiens that evolved in Africa from H. erectus resident there, in Africa. The original multi-regional hypothesis posited that H. erectus spread across the Old World (the world minus the Americas) and that modern H.s. evolved from all of these regional populations of H. erectus.

5. It is unclear that Templeton rejects RAO except in the most strict interpretation. With the Neanderthal genomic result and the interpretation that the interbreeding could have happened in Africa before the spread, the implications of Templeton's findings toward the different models is less clear.

Looking back over this, I see I failed to address one point, inexplicably unnumbered, between 5 and 6: Last time I checked a single species called Homo sapiens would still be within the genus Homo. Agricolae (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

6. You are letting your POV color your perception of language - seeing every edit as an attack on your viewpoint. The term has been used for decades. Further (as we have been through before) the goal of a clear Wikipedia article is not to mimic the language of scientific papers.

7. I removed ROAM, which was never again used in the article, while here RAO is being used, which has never been defined. It is a basic tenet of writing that if you are going to use abbreviations, you should define them. Anyhow, my level of understanding is irrelevant - we should be writing this to the level of understanding of an average member of the public, as much as possible, and that means you can't count on them knowing your personally-preferred acronyms. Further, you had best think twice before you suggest that language standards should be applied to determine who should and should not be editing.

8. Try this one again in English (see previous point).

Now it is my turn. I read the whole article closely and made the changes I thought relevant, without looking at who was responsible for the original text. There were several problems, including seemingly contradictory material, poor writing style, and problems with balance. This is why I made the changes:

A. Search for ROAM and human evolution, and the only place among the first several pages of matches is this page - it is not even named on the Wikipedia page about the hypothesis, so why would we specially feature it here.

B. The explanation of multi-regionalism is awful - it may be sufficient for a scientific publication, but in an encyclopedia article, the average reader could read that a dozen times and still not know what "evolved as a single, continuous species" is intended to convey. I explained it differently, as originally conceived and envisioned.

C. The Neanderthal and Denisova data are too recent to have been stably synthesized into these competing models, and certainly shouldn't be the first thing mentioned about multi-regionalism, because it doesn't match the traditional multi-regionalism, stricto senso, either. Rather, it supersedes both, and hence should come last.

D. As to making it longer, you are right. The Templeton data don't merit mentioning in the lede at all. They represent one finding, and one that is past it's sell-by date in the broader story. Likewise, the specific interpretations of the Neanderthal and Denisova results merit their own section in the body, where some of the details I put in the lede should go.

E. It is best never to begin a sentence with a number (like '2000s').

F. The potentially-Neanderthal human haplotype loci are not restricted to the X-chromosome.

G. The statement that 6% of Neanderthal and Denisova DNA ended up in humans is factually incorrect. The estimates are that as much as 6% of DNA in some (critically, non-African) modern humans is from these sources.

H. Calling this 'ancient DNA' is inappropriate, as that is a technical term that refers to DNA isolated from anthropological samples of a certain antiquity.

I. In genus Homo section, the debate over whether Neanderthals are a different species or subspecies predates the competing origin theories and is not directly linked to them. It is possible for both the RAO hypothesis to be true AND for Neanderthal to be considered a subspecies (it is harder to go the other way). The question has much to do with the definition of a species in an evolutionary and paleontological context. The same argument is being fought over which of the different specimens of Archaeopterix represent different species, and over which dinosaurs represent different species, and over whether Przewalski's horse is a different species than the domestic horse. Opinion on what makes a species when all you have to look at are bones is an open issue, and there is no consensus. It is unnecessary and misleading to portray this debate as simply about RAO vs multi-r, particularly when we haven't even introduced the concepts yet.

J. It is a standard principle of writing that if you are going to use abbreviations you define them first.

K. It is wrong to imply that Leakey's comment is of less value due to bias, unless your source does that.

L. The meaning of the Templeton paper is ambiguous, as there has been critical new data since then. This statement directly contradicts other information in this article. Giving this number with 17 zeros is thus putting lipstick on a pig, particularly when most people have no idea what a p-value is (even if the sentence containing it was grammatically sound, which it isn't).

Let me just add that I intentionally did separate edits of the different sections so that the individual problems could be dealt with separately. To respond with blanket reversion of everything is unhelpful and inappropriate, as no progress can be made if every single detail has to be to your liking or you will revert it all. Oh, and if you have 8 different complaints, you can't expect a response that is both detailed and instantaneous. Agricolae (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the first time I've heard someone consider Australia as part of the so-called Old World. Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it (who am I to judge your experience). For the most part, Australia is just ignored in this characterization. That being said, the usage you are familiar with works even better, as the original multi-regional model did not include Australia, just Europe, Asia and Africa. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Australia is just ignored" - by who, by user Agricolae. Who on this thesis clearly loose: see "...argument of the multiregional evolution hypothesis Wolpoff and Thorne say that what you see in the anatomy of first Australian is all Asian, with nothing African in them." What about island of Java where Java Man happened or Melanesian inheriting Denisovan DNA. Old or New World. (intentional lack of '?')

In context of range 10^-17 one should considering Lenormant[4] in his cuneiform lecture or qoutes by Θεόπομπος which particularly [may lay Australia (or Austrinis) in antiquity - Old World. Such digression do not change much fallacy of user Agricolae preceding sentence since the knowledge (if true) was lost (and how we call new or old is not crucial here, but Australia & Java are).

Since wrong in one area, may be correct in other other parts; lets concentrate on selective blanking of one clear to conceptualize ref. Ref from 2005: rejecting RAO by statistical test based on sequence data of present-day chromosomal DNA. The nature of DNA make such test unusually precise (P<10^-17), test which is easy to replicate, [[Google Research|gr] cited ~100, authored by one of leading scientist on the subject.

D. Agricolae put> "As to making it longer, you are right. The Templeton data don't merit mentioning in the lede at all. They represent one finding, and one that is past it's sell-by date in the broader story. Likewise, the specific interpretations of the Neanderthal and Denisova results merit their own section in the body, where some of the details I put in the lede should go."

D1 "As to making it longer, you are right"... < was !not! to make it longer. Not longer in words, but rich in aspects in encyclopedic condensation (more aspects).

D3 " don't merit mentioning" < 99.90.197.87 strongly disagree. There is hypothesis X, hypothesis X is tested using method M. The one test reject hypothesis X with P < 0.01 . It is it. But here is 10^15 excess of certainty. Do the method M was rejected with the same scientific scrutiny ? If so perhaps can be not mention at all . But if not - it is it. The end of RAO - Eurasian human replacement. With some wait for funeral of last RAO adherent decadent, RAO will not have place at academia at all. In scientific method if one indisputable test reject hypothesis, hypothesis is rejected (null and void). This is not the only rejection of RAO, other reasons to reject RAO exist too (but the reader cant read about since are blanked by Agricolae).

D2 The Templeton data don't merit. They represent one finding, and one that is past it's sell-by date in the broader story. ..", < The data? User Agricolae revealing, not understanding what the ref is about. Statistical analysis use data. What data do user Agricolae see in result of mathematical analysis? The gen data are from gen banks provided by worldwide array of researchers, saying "The Templeton data don't merit" (in context of the gen banks) is just ... lets give user Agricolae chance to rephrase what it should mean 'after this comment'.

L. Agricolae> "The meaning of the Templeton paper is ambiguous, as there has been critical new data since then. This statement directly contradicts other information in this article. Giving this number with 17 zeros is thus putting lipstick on a pig, particularly when most people have no idea what a p-value is (even if the sentence containing it was grammatically sound, which it isn't)."

L0 This ref was here for months but with ~hundred quadrillion times misquoted value. Ironically misleading readers(it was not user Agricolae related, but since same modus, somehow seem to be worth to mention). After the value and quote was corrected ref was deleted. reinserted deleted. See above.

L1 This statement directly contradicts other information in this article < That is correct! Cutting of the ref seem to be the only help to keep the fallacy of RAO and it various applications. Lets face Agricolae - the lipstick "a futile attempt to disguise the true nature" of H. evolution.

L2 "Giving this number with 17 zeros is thus putting lipstick on a pig" < The number is that long. Do you like to cut some zeros? Suggestion: the number may be shortened written instead of '0.0...' as '.0...' to 16 zeros. Cutting more will be a lie.

L3 "most people have no idea what a p-value is" < p-value is p-value . Simple ? But when you deleted the sentence most people wont have idea at all. Particularly idea about how certainly RAO replacement thesis is rejected by present-day DNA, DNA inherited in chromosomes during human evolution.

L4. "The meaning of the Templeton paper is ambiguous, as there has been critical new data since then." < Since it seem user Agricolae dis-validate Templeton paper, user Agricolae have to prove emphasized (of course by providing citation)

(methodical proposal: only L4 is obligatory to answer, user Agricolae (and others too) may select other part as obligatory to answer by partners in discussion, the other are skipped for now to not overkill discussion) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

B

"Australia is just ignored" - by who, by user Agricolae. Who on this thesis clearly loose: see "...argument of the multiregional evolution hypothesis Wolpoff and Thorne say that what you see in the anatomy of first Australian is all Asian, with nothing African in them." What about island of Java where Java Man happened or Melanesian inheriting Denisovan DNA. Old or New World. (intentional lack of '?')

"For the most part, Australia is just ignored in this characterization." Was the FULL SENTENCE. "For the most part . . . " Usually, but not always. ". . . in this characterization." The characterization of Old World vs. New World. So much for that straw man. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agricolare seem to ignore his end of the very next sentence > "...as the original multi-regional model did not include Australia, just Europe, Asia and Africa. Agricolae .. 22:00, 11" < try argue: now is only end part! Again disregarding that whatever was 'in his characterization' was clearly contrary to already quoted source (and other easy to invoke sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Asked and answered already. Agricolae (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In context of range 10^-17 one should considering Lenormant[5] in his cuneiform lecture or qoutes by Θεόπομπος which particularly [may lay Australia (or Austrinis) in antiquity - Old World. Such digression do not change much fallacy of user Agricolae preceding sentence since the knowledge (if true) was lost (and how we call new or old is not crucial here, but Australia & Java are).

First, this is NOT in the context of a range 10^-17. That number derives from a study of entirely distinct evidence and has nothing to do with the origins of the multi-regional theory. As to it originally including Australia, I see now that it did, the summaries I was going from did not. As to it only involving Australia and Java (and more generally Asia), that is patently ridiculous, as it was comparing them to what was seen in Europe and Africa, hence Old World. As fully elaborated, this predicted that African Homo sapiens descended from an African ancient Homo species in Africa (H. ergaster in one version I saw), that Europeans descended from H. heidelbergensis (via Neanderthal) in Europe, and that Asians (and Australians) descended from H. erectus in Asia, and that there was low-level gene flow among these. That is why Old World. Now that we have that clear, why don't you tell me how this affects my having geographically placed the area involved as "everything but the Americas"? It matches what I said precisely, so what point are you arguing here - that I was right all along? You seem to think that if you can find the slightest most irrelevant error or misstatement in anything I have said, you can dismiss it all. Doesn't work that way. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"so what point are you arguing here" < OK, since you asking. Just small print digression why Australia with utmost precision (in the 'ten zeros' range) can be called "Old World" as well. (why digression? just to preempt empty response if happened you get&used this knowledge) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You have again failed in your quest for coherence. Agricolae (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Since wrong in one area, may be correct in other other parts; lets concentrate on selective blanking of one clear to conceptualize ref. Ref from 2005: rejecting RAO by statistical test based on sequence data of present-day chromosomal DNA. The nature of DNA make such test unusually precise (P<10^-17), test which is easy to replicate, [[Google Research|gr] cited ~100, authored by one of leading scientist on the subject.

What is with this "Since wrong in one area"? Are you suggesting that my use of Old World, rightly or wrongly, in any way reflects the appropriateness of including this ridiculous number of 10^-17 in the lede? That is a logical fallacy. I don't care how many times it is cited by Google Research. The number is meaningless to the average reader and the assumptions of the study have been superseded by the Neanderthal and Denisova genomic work. Further, I did not remove reference of this study from the page, just from the lede where the prominence gives it deceptive value. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Since wrong in one area, may be correct in other other parts" <dear Agricolae, no. Suggesting that you may be correct in other areas. Other thesis, interpretation, that you may find out useful ref, provide adequate quote, in summary help. Expecting too that arguments may be put in a way allowing falsifiability to nicely disagree or laboriously agree.99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First, it is another incomprehensible contribution. Second, it appears to be about me and not about the article. Neither is going to move this discussion forward. I seem simply to be enabling your behavior, so, from this point, I am only going to respond to contributions from you here that are minimally coherent, relevant and cogent. Get back to discussing the issues, in clear language, or don't expect me to play along. Agricolae (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

D. Agricolae put> "As to making it longer, you are right. The Templeton data don't merit mentioning in the lede at all. They represent one finding, and one that is past it's sell-by date in the broader story. Likewise, the specific interpretations of the Neanderthal and Denisova results merit their own section in the body, where some of the details I put in the lede should go."

D1 "As to making it longer, you are right"... < was !not! to make it longer. Not longer in words, but rich in aspects in encyclopedic condensation (more aspects).

No idea what you are saying here. Including it !did! make it longer, but deceptive to the average reader. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

D3 " don't merit mentioning" < 99.90.197.87 strongly disagree. There is hypothesis X, hypothesis X is tested using method M. The one test reject hypothesis X with P < 0.01 . It is it. But here is 10^15 excess of certainty. Do the method M was rejected with the same scientific scrutiny ? If so perhaps can be not mention at all . But if not - it is it. The end of RAO - Eurasian human replacement. With some wait for funeral of last RAO adherent decadent, RAO will not have place at academia at all. In scientific method if one indisputable test reject hypothesis, hypothesis is rejected (null and void). This is not the only rejection of RAO, other reasons to reject RAO exist too (but the reader cant read about since are blanked by Agricolae).

Oh, yeah, the violins are playing already. And it's all my fault that nobody gets to read about it. But here is the thing - you are making an argument based on old data (if something from 2005 can be called old, but in this case it is). Templeton's data can be completely explained by low-level introgression of Neanderthal and Denisova genes into the RAO population. This does not negate the RAO interpretation (introgression can happen even between what are usually considered distinct species - a good number of the living members of Bison bison have mtDNA from Bos taurus, but that doesn't mean that the whole group of ungulates represent a single continuous species), and it negates Templeton's support for multi-regionalism, as the introgression model completely explains his result without the regional evolution of Homo sapiens that is the founding hypothesis of multi-regionalism. With the Neanderthal and Denisova genomic DNA in hand, we no longer need multi-regionalism to explain (or explain away, if you prefer) Templeton's result. And no, I am not the one personally responsible for keeping a world of scholars in the dark. Before you take me to the International Criminal Court for cleansing Templeton from human knowledge, you might want to note that I left Templeton in the body of the paper, I just removed it from the lede and deleted the ridiculous P-value. Someone else decided to revert to an earlier version without Templeton. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

D2 The Templeton data don't merit. They represent one finding, and one that is past it's sell-by date in the broader story. ..", < The data? User Agricolae revealing, not understanding what the ref is about. Statistical analysis use data. What data do user Agricolae see in result of mathematical analysis? The gen data are from gen banks provided by worldwide array of researchers, saying "The Templeton data don't merit" (in context of the gen banks) is just ... lets give user Agricolae chance to rephrase what it should mean 'after this comment'.

I understand EXACTLY what the finding is about - EXACTLY. Do you? It is because I know what it means (and what it doesn't mean) that I know it is a distraction in the lede - a fancy number that fails to distinguish the models, given the new Neanderthal genomic data. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

L. Agricolae> "The meaning of the Templeton paper is ambiguous, as there has been critical new data since then. This statement directly contradicts other information in this article. Giving this number with 17 zeros is thus putting lipstick on a pig, particularly when most people have no idea what a p-value is (even if the sentence containing it was grammatically sound, which it isn't)."

L0 This ref was here for months but with ~hundred quadrillion times misquoted value. Ironically misleading readers(it was not user Agricolae related, but since same modus, somehow seem to be worth to mention). After the value and quote was corrected ref was deleted. reinserted deleted. See above.

I don't care how long it was there. It shouldn't have been. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

L1 This statement directly contradicts other information in this article < That is correct! Cutting of the ref seem to be the only help to keep the fallacy of RAO and it various applications. Lets face Agricolae - the lipstick "a futile attempt to disguise the true nature" of H. evolution.

Now we are getting to the crux. You are upset because not everyone agrees with your pet theory. You are not going to ever resolve this issue by making wholesale changes and then edit warring over them. This is the kind of change that needs to be worked out on the Talk page FIRST. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

L2 "Giving this number with 17 zeros is thus putting lipstick on a pig" < The number is that long. Do you like to cut some zeros? Suggestion: the number may be shortened written instead of '0.0...' as '.0...' to 16 zeros. Cutting more will be a lie.

Another strawman. Funny how easy they are to defeat. I do wish you would quit wasting my time with them though. Filling up half-a-line of text with zeros is just an attempt to give this result more weight, because most people don't know that adding or subtracting ten zeros doesn't change the certainty of the outcome when you have a p-value like this. It is just an attempt to bludgeon the reader, but it also serves to disguise the fact that this number is not an evaluation of RAO at all. It is an evaluation of the probability that all alleles in modern humans share a common ancestor that dates to the time that anatomically modern humans arose. Templeton's study proves that there is DNA in some humans that has been diverging for longer than that, and you don't need to show all those pretty zeros to get that point across. It is a misdirection exercise, hinting that since Templeton (statistically) proved X ([hidden logical leap] so Y must be true), and just to make sure that people don't notice the sleight of hand, you want to give the numbers so as to indicate that Templeton REALLY, REALLY proved X (so Y must be true). Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

L3 "most people have no idea what a p-value is" < p-value is p-value . Simple ? But when you deleted the sentence most people wont have idea at all. Particularly idea about how certainly RAO replacement thesis is rejected by present-day DNA, DNA inherited in chromosomes during human evolution.

With the number they still won't know. And the RAO thesis was not rejected by present-day DNA, not even 2005 DNA. Let me add that even when Templeton came out, it was not straightforward to interpret, as there was and still is a lot of other DNA analysis that supported a recent common origin (such as that suggesting the 'southern route' of spread to South Asia and the 'Express Train' to Polynesia). Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

L4. "The meaning of the Templeton paper is ambiguous, as there has been critical new data since then." < Since it seem user Agricolae dis-validate Templeton paper, user Agricolae have to prove emphasized (of course by providing citation)

Already cited in the article. (And let me reiterate, I did not take out Templeton - he is still thereAgricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(methodical proposal: only L4 is obligatory to answer, user Agricolae (and others too) may select other part as obligatory to answer by partners in discussion, the other are skipped for now to not overkill discussion) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for instructing me on what I can and what I must must answer, but I will just go and answer it all. Here is the crux of the Templeton issue: for a scientific finding to have true probative value it must distinguish between the two alternative hypotheses. The Neanderthal genomic DNA analysis presented an explanation, introgression, for Templeton's result within the context of RAO without invoking multi-regionalism, so Templeton's finding loses its probative value almost completley. Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User Agricolae put a lot of text, but did not produce single citation. Aricolae even disputed ("Australia is just ignored") quoted citation contradicting clearly his words. Do we should to resort to dispute Agricolae words by but putting more wikiusers words, task which may be easy and somehow funny. Will such forum like discussion move closer to find scientific information much needed for factual neutral balance in encyclopedic article titled Human evolution? User Let's give user Agricolae another chance to put at least one citation to support what he tying to prove or disapprove (for what he was asked before). 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So, after my detailed response, all you do is disingenuously repeat the same out-of-context Australia phrase I already explained, and make a vague demand for a citation - not to document anything in particular, just a blanket demand, as if that solves all of the problems with the POV interpretation you have been trying to force into the article. Agricolae (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

after "detailed response" ? < If one call Agricolae rhetorics argument ad ignorantiam she will be in error. There are no arguments! just insulting supposition, insulting intelligence of anyone who can can do basic math, or have a calculator :) probably - everybody.

In other words, you completely missed the point. Agricolae (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• "because most people don't know that adding or subtracting ten zeros"
• "attempt to bludgeon the reader
• "make sure that people don't notice the sleight of hand
• "With the number they still won't know
• "I just removed it from the lede and deleted the ridiculous P-value
• "a fancy number that fails to distinguish the models
• "I don't care how long it was there. It shouldn't have been"

And now I am completely missing your point. Did I hurt your feelings by questioning the value of your cherished number? Let me put it to you in different words. Had Templeton et al. gotten a P value of 0.0000001, what would you conclude? That they disproved the RAO hypothesis. What would you have concluded had they gotten a number of 0.000000000000000000000000001? You would have concluded that they had disproved the RAO hypothesis. And what do you concluded based on their actual number of 0.00000000000000001? That they disproved the RAO hypothesis. This is my only argument involving basic math - all of these numbers are so much lower than the p-values of 0.05 or 0.01 that serve as the basis for most scientific publications, and even the p-value of 0.001 that most scientists accept as representing statistical certainty, that the actual precise number loses its relevance. Do we really need to distinguish between incredibly certain, monstrously certain and astronomically certain? No. It becomes nothing but pointless decoration. A scientific paper needs to present the number as the actual result, but an encyclopedia article can simply express the point as proven and leave out all the goose eggs. But it's worse than that, as the number has no value in addressing the question at hand. I am not questioning that Templeton has proven that the diversity in human alleles shows that the divergence of these alleles predates the arrival of anatomically modern humans. The problem is that his observation makes no contribution to distinguishing between the two models. Agricolae (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Why so low other's estimate? On such background everyone get granted Agricolae "REALLY, REALLY" 'understand EXACTLY, EXACTLY'. Opposing such omni wont be just nice. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Why so low other's estimate?" makes no sense whatsoever, nor does "Opposing such omni wont be just nice." You are not going to win anybody over if you cannot express your thoughts better than this. Agricolae (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[repeat] 99.90.197.87 has been rearranging my comments because they don't like that I split theirs. I have restored mine how they were made, and so here is a repeat of theirs unsplit. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

after "detailed response" ? < If one call Agricolae rhetorics argument ad ignorantiam she will be in error. There are no arguments! just insulting supposition, insulting intelligence of anyone who can can do basic math, or have a calculator :) probably - everybody.

• "because most people don't know that adding or subtracting ten zeros"
• "attempt to bludgeon the reader
• "make sure that people don't notice the sleight of hand
• "With the number they still won't know
• "I just removed it from the lede and deleted the ridiculous P-value
• "a fancy number that fails to distinguish the models
• "I don't care how long it was there. It shouldn't have been"

Why so low other's estimate? On such background everyone get granted Agricolae "REALLY, REALLY" 'understand EXACTLY, EXACTLY'. Opposing such omni wont be just nice. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously think we need to clarify that an article entitled Human Evolution is about human evolution and not creationism? To accuse RAO of using creationist terminology is just pushing the same anti-RAO POV though other means. . . . And now you decide unilaterally to put the gibberish back into the lede. Agricolae (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolution of Life is continuous process - "concerning the origin" is contextually antisemantic. Seriously: nay, god forbid, you and Moxy don't do it! 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, you are making no sense. This may be another case where you fail to appreciate the nuanced nature of the English language. My best guess regarding your complaint is that you are using too strict a definition of "origin". Agricolae (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We realy need him to discuss what he/r is adding here first - we have a big problem in comprehension and in POV wording. I am wondering if the language problem is what is causing all this because realy not sure that the tempalton paper is even being interpenetrated properly by IP.Moxy (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not just the language problem. The POV pushing is also a significant factor and the two feed off each other. Templeton is just a hammer with which to beat on RAO. IP's view of Templeton is somewhat correct, if extreme, representation of the interpretation of it in 2005, but is dead wrong as of 2010. As I said, the possibility that anatomically-modern humans interbred with Neanderthal right before spreading (as per the Neanderthal genomic result and subsequent work) completely neutralized Templeton. What IP doesn't get is that the whole conversation has moved beyond 'all humans descend from one population expanding out of Africa recently without a single interbreeding event' vs 'humans evolved across all of Eurasia and Africa at the same time'. The whole RAO vs multi-regionalism debate is fading in the face of the power of the paleogenomic data. The relative uniformity of the Neanderthal component in non-Africans indicates an early interbreeding, with subsequent global spread - RAO but not classic RAO. The Denisova result shows a regional contribution, but not from erectus - MR but not even close to classic MR. Arguing RAO vs MR is quickly becoming like arguing whether the New York Giants or the Brooklyn Dodgers will win the World Series - both teams have moved on, but some of their fans haven't even all these years later. Anyhow, editors shouldn't be interpreting primary scientific data. The latest, 'I can interpret it how I want and if you want to interpret it differently you need a citation' is the obvious next play. Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hammer! Stone hammer? Why not? 200 yard asteroid which will impact tomorrow straight on Agricolae's head. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And this was supposed to move forward the discussion of the appropriate content for this page? Agricolae (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Do math exercise. Calculate P of above strike, given asteroid of size 200m will impact Earth once in 15 ka. (NASA estimate for impact on Pacific) Then compare to discussed P of replacement of Eurasian population by new species of 'Homo sapiens' migrating out of Africa and not inhering genes from alredy living there humans. Take in account surface of great circle of asteroid asteroid to earth surface, and 15ka *365 since estimate should address P at tomorrow (in 24 hours). After that confirm such impact (~10^-16) is more likely than 10^-17. (such exercise is just exercise do not prove/disprove anything)99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[6] Another interesting aspect of this 2005 paper is about distinct middle at 700ka genetic exchange which was in 2005 completely new find, not known, and now confirmed by bone and culture.99.90.197.87 (talk)

This whole asteroid impact red herring misses the point, as I suspected was the case. Here is the problem with this whole line of statistical argument - it is predicated on assumptions about what the statistics must mean. In this case, the actual thing being tested was whether the allelic variation in the human population is consistent with divergence within the last couple 100,000 years. The statistics show that this is so unlikely that it can be excluded. However, if there was one Neanderthal/anatomically-modern-human interbreeding event in northern Africa, and then the resulting population completely replaced European (and Asian) populations, you would also get divergence points like those observed by Templeton. We know that such an interbreeding took place, so we don't need to (in fact cannot possibly) reject RAO based on Templeton's result, and the value of Templeton's result becomes significantly diminished. Agricolae (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

C

I have the notion 99.xx is incompetent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

let say we agree, so what? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Let say"? You agree that you are incompetent? Then you shouldn't be here. If you were trying to be funny with that small-print calculation, you failed. Learn English first. If you were serious, what was the point? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

calculation "what was the point"?< if A argument using some kind of "hammer with which to beat" then perhaps "imminent asteroid impact" on A's head may be more convinced whilst calculated quite more probable. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So you reverted again. Just... don't. Look, you're trying to argue your way through a complicated subject-matter, and some of your posts are almost incomprehensible. It's been a while since I've seen someone make such a mess of a single talk page. You need to make your point here, and do so in a way that others can understand what you're saying. Before you've succeeded, you cannot revert or point to obscure atroid-calculations here on talk. Is that clear? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User Seb_az86556 jumpin revert

In 2005 the hypothesis of Eurasian replacement was statistically tested, rejected at P <10^-17 and thesis of total replacement is no longer considered tenable.

< ref name="10.1002/ajpa.20351">{ {cite journal | doi=10.1002/ajpa.20351 | author=Templeton, Alan R. | title=Haplotype Trees and Modern Human Origins | journal=Yearbook of Physical Anthropology | volume=48 | issue=S41 | pages=33–59 | year=2005 | url=http://esa.ipb.pt/pdf/28.pdf |quote=A third out-of-Africa event occurred around 100,000 years ago, and was also characterized by interbreeding,.. With multilocus data sets, the hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected (P < 10^-17). Thus, the hypothesis of total replacement can no longer be regarded as tenable} }< /ref>

Seb az86556 please put your comprehensible version. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, no. You need to convince others, here on talk, in a comprehensible way, that this addition makes sense in the article, and you need to do so before inserting it again. Do you understand this rule? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What about you like to be convinced ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

("What would you like me to convince you of?") This is not about me. It's obvious that you have not made your case to Agricolae, Moxy, and perhaps others. That is your responsibility. Since you cannot re-insert the sentence over the next 24 hours lest you break 3RR, this is your chance. Take it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

for example do you like to be convinced that after the publication in 2005 "the hypothesis of total replacement can no longer be regarded as tenable" ? That in this publication during statistical testing of null hypothesis new unknown pastern in human evolution was discovered? Which quickly was confirmed by paleo-anatopmy and paleo-archologincal data. Do you like to be convinced about scientific method which in each empirical science, base on statistical hypotheses testing. Do you like to be convinced that in science we can not prove anything (zero prove) we can only reject (falsify) some hypothesis (at certain level of probability)? Do need all this obvious (perhaps to some not so obvious) but easily comprehensible to put here to convince another who argue about to many zeros in excellent result!? If you are convinced revert yourself or say about what else you need to be convinced too. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, some of this isn't as obvious as it seems to you. But alright, let's wait for some responses. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you play not fair. Either you are convinced and revert yourself or say what you like to be convinced about. Are your conviction depend on other decision ?99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be using primary sources to try to decide the relative weight our covering of the different models of dispersion - we should be using recent secondary and tertiary sources, such as textbooks, handbooks and encyclopedias. Having recently read a number ofrecent textbooks in Biological anthropology I think it is safe to say that neither the complete replacement model or the multiregional model has much support. The currently most supported model is Recent-African-Origin with subsequent minor geneflow and eventual replacement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source which is cited hundred times can be excerpted from the indirect refs, however this will be plagiarism: to use source A, and instead cite source B. Why not to credit use primary source while is available and widely cited? If you postulate that one source is not enough it was already stated other source may be invoked. Actually are you sure here in this website is more desirable to credit tertiary (eg. newspaper reporters (who mess up things at times)) and than to disregard primary source? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Read our policy on sources at WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. What we aim for is summarising the state of the field of research, giving balance to the different models in accordance with their general degree of support and acceptance. The best way to get a feel for the current state of the field is by using secondary (review articles and textbooks) and tertiary sources (not news sources, but for example scholarly encyclopedias). We can find primary sources that support all of the possible scenarios - but we won't be able to determine which of the scenarios have most support from looking at primary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The currently most supported < as stated before empirical science can not prove (or support) any model ('currently not rejected' model is semantically cohesive phrase) . The null hypothesis of total replacement was statistically rejected the replacement thesis was postulated by original RAO model. Since gene flow [is] postulated in both ME and in the modified RAO there may be no testable difference [neoRAO versus ME]. The best will be use sources to find out or contradict possible testable differences. "subsequent minor geneflow" is an argument to restore rejected citation. If otherwise lets put it as next thesis to compare/work on sources. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but it really is very difficult to understand what you are saying, and I don't think you are actually in a position to give grammar advice to others here, at least not untill you write fully intelligible English yourself. Please try to phrase your points clearly and formulate clearly what it is that you want to change in the article and why.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you cant - just disregard. Knowledge is required to understand. Wikilinks added as a help. And one perhaps helpful [is]. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Look you are obviously not a native speaker of English and that is fine, we can collaborate in editing nonethesless. But I do take issue with receiving grammar advice from someone who can barely make himself intelligible in English. That you resort to claims of "pigheadedness" and imply that I am unfamiliar with the basic concepts of human evolution doesn't really make me more favorably inclined towards your argument. Play nice or don't play - that is how we work here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the current text proposed, there are several relevant questions (of which I will give 7):

• 1. is it coherent? - yes, it is much improved in this area. Although it still not right, it is close enough that other editors would be able to understand it well enough to clean it up were it to be retained.
• 2. is it appropriately referenced? - no. Templeton is not only being cited to document Templeton's conclusions, it is being cited to document the current status of thought on the topic of total replacement. You can never use a primary source to represent current thought on a subject. A primary source may be what brought forth the current thought on a topic, but by definition it can't document an understanding that could only come about after the community read the paper. Further this paper cannot represent 'current' thought as it is not current. It predates game-changing genomic results.
• 3. is it accurate? - no. Templeton didn't test the theory of European replacement. Templeton tested the allelic divergence in humans and showed it to have occurred too early to fit a particular version of European replacement.
• 4. is it balanced? - no. It is being used to push a specific POV, not to accurately summarize current understanding, ignoring as it does the way that more recent results change the interpretation of this outcome. (Maunus had given their view of the current thinking, with which I am entirely in agreement.)
• 5. is the language appropriate for the lede? - no. The lede needs to be a simple-language introduction and summary to the article. It need not, in fact should not, include a detailed account of a specific statistical finding that requires more context than is appropriate for the lede, particularly given that most readers don't know what a p-value is or what it means and hence the point could be better gotten across to them without the p-value.
• 6. is the material appropriate for the lede - no. The value of Templeton's result has dropped precipitously. If an argument is to be made against total replacement, it should not be made using Templeton, as Templeton has lost its ability to distinguish between the models. If Templeton's finding is to be reported, it doesn't belong in the lede.
• 7. (in summary) Will the placement of this material at this point in the article improve the article? no, for all the above reasons. Agricolae (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some claim having problem with understanding other not to do ten zeros, (actually 7 more zeros is needed). The sentence is an esence and [simple-english] demand is ridiculous. The request for more ref is justified and fulfilled by adding a book and one secondary source. If not enough long ref array may be added (just put # how many). No contradictory quotes have been produced (and are unknown to exist). The wiki editor elaboration to discuss scientific mater is encouraging (try to polish it and publish it, then can be used as contra to Templeton:) A, M^2 trying to restore credibility of RAO replacement, hypothesis which has been rejected already in 2005. In future discussion attempt please provide 'quote contra quote'. For now just read again: "the hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected (P < 10^-17). Thus, the hypothesis of total replacement can no longer be regarded as tenable" (Templeton 2005). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Again incoherent - "Some claim having problem with understanding other not to do ten zeros, (actually 7 more zeros is needed)" makes no sense whatsoever, being both a grammatical disaster and an inaccurate representation of what 'some' have problems with. As to simple English, we are not talking about children or the mentally handicapped - better than 99% of the population have no idea what a p-value means. However, perhaps you have been misled by the scientific objections to the use of Templeton's work. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. Templeton is a primary source, so your interpretations of what it means is completely inappropriate in the article, independent of whether it represents current scientific opinion (which it doesn't) or is no longer relevant. It doesn't belong, no matter how many times you repeat it. Agricolae (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant Wikipedia policy on plain English:"Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics." Agricolae (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See now, I don't see what is so difficult. The 17 zeroes is referring to the p-value. The article abstract very plainly states the rejection of one total replacement model. It requires no interpretation, we could simply place in the article "Templeton claims to rule out total replacement ...". A primary source is fine, since we're not making an original interpretation (but merely reporting directly from the abstract), since it is not contentious (since in fact we agree both of those simplistic competing models have been abandoned, and even if the models were still contested, the "templeton claims.." clause means we're reporting it as a noteworthy claim made about the model rather than as a confirmed/established fact, and surely nobody will dispute whether templeton made that claim). And it is relevant to the article precisely because (wrongly or not) the article is focusing on that model (and so the status quo misrepesents the current state of knowledge -- so adding mention of the attempted discrediting of those models is a step in the right direction, albeit only the first of many necessary steps). If you're just concerned that this change gives the improper impression that ROA is the absolute truth (which is questionable -- the phrasing can let readers decide for themselves what to conclusion to draw from templeton), the solution is to add more about the current nuanced consensus (and the criticisms of ROA) but not to unconstructively enforce a status quo that is well-known to be at least as misleading. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Templeton's article hasn't had much of an impact on the field, and certainly hasn't been instrumental in the mopve towards the more nuanced position. Including it as if it were is undue weight.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what the 17 zeros refer to. Statistics like that are meaningful in a scientific publication but meaningless when directed toward an audience, the majority of which have no idea what a p-value is, and a good part of those that do get lost in the zeros, thinking that something with a p-value of 10^-17 is much more likely than something that is 10^-7, when this is not the case. With these numbers, you would have to redo the experiment 10,000,000 times to see any difference, and hence using that number makes it seem iron-clad, when the value of the study has everything to do with the assumptions made, and almost nothing to do with the p-value. We are making an original interpretation of primary data, because the body of underlying knowledge in 2011 is not the same as it was in 2005. We are interpreting it to still be relevant, and then ignoring all of the primary data afterwards that show it not to be. It is UNDUE at best. How can you possibly say it is not contentious, when it has been contended here for weeks? And Templeton is no longer a noteworthy claim made about the model, as it barely addresses the conflict at all any more. We cannot simply 'let the reader decide' because the problems are not evident from the simple statement of what Templeton said. It would take a paragraph to describe Templeton, including the question that was actually asked and not just the conclusion that they jumped to, and then to give the more recent data that shows Templeton's assumptions were off base. We go through all that just to have the readers decide that Templeton is uninformative, when if Templeton is uninformative, there is no point in the exercise. It may not be optimal to enforce a misleading status quo, but when the alternative is to make it more misleading by parading out a study that has almost no influence on the current interpretation and in fact, because of its flawed basis, points farther away from the current consensus, then it is the lesser of two evils. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me just add, this would be like presenting in the article on bird evolution a paper on the improbability of birds evolving from dinosaurs because the latter didn't have feathers, that predates the discoveries of feathered dinosaurs. Once the latter discovery is made, probability arguments that could not have taken it into account become virtually valueless. Likewise, I vaguely recall statistical arguments against an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs based on the improbability of an asteroid impact, all of which became moot when the impact crater was discovered. You can still argue whether the impact killed all the dinosaurs or was incidental, but the improbability argument predating this discovery is no longer of interest to a summary of current thinking. Same here. Neither Templeton nor anyone else conceived of the possibility that the single population spreading out of Africa and replacing Neanderthal was already a human/Neanderthal hybrid, which we now know it was. Templeton's paper provided a clear and unambiguous answer to the wrong question. We now know for certain that there has human/Neanderthal inbreeding, as suggested by Templeton, but this tells us absolutely nothing about total replacement. There is nothing of value to 'let the reader decide' unless like Templeton and 99.*.*.*, we frame the question incorrectly. Agricolae (talk)

• "thinking that something with a p-value of 10^-17 is much more likely than something that is 10^-7" < Yes, think harder, 10^-17 / 10^-7 = 10^-10. Rejection of null hypothesis, if is P=10^-17 will be exactly 10 billion, 10G, 10 000 000 000 times more certain ("more likely"), elseif P=10^-7. How long Agricolae will flood the discussion with such LAME so easy to contradict statements (as appealed before: Ag. use quotes&sources). From Agricolae 'explanation' one probably may be deuced. He do not understand the subject at sufficient depth. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Neither Templeton nor anyone else conceived of the possibility that the single population spreading out of Africa and replacing Neanderthal was already a human/Neanderthal hybrid" < (Yep Agricolae DID IT):< this scenario is called: 'multiregional evolution with limited gene flow' (mLGF). mLGF is unlikely scenario too. Erlier bones and the new south China find dated ~ 100ka with 'modern'*Neanderthal*Herectus mosaic of traits made it not probable (Zirendong; Wu,,,Trinkaus). The world wide gene flow, the original multiregional eveolution (ME) is valid not contradicted model. Model postulated long before outburst of RAO. Multiregional evelution(ME) was formulated then, mainly mainly on bones and archeology. With the mtDNA RAO get some publicity and politics (but also strong opposition in arguments not pears). RAO came out with genetic data - and go out rejected by genetics. (not to mention bone and archeology contradicting replacement all time along)

• The 2005 Templeton thesis is explicitly worded, definitive turning point only later confirmed by many other genetic discoveries. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agricolae argument with the cattle breading as necessity of the hybrids, clear ply - so some zi pots will like it. Multiregional evolution(ME) do not posit such creative exception: ufo-hybrids. ME put just the f* hard regular sexual reproduction. Agricolaes flooding wash will not work here. As all kids first, when only skip out of parental control, learn about sexual reproduction, the multiregional way, just by browsing to any XXX site. Use Occam's razor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Beside 'most important scientific truth' ME is also nice and humane model. RAO in sake to "shallow genetic inheritance" (L.J.) is regrettable, just to say and counterproductive. The genocidal replacement (nenderthal wars | coxisted species) failed in pieces so mext hybrids spry pike . Applied RAO was used to fight subpopulation differences (aka race) but at the end loop back to neo Species Specianism (ss). With much stronger diff in ss, may play well to some zi pots. (do not ask citation on this)99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I had first prepared another point by point response, but what would be the point? The last paragraph shows this all to be nothing but WP:SOAP - with a layer of incoherence (". . . so mext hybrid spry pike"???? - I remember a hybrid blue pike being characterized genetically in the late '90s, but it was not very spry, having been in a freezer for over 30 years). Agricolae (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

*mext => next. Skip the last paragraph if you can or can't. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone clarify a bit?

So, a semirecent peer-reviewed report purports to definitively rule out the hypothesis of total replacement of Eurasian populations, right? It seems like that is surely worth a cited mention in the article. No need for accusations of incompetence is there? Of course, it doesn't necessarilly need to be in the lead, and if contentious it can be phrased as the findings claimed by that particular scientest (rather than being phrased as an unconditional established fact). But the article seems to be having trouble presenting the current mainstream hypotheses clearly. For example, I thought that the notion of literally total replacement had been a straw man for some time, and the question was more one of degree. Is the article attempting to exposition the development of historically significant theories (starting from their most naive original postulations), or to detail the nuanced differences between current expert views? Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not base our lead on a single primary source, but on the general consensus in the field. The article is being misrepresented as supporting a scenario that it doesn't support in order to put the current mainstream views into doubt. That is not good editing. Can we include Templeton? Yes, but only if we represent what he is actually arguing and give it weight relative to the article's significance and the general acceptance of the view it proposes. That is not what the ip-editor is doing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(just to be clear: incompetence is not an accusation, but in this case a fact referring to a) English skills and (maybe "therefore") b) ability to understand the editing process Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Let me be clear: the accusation you have just repeated is neither civil nor necessary.

If you can agree that there is some value to the referenced contribution (but just disagree with the phrasing and placement), please consider moving it to a different part of the article and rephrasing it yourself. Simply trying to exclude it entirely seems unconstructive and not conducive to reaching consensus here. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are being somewhat selective in your use of WP:CIVIL - the anon Ip isn't ecxactly civil either - although in his case it can perhaps be excused with ignorance of our policies. It is not necessarily incivil to question WP:COMPETENCE if there is a good reason to do so. I mentioned his lack of grammar skills as a retort to being given a lecture on English semantics - not suggest that he lacks the required competence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely civil, totally necessary. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This question really has two aspects - how (or even if) we should deal with the Templeton result in the article, and the real problem here that has caused that issue to lead to an impasse. Regarding Templeton, were we writing this item in 2008, then Templeton would have to feature prominently. However, there has been a couple of paradigm-changing results since then, which make it clear that Templeton's analysis was based on simplistic and inaccurate assumptions. However, it is quite unusual for someone to publish something like a 'why Templeton was wrong' paper. Instead, the field simply progresses and the previous interpretations get left behind. For this reason, primary papers have to be used with extreme caution. We are unlikely to even find a secondary review explaining why the Templeton data can no longer be viewed as strong support for MR vs RAO, because the whole RAO vs MR debate has been superseded by a consensus that there was minimal interbreeding with a Neanderthal population just as a single modern human population was leaving northern Africa and that this population spread throughout Eurasia without further detectable interbreeding except in south-east Asia. Thus it is unclear to me that in the grand scheme of current understanding, Templeton really merits mention at all, and certainly should't be without applying a level of knowing OR by SYNTH to explain what the result means in the context of the current understanding. Is it really necessary that we preserve that brief window in time when the result was the 'bees knees' in the eyes of the multi-regionalists? This is particularly the case when there was a body of data even at the time suggesting that the Templeton analysis may simply have been documenting the exception that proved the rule. So no, we can't just 'find a place for Templeton' because I don't think there is a place for Templeton unless we give a full disposition of the various strong evidence for both viewpoints, rather than as IP prefers, a vague overview of both and then the misleading announcement that this one result has solved the entire debate in favor of the minority side. I don't think such an elaboration is worth doing, because as I said, the field has moved to a more nuanced post-RAOvsMR phase where Templeton only has a role as part of a large body of material superseded by the Neanderthal and Denisova genomic results and the advances in human population genomics. We know so much more that focusing on the debate is no longer important enough to dwell on this one result that proves in the end to be of little value.

Then there is the real problem. No, we can't just correct IP's grammar because even when we can figure out what IP is trying to say, there are major issues with the ideas, not just the language, and attempts at engaging IP over these issues on the Talk page have proved ineffectual due to a whole host of behaviors whereby IP is, intentionally or not, having an extremely disruptive effect on this page and seems unwilling/incapable of engaging productively. Call that what you will. Agricolae (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So we all agree then that the article is currently wrong (outdated)? It (specifically the third paragraph of the lead and the fifth section of the body) says that the scientific mainstream are split between two opposing camps (OOA vs MR), when in fact the mainstream has since abandoned both camps and now reached a consensus on a more nuanced middle-way, right?

Our aim should be for this article to primarily focus on the current consensus view. So I suppose ROA/MR should be entirely dropped from the lead, and their treatment in the later section explicitly present them as outdated models (and briefly make note of what developments, possibly including Templeton, caused our understanding to move on away from them). Perhaps that section should be retitled histiography? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be premature to show the RAO/MR as abandoned altogether. It still appears in recent textbooks, who just prefer to add nuance to the question instead of formulating it in strict either/or terms. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·72.221.123.196 (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me just express caution over this last suggestion - people have been talking about human evolution from the time that the first Neanderthal was discovered, and there is more to the historiography than simply RAO/MR. In fact, there were numerous other debates concurrent with RAO/MR, for example East-African vs South African Homo origin; Chad vs Kenya; Omo vs Turkana; A. afar vs A. austr as human ancestor; Leakey vs Johanson; H. hab as human ancestor or not; H. hab as one species or a bunch of unrelated bits and pieces lumped together because they are of the same age; what is KNM-ER 1470; what is Flores;. . . . If we really want a historiography section, that will take someone a good bit of time. I was led here by the chaos IP was creating on the Denisova page and have just been trying to keep this page from going too fringy/POV/incoherent. Someone with more time and access to the latest material will have to do a decent write-up of the current consensus. Agricolae (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as suggestions are being made, I would suggest that the H. neanderthalensis section get some attention - it still states that they were are a different species because they didn't interbreed based on mtDNA analysis, but then in the next paragraph says that they interbred. We need to back off on the species assignment. Maybe the best solution would be to have a single combined section, 'Neanderthal and Denisova', a section name that avoids mixing common with scientific name and ducks the species question, which we can address less definitively in the text. I was going to suggest this combination anyhow, as the two are related both genetically and conceptually. (This is something I could probably attack if there is a consensus to go this way.) Agricolae (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

6% figure

I note a contradiction between the primary record and the secondary press reports involving the proportional representation of Neanderthal and Denisova DNA. The abstract of the first Reich nature paper does in fact say that 6% of Denisova DNA is present in Melanisians. However, every secondary report I see of the paper says that 6% of Melanisian DNA is Denisovan. Admittedly a subtle difference but a difference. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the whole Reich paper right now to see how it is phrased in the body, but every other reference I see is the other way around. This ([7]) summary of the second Reich paper is also talking about proportion of different groups of Melanisians that is Denisovan, and not the other way around. Can anyone help with this? Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Any of these help?

• Denisova Admixture and the First Modern Human Dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania
• The Shaping of Modern Human Immune Systems by Multiregional Admixture with Archaic Humans
• Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia Slartibartfastibast (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of Date tag

I see no discussion about how the article is supposedly out of date, I say we remove it. THoughts? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You can search it out above. A particular example was that the article presents the impression that there are currently two main but conflicting hypotheses, fairly evenly matched in competition against one another, when in fact neither of those extreme views is held anymore. (Rather, both conflicting views have apparently been replaced with a new more-nuanced consensus.) As such the article is outdated. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see one anonymous IP and several others disagreeing, perhaps I am missing something. 03:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Some VERY recent human evolution.

In your more affluent countries, the age at which children go through puberty continues to decrease steadily. I am greatly surprised that this comment did not come up a long time ago in this article - this is a high-profile concern and totally verifiable.

The rest are all unsourced, hence only put here, on the discussion page.

• Also in more affluent countries, children are able to produce the various enzymes that digest milk, up to an age of several years. In the 20th century, children stopped being able to produce these enzymes well before they reached the age of two years.

Excuse me, I have to say this is completely untrue, at least of European children. As far as I'm aware, the capacity to digest milk is present throughout life in all human populations where domestic cattle have been used for the provision of milk for a long period of time. What's more, this is a well-known textbook fact. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't phrase that very well. We lose the capability to digest SOME parts of cow's milk at a very early, but increasing age. Even in Europe and other places where cows milk is prevalent. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Here you go, someone below very kindly found the exact article: Lactase persistence. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• The size of the human jawbone, particularly the lower jawbone, has become slightly but significantly smaller. This is a problem because the number and size of teeth has stayed the same.

Old_Wombat (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We would need a source not only for the phenomena, but also indicating that they are genetic in nature before they could even be considered. Agricolae (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: Dental Occlusion in a Split Amazon Indigenous Population: Genetics Prevails over Environment

• Studies examining human and nonhuman primates have supported the hypothesis that the recent increase in the occurrence of misalignment of teeth and/or incorrect relation of dental arches, named dental malocclusion, is mainly attributed to the availability of a more processed diet and the reduced need for powerful masticatory action. [...] Our findings downplay the widespread influence of tooth wear, a direct evidence of what an individual ate in the past, on occlusal variation of living human populations. They also suggest that genetics plays the most important role on dental malocclusion etiology. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, there are some recent documented examples. See, for instance, Perry et al, "Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation", Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1256-60. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if there's a gradual human evolution recently, the genomic diversity of humans is still small. Please keep that in mind. Komitsuki (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense, because the genomic difference between humans and chimps is also very small. It's not about quantity, but quality.--Kmaga (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• These are correct examples, just not really of evolution. The size of the jawbone characterizes European populations - but there's no evidence that this is under selection. The question of falling menarche is not about evolution at all - evolution can't work quickly enough to let the arge of Menarche drop from 16 to 13 in three generations. This is simply a question of environemental changes acting on the onset of menarche - the female body is evolutionarily programmed to go into menarche early if it is well nourished and late if it is not. BTW: I reccommend Wenda Trevathan's Ancient Bodies modern lives for treatment of the menarche changes, and other ways in which evolutionary principles can motivate fruitful inquiry into health issues.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So for an actual example of current human evolution (or at least of ongoing natural selection, as opposed to mere differing appearances under differing nutrition/environment) you could look in malaria-prone areas at the distribution of sickle cell anaemia genotypes. It has trivially been shown quantitatively that the hybrid is being selected for. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another example is lactase persistance.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Or rather examples, as the mutation responsible in Eurasia is separate from that in Africa, and the expansion in each population dates from the approximate time of the introduction of cattle herding in those population. Basically, nature replicated the experiment. Agricolae (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant:Cultural diversification promotes rapid phenotypic evolution in Xavánte Indians (Accessible mirror)

• Shifts in social structure and cultural practices can potentially promote unusual combinations of allele frequencies that drive the evolution of genetic and phenotypic novelties during human evolution. These cultural practices act in combination with geographical and linguistic barriers and can promote faster evolutionary changes shaped by gene–culture interactions. However, specific cases indicative of this interaction are scarce. Here we show that quantitative genetic parameters obtained from cephalometric data taken on 1,203 individuals analyzed in combination with genetic, climatic, social, and life-history data belonging to six South Amerindian populations are compatible with a scenario of rapid genetic and phenotypic evolution, probably mediated by cultural shifts. We found that the Xavánte experienced a remarkable pace of evolution: the rate of morphological change is far greater than expected for its time of split from their sister group, the Kayapó, which occurred around 1,500 y ago. We also suggest that this rapid differentiation was possible because of strong social-organization differences. Our results demonstrate how human groups deriving from a recent common ancestor can experience variable paces of phenotypic divergence, probably as a response to different cultural or social determinants. We suggest that assembling composite databases involving cultural and biological data will be of key importance to unravel cases of evolution modulated by the cultural environment.

From a Discover Magazine genetics blog post about the article:

• The authors used a set of variables amongst groups of indigenous Amazonian populations, and analyzed how the variables related to each other. In particular, they found that one tribe seems to have undergone a great deal of phenotypic divergence from a genetically and linguistically related population (last common ancestors ~1,500 years B.P.). The phenotypic variables were head circumference, facial height, nasal height, nasal breadth, and glabello-occipital length. They also constructed a phylogeny using mtDNA, and related that and the phenotype to geography, and climatic 6 × 6 distance matrix. One assumes that variables like phylogeny, geography and climate should be robust predictors of phenotypic divergence (i.e., in a random drift model phenotypic divergence would be proportional to genetic distance).

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a discussion, I hadn't intended to generate so much controversy. I'd like to move forward. Here is a suggested addition to the section on "Recent and current human evolution". We can now debate something more concrete. So here we go:

There has been some evidence of human evolution in time spans as short as decades. For example, Lactase persistence, changes in the shape and size of the human jawbone, (please add others).

Please attack this as you see fit. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that these are examples of adaptation, and may or may not lead to evolution (if we are allowed to distinguish between the two terms). Dbfirs 21:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The word evolution is right there in the title:

• Cultural diversification promotes rapid phenotypic evolution in Xavánte Indians

Also:

• Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population (March 2011)

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• NYT: Genome Study Points to Adaptation in Early African-Americans (Jan 2, 2012)

"Researchers scanning the genomes of African-Americans say they see evidence of natural selection as their ancestors adapted to the harsh conditions of their new environment in America." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that your examples sound more like genuine evolution, but "evolution in time spans as short as decades"? No way! Dbfirs 07:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes way.Slartibartfastibast (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Units error in discussion of energy usage of brain?

The snippet "The brain of a modern human consumes about 20 watts (400 kilocalories) per day..." looks wrong to me for the simple reason that watts and kilocalories have different physical dimensions, and therefore can not be equivalent. Perhaps what is meant is "... 20 watts (40 kilocalories per day) ...". Could someone verify this? --68.0.167.220 (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a note at the Reference desk regarding your question. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Units mentioned are different, Watts and "kilocalories per day" are units of power, suitable for describing brain energy consumption. The 20 Watts average (same as just over 413 kilocalories per day I think) quoted seems realistic. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Using the calculator at UnitConversion.org I come out with 20 Watts = 412.7 kilocalories per day, which is very close to the stated figure (which is just an approximation anyway). Note it takes a bit of fiddling, as the units on the calculator don't exactly correspond to those given here. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You can verify on paper; the unit kilocalorie is described in our article. If you want a quick check, Wolfram Alpha can perform the conversion; Google can also perform unit conversions. Nimur (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, folks, but it's clear the objection is to the nonsensical "Watts per day", not 40 vs. 400 - that's just a typo. ;) 66.57.57.178 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Watts per day makes no sense. What was intended was 20 Watts (400 calories per day). edit:I also just noticed the figure does not have any citations. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fairly easy to find citations, though estimates vary, such as [8], [9](25 watts) , [10](10 watts) etc. Perhaps it depends on how hard you are thinking? Dbfirs 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if some solid citations could be found, I don't think the sources are really that reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does "human evolution" only start with Homo

The article omits all of human evolution before the appearance of Genus homo. Surely human evolution starts with the divergence from the Great Apes, particularly from the Chimpanzee 5-6 million years ago. There is much excellent research done on this. John D. Croft (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

?? Human evolution#Before Homo.Moxy (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we never diverged from great apes, I think we're still classified as one of them. KrisPwnz (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"All animals have a tail at one point in their development"

This affirmation is not backed up by reference 2, and is misleading. A sponge is an animal and certaily doesn't have a tail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.204.225 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I corrected it a while back (to all chordates ...), but someone undid all of my fixes. The page is back to being filled with garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.234.96 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Humans never had tails

"Humans inherited their tail bone, a remnant of what was once a human tail, from primate ancestors"

That is wrong; humans never had tails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.234.96 (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All human embryos have a tail during weeks 13-14 of gestation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And some are even born with them although fortunately not very many.Jobberone (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Embryonic evidence

Why is there no embryonic evidence for human evolution? Here are some, there are others.

1) Human embryos do not get their nutrition from yolk stored in a yolk sac, yet human embryos have a (vestigial) yolk sac. 2) In addition, the human genome contains VIT pseudogenes: now-disabled-by-mutations genes that are involved in yolk production. 3) Humans, despite not having a tail, develop a postanal tail in embryonic development. 4) Human embryos start off with a very fishlike arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which then must undego much remodeling to finally end up in a human-appropriate arrangement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.234.96 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a great deal of evidence in embryology. Check out any good textbook on developmental biology, comparative developmental biology or comparative embryology, yada.Jobberone (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think what he was talking about, Jobberone, was that there doesn't seem to be embryonic evidence for human evolution presented in the article, not that it doesn't exist at all. Cadiomals (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How comprehensive do you think it should be? I've had several embryology courses as well as developmental biology and that's a big undertaking. Or do we just want to say there is evidence for evolution of phyla and man in our own embryology and put a couple of references in there with an embryology link?Jobberone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

This page focuses on the evolution of hominids (humans). Of the examples, 1, 2, and 4 are all shared by all (at least most) mammals (there is an Evolution of mammals page), while 3 is common to all apes. This page just cannot be a repository for all of the evidence for the whole process of evolution that resulted in humans, or it would have to mention the presence of five digits, Your Inner Fish, and the commonalities between the human mitochondrial polymerase and those of bacterial. The page is not List of evidence that humans evolved. Agricolae (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't what the article is about. Any evidence presented in this article should be evidence that helped in accurately mapping the lineage of humans, not evidence that humans even evolved at all. I know what the underlying motive in that is. There is no need to try to satisfy or cater to the creationists here. We start with the assumption that humans evolved and go from there; we don't have to establish it here. Also, much of the evidence that humans evolved can be applied to many other groups of organisms, so its no use. Cadiomals (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT

I spent a great deal of time working on the introduction and adding refs to evidence for evolution. I was going to discuss this but I'd like for others to review the changes and help sort out any unwanted deletions.Jobberone (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is with that million mile long line of citations in the evidence section??? Surely you didn't put that many cites for one single fact? it needs to be scattered. Cadiomals (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read it, it states the following are references to both evolution and the evolution of man. If that is too extraordinary then let's find a better solution. But no it's not to reference one single fact. In fact I'll remove them for the time being.Jobberone (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is the wrong way to cite sources. You don't put down paragraphs of information and then at the end say "here are all the cites" and put them all in a long line. Every statement of fact that may be challenged needs to have a citation immediately after it. You should check out WP:CITE if you haven't already. Cadiomals (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to reference anything in particular and what I wrote was unlikely to be challenged since it was general knowledge. I was giving references to evolution and to evolution of man. However I agree it might be best not to address references to evolution here. People can easily go to the main article via evolution. I also believe we should consider removing the material about the plantaris muscle etc. I don't feel strongly about it. Is there a way to make a list of references and use a 'pointer' to view them? That way you can have a more extensive bibliography without creating such an eyesore.Jobberone (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Will be redoing these section(s) that now have GUESS words and are very badly sourced. VERY bad source this isMoxy (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah to be honest WHY do we even have this section? I feel like the Evidence section only exists to try to convince any creationist readers who might be out there (who probably woouldn't read it and won't be convinced anyway). Either we remove it, merge the content with other sections or put in some more reliable sources. Cadiomals (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - most can be removed ... See what I can source.Moxy (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'vitamin C' gene was disbled LONG before human evolution

"For example, humans have structures in their genetic make-up that were once used to produce enzymes (L-gulonolactone oxidase) to process vitamin C; many other animals have this functioning DNA, but at some point in human evolution a mutation disabled the gene, leaving behind its remnants as junk DNA."

That is wrong. Chimps also have the same pseudogene, and they aren't humans. In fact, it’s not just humans and chimps that share a GULO pseudogene with a primate-specific mutations: instead, all simian primates -- humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, Old World monkeys, New World monkeys -- as well as tarsiers have the GULO pseudogene, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.234.96 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A sentence says something different that what was meant.

I think that the sentence:

"and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans.[13][14][15]"

should be reworded to say:

and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of the genome of present-day humans.[13][14][15]

67.142.162.24 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Steve Stites

This has already been mentioned here once before without resolution (see "6% figure" section currently at the top of this talk page). The problem is that the secondary sources (press reports) say it one way (the way you suggest), while the abstract of the original paper says it the other. I have not been able to lay hands on the original paper to see whether the abstract or the press reports better reflect the language of the paper itself. Agricolae (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Accessing this page via the mobile site facility, I noticed the word 'GOD!' inserted as a complete new stand-alone paragraph between the first and third paragraphs in the lead section. At the earliest opportunity, I visited the editable page with the intention of attempting to revert to a previous un-vandalised version. While doing this, I noticed a message associated with the most recent entry I found there marked as having been reverted by Cluebot_NG - claiming to have reverted to the previous most recent edit by cadiomals. However, the text had remained unchanged. Would somebody with adequate knowledge and privileges please check the history and see what has been happening. This page may require some protection if vandalism continues being a problem. Peter b (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try deleting your cache for the page and then reloading the page. Alternatively, it may be that mobile version contains a snapshot of the page (but that seems unlikely). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice IRWolfie- appreciated. It was the main site page that had not seemed to have updated following the ClueBot_NG edit though- maybe the previous version had been server cached or something like that. Looking back over a few recent edits, I noticed some other reverts due to vandalism. How much of a problem does this need to become in order to warrant protection? Peter b (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule. I tend to request protection for articles on my watchlist when there's unambiguous vandalism coming from different IPs more than once daily for weeks on end. It's also more important on articles without many watchers. You're free to make a request for protection at WP:RPP, but judging from this article's recent history I suspect it will be denied. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Homo georgicus

We need some attention at Homo georgicus where Georgian nationalists seem to be rewriting history from a Gergia-centric perspective.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're a typical vandal. Who is Georgian nationalists? How dare you to insult the Georgians? This vandal is a Georgiano-phobe on every Georgian topic. What an embarassing human-being. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 10:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CIVIL. Calling someone a vandal is a pretty serious thing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No need for it here - Homo georgicus is not classed on its own anymore (part of erectus since 2006) -- pls read DK Publishing (15 August 2011). Evolution: The Human Story. Penguin. pp. 108–. ISBN 978-0-7566-9184-4.... Moxy (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

UserGeorgian Jorjadze is now editwarring to keep the outdated classification in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the merger tag removal on that article - lets see what others have to say. Moxy (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Early primate evolution and WP:UNDUE

We need to be very careful about how we present early primate evolution, such as the stuff referencing David Begun (or any other palaeoanthropologist). Simian origins (as well as lemuriform origins) is far from certain, and any source that claims a dominant hypothesis will be biased. Working from individual research articles would be cherry-picking. To best represent this part of the evolutionary timeline, we need to stress uncertainty and present the general hypothesis for simian origins (Asian vs. African origins) using the most recent secondary sources. The only thing I think we can safely rule out at this point is the European origins hypothesis. Those seem to be a definite minority. – Maky ^« talk » 14:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Religious Conflict

Why doesn't this article discuss how some religions, including mine, recognizes this theory as error? It should also discuss the scientific flaws found with this theory through the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amack17 (talk • contribs)

This page is not about a theory, it is about what is known about the evolutionary history of humankind. You should look at Evolution as fact and theory - that article describes the difference between evolutionary theory and the facts of evolution. This article does not have to describe religious accounts of human origins. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

agreed, this article is not a place to discuss any perceived religious conflicts regarding evolution. It is only about everything we currently know about human evolution based on empirical scientific evidence. You can look at creation-evolution controversy and also the FAQ on the evolution talk page. Cadiomals (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP etc etc etc
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this not labeled as a Theory? If this isn't a theory, then what is? Does alleged consensus or perceived "strong theories" get to shed their theory status? There's been many mistakes made by evolutionists in the past. It's a bit silly that Wikipedia is stating this as irrevocable fact. We should probably continue to make distinctions between observable, repeatable phenomena.. and complex processes that scientists believe occurred millions of years ago, no? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Are you saying the ancient Greeks and Romans are just a theory? Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC) No, the theory status is not shed by strong consensus. Gravity is still a theory. Every thing we think we know in science, including our explanation of all observable, repeatable phenomena, are theories. Not everyone understands the term. Perhaps that's the problem here. Likewise, nothing in science is an irrevocable fact, even when the consequences are observable, repeatable phenomena, as is the case with evolution. (I don't know about the Greeks and Romans, but there is a fringe belief out there that the Dark Ages didn't exist - that historians misreading chronology mistakenly inserted 1000 years or so that never happened, so maybe the same could be said for Greeks and Romans.) Agricolae (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Gravity is a phenomena that can be repeated and measured over and over again today. That you're equating the theory of gravity with the theory of human evolution is a perfect example of how Wikipedia has thrown any need for distinction to the wind. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC) The term "theory" isn't descriptively useful, since the scientific meaning of the term applies to everything (even your observation of your nose in front of you is technically theory-laden), and the ordinary common meaning is completely inapplicable here (human evolution is a fact like other historical facts, not a conjecture lacking in scientific support). Moreover, like any other fact about history, it is not the event itself that needs to be repeatable. Rather, it's enough that the scientific techniques used to investigate it are repeatable. For example, you can repeatedly take samples from the fossils and artifacts, and have radiadating done in different independent laboratories. You can collect consistent hominid fossils by repeatedly surveying/excavating at new sites within the regions selected by the same geographic analysis. And so on. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Look, you are equating the same level of veracity of the theory of human evolution(a process that theoretically took place millions of years ago), to that we have noses on our faces. Do you seriously not understand how ridiculous and intellectually dishonest this is? Give me a break. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC) We should be just ignoring this creationist trolling. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I find it odd that this keeps coming up - were in the world are kids learning this stuff? Is creationism actually in schools in the USA or anywhere else? Moxy (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Interesting. Not once did I bring up Creationism. And no, in schools, all children are learning is to religiously believe everything they read in a textbook. How nice to see that Wikipedia encourages people to believe wholeheartedly and unquestioningly whatever the academic fashion of the day is. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC) It depends on the schools. But the FAQ obviates the need to spend time providing detailed answers to questions such as the one that opened this thread. A simple pointer— e.g., "see question 3 in the FAQ"—should do the trick. Rivertorch (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC) This issue is explained really well here: Evolution as fact and theory. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks. As usual the Talk pages reveal much more than the article itself. I'm sorry this is just really sad. Anyone with an ounce of skepticism is going to pick up on the agenda-driven intellectual dishonesty being displayed here. Especially since the main counter argument appears to be: "It's no more theory than Gravity" ...or... "You stupid creationist, herp derp!" 72.224.189.211 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Oh, I don't think creationists are necessarily stupid. But definitely ignorant when it comes to science, and sadly, keen to encourage ignorance in others. Fortunately, ignorance can be cured. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Oh yes, with your blatant religious worship of Academia, I'm sure you think anyone who questions what a group of men claim happened a billion years ago is ignorant. Maybe someday it will dawn on you that there is a huge difference between the scientific method and the Scientific Institution. Here's hoping, champ. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC) LOL HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC) You have it backwards - It is just as much a theory as Gravity. You seem still to be struggling with the use of the term, given that there are not degrees of being a theory - 'more theory than X' is meaningless, and you seem incorrectly to be using the word as a proxy for the concept of uncertainty. Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Agricolae, you are essentially saying all theories are supported by equal amounts of evidence? That is truly rich. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC) No, that is not what I am saying at all, essentially or otherwise. Agricolae (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC) This IP should check out creation-evolution controversy if he wants to see this sort of info. Wikipedia relies ONLY on reliable scientific sources. And the overwhelming amount of reliable scientific sources regard human evolution as fact. It is not up to Wikipedians to judge and interpret based on our own biases, only place info from reliable scientific sources. Are you not here to promote your own creationist "agenda"? I think that's that. We ought to close this discussion now, because this been repeated countless times before and is a time waster. Let the IP view the archives or the FAQ for any more info. Cadiomals (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Yes I know Wikipedia is little more than a wire service for official claims. But these Talk sections can be very helpful for the skeptically minded who may question your repackaged orthodoxy. Thank you. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC) LOL HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Hatting this now. Folks the IP is a troll or a conspiracy theorist or both, check the editing history. This is getting us nowhere. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)