Talk:Human evolution/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

why rollback ? @Wretchskull

during which AMH populations exploded vastly outnumbering Neanderthals (my new version) vs. during which human populations exploded vastly outnumbering Neanderthals (previous version, restored by Wretchskull)

Whats the definition of human here ? As one of 2 possibilities of taxonomic positioning of the (sub)species is homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the adjektive human for non-Neanderthals doesn't make sense, plus isn't used in that sense (for indicating h.sapiens resp. h. sapiens sapiens in contrast to h.neanderthalensis) a second time in this article.

Why wouldn't AMH be adequate plus more precise ? Is AMH exclusively attributed to another period of time ?

This wasn:t intended to be any kind of vandalism, but a serious attempt to correct a given glitch. --MistaPPPP (talk)

@MistaPPPP: Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. Regarding the word "human", I understand that it may be confused with the umbrella term for human, but the word human in its explicit form is only used for homo sapiens. The current consensus also shows that through the consistency of the article: every sentence that addresses homo sapiens alternatively use the word human. If you have any other questions, please ask. Wretchskull (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull I cite from this same article: "...traits such as human bipedalism and language". Well, bipedalism isn't specifically or exclusively sapiens sapiens at all. With language we don't know. When I read the passage we're discussing, I became confused: How can humans replace Neanderthals who are temselves humans ? - and then intended to find a less confusing form.

How about: "... during which populations of anatomically modern humans exploded, vastly outnumbering Neanderthals". The term AMH is used in the same article preceding the passage here in discussion, for anatomically modern humans. The rather pleonastic term AMH humans is also used.  ;-] --MistaPPPP (talk)

So is the human brain expanding or shrinking?

The section on recent human evolution cites source 251 and talks about the reasons for human brain expansion. However, if you go to the main article on recent human evolution, it says that the human brain is shrinking. How can both be correct? EditorPerson53 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the timescale. Brain size in the line leading to modern humans has increased dramatically over the last 3 million years. It reached a peak around 100,000 years ago and has then declined slightly, with most of the decline in the last 12,000 years. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

probably didn't need as much fast reaction/thinking/intuition/ or as many refined instincts any more and replaced them by culture: group size, easier-to-manage ways of foraging plus then agriculture, and lately probably it was watching MTV that did it. Gaming though should increase certain parts of the brain again (fast reactions etc ) on an evolutionary timescale, or be it that females just won't breed with excessive gamers... --MistaPPPP (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Image references

SimplisticReps thanks for sorting out the refs for File:Homo skull changes.png. A couple of points 1. Refs 56 and 67 are showing errors. 2. It would be helpful to add the refs to the image file for the benefit of any editor who wants to use the image in another article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The eight hand-drawn comparison images posted by SimplisticReps purporting to display differences in encephalization is virtually useless because the skulls have no consistent horizontal orientation, with some pointing downward and others pointing upward, each to various extents. One or another head/facial feature would need need to be consistently aligned, such as teeth or eye sockets, or foramina at the skull bases. But eye sockets appear inconsistently drawn, and foramina are not indicated at all, since they are not visible in this view (but may possibly be implied in the angles). So teeth, in various mandible shapes, seem the likeliest for a useful alignment for comparison. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes by Ontoraul

@Ontoraul: Edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=1120234055 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&curid=10326&diff=1120323463&oldid=1120234055 changed |date=August 22, 2002 to |year=2002 with ne explanation of the reduced precision and changed a citation to Boyd, Robert; Silk, Joan B. (2003). How Humans Evolved (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-97854-4. LCCN 2002075336. OCLC 49959461. (9th edition 2021)

Which edition is correct and shouldn't it be in |edition= rather than a parenthetical note? Or is that intended to be a citation of two different editions? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chatul: The first correction was an error (corrected); the 3rd edition of "How Humans Evolved" is now obsolete, I added the last edition. Ontoraul (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)::

You added a parenthetical no (9th edition 2021) after the {{cite book}} instead of changing the parameters to reflect the new edition; that's what looked strange. Was there a requirement to leave the old edition in place? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Species list vs information on species

I'm currently translating this article into Basque, so I have a full perspective on the content. Homo heidelbergensis section should be expanded, I think that we could just use the lead of the article itself, is pretty good. Also, the debated species should be added to the best known species (i.e. Homo erectus and related). This would make the list of species near the bottom of the article unnecesary, and the article easier to read and with better flow. Theklan (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Evidence from the fossil record

Should the section Evidence from the fossil record be more centered in the fossils found? It seems like a summary of the article itself, but with little evidence. Theklan (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)