Talk:Human evolution

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about human evolution. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins. Off topic discussions may be deleted on sight.

New scientific evidence supports a partial Multi-Regional evolution of humans & the independent evolution of the Chinese from Homo Pekinensis, the Chinese species of Homo Erectus

I am a scientist and I would like to introduce to you the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting a separate independent evolution of the modern Chinese people from an archaic species of Homo Erectus, specifically the separate species known as Homo Pekinensis. Below I have provided the results of scientific DNA studies that provide strong irrefutable support for an independent origin of the Chinese from Homo Pekinensis. These scientific studies have both been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and are well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

3.) National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

It is tempting to simply dismiss the new peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the previously accepted "out of Africa" theory of human evolution where, supposedly, all humans were descended from the same group of Homo Sapien ancestors and which subsequently gives "strong support" in favor of an independent East Asian origin of a separate archaic branch or separate species of humans, the modern day Chinese people. But unfortunately, the reality of human evolution during the past 4 billions of life on our planet Earth is not as clear cut as the "out of Africa" theory attempts to address it. The "out of Africa" theory tries to say that "ALL" humans are descended from the same group of anatomically modern "Cro Magnon" or Homo Sapien Sapiens and while some of the older previous studies did initially seem to support that theory, those studies were not all inclusive and did not test many aspects of human genetics and evolution. But within the last few years, new genetic evidence has been discovered as a result of numerous scientific studies that have been conducted which lend a strong support for the theory that the modern Chinese people, or conservatively, a subpopulation of the Chinese gene pool are descended NOT from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like other humans on Earth, but rather that they are the product of a separate evolutionary lineage going back at least 1.8 million - 2 million years ago to Homo Erectus in East Asia. And that the modern Chinese people today are not necessarily classified as "Homo Sapien," but more accurately they could be classified as a highly evolved anatomically modern form of Homo Pekinensis. You must remember that regardless of whether we are talking about Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus that we are talking about human beings. And even though they are a classified as a separate species of human beings, nothing can take away their "humanity," for if one of them were dressed up in a modern day suit, they would still be recognized as "humans."

Please watch the evidence on these links:

1.) Scientific evidence from the Chinese Academy of Sciences
2.) All Non Africans Living Today Are Part Neanderthal
3.) New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

Adding further support to the Multi-regional theory of human evolution are the recent DNA discoveries that anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man, in direct contradiction to the thesis of the "out of Africa" theory which specifically states that Homo Sapien did not interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis and that the Neanderthal simply "went extinct." Which has now been shown in peer reviewed scientific studies to be untrue, and that the Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis did indeed interbreed with each other. These studies are additionally supported by previous archaeological finds that show skeletons of humans who show hybrid morphological and anatomical traits of both species of humans, both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Please read the following evidence:

1.) NewScientist Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans
2.) Archaic admixture in the human genome, Neanderthal genes in modern humans
3.) Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans
4.) Discovery News "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves"
5.) USA Today Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate
6.) BBC "Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'"
7.) Official report Neanderthal/Homo Sapien interbred
8.) Cosmos Humans and Neanderthals interbred, according to our anatomy
9.) Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to address this fully, but since no one else has made any comments, I figured that I could at least state the obvious. Without having read the article in its entirety in the recent past, I do agree that a mention should be made about recent studies indicating some hybridization between modern humans and Neanderthals. I have not, however, heard of any similar genetic tests that have shown that Asian human populations hybridized with other hominids that may have lived in the region upon their arrival. What I noticed quoted above was a bunch of YouTube videos, which are not reliable sources. If articles from peer-reviewed academic journals can be cited, the material could be added. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am providing you peer reviewed scientific studies which have been well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.)Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.)Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your assertions in the first paragraph do not follow from the papers cited. If you believe the papers, at best they tend to show that there is a possibility that a subgroup of the Chinese gene pool descends from both African-based Homo Sapiens ancestors and Homo Erectus ancestors. They do NOT say that the Chinese are solely descended from Homo Erectus. Please read the abstracts more carefully, as well as the rest of the papers. I'd also like to see if there are any papers published that refute the data and conclusions of those papers. BTW, calling this "new" evidence is stretching things -- one of the papers is from 2005 (and there have been other studies since then), and the other is from 2008 -- and the 2008 paper's conclusion is much weaker than the 2005 paper. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the papers they specifically state a "strong support" for an independent Asian origin while retaining a conservative position since the authors know that a lot of anthropologists refuse to abandon the "out of Africa" theory despite the indisputable fact it has been recently proven with DNA studies that archaic Homo Neanderthalensis interbred with anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens. The "out of Africa" theory completely dismisses any possibility that neanderthals interbred and produced hybrid progeny with Homo Sapiens. Many years ago, when I was finishing my Ph.D dissertation, my professors were claiming the "out of Africa" theory that the African Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa and "replaced" all other species of archaic humans, whether they be Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus. But the views now are changing, even computer simulation models have shown that interbreeding MUST have occurred between archaic and modern human populations. And now I have provided the peer reviewed scientific journals from reputable sources that show us it is time to begin re-evaluating the validity of the "out of Africa" model in favor of a more Multi-Regional model of evolution. I will be providing numerous other studies as soon as I get more time, besides the graduate classes I'm teaching now I have some lectures I must present soon at another university so my replies may be a bit slow. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk • contribs)

I've read the papers. While they provide some support for the multi-regional theory, they most definitely do NOT support your theory (as promulgated in your edit summaries and in the first paragraph of this section) that the Chinese are SOLELY or LARGELY descended from Homo Erectus. Also, if you continue to spam that youtube video in your edit summaries, you are likely to be blocked, and fairly quickly as well. Furthermore, people around here aren't usually impressed by unsupported self-promotion, such as claims of professorships. Don't CLAIM that you are an expert, SHOW us -- by examining and presenting ALL the relevant sources, not just the cherry-picked ones that support your particular hobbyhorse. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And now ArglebargleIV is engaging in uncivilized personal attacks and slander against me rather than trying to provide peer reviewed scientific sources as I have previously done to support his view on the "out of Africa" model which is now been shown to be partially incorrect. If you cannot provide scientific evidence supporting your views, then please refrain from engaging in personal attacks against me. That is against Wikipedia policy and is unprofessional conduct.

Specifically, the "out of Africa" theory states that Homo Sapiens did not interbreed with Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus, but that "out of Africa" view is now being shown to be PARTIALLY INCORRECT, and that there have been both interbreeding, which supports the Multi-Regional Theory, as well as some subpopulations of China that have not interbred with anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens even up until the present day. Whereas some other individuals from China show genes from Homo Sapiens due to the interbreeding between their Homo Erectus ancestors and African Homo Sapiens immigrants who may have migrated to China sometime within the past 100,000 years.

There is a tremendous amount of peer reviewed fossil and genetic evidence supporting the thesis that the Chinese are indeed decended from the Homo Erectus species of Homo Pekinensis, distinct from the European Homo Heidelbergensis, better known as Peking Man. You must realize the demographics of China, and that humans have been entering and leaving the area for hundreds of thousands of years, some interbreeding must have taken place, but it does NOT rule out the fact that the Chinese can trace their evolutionary lineage back to an ancestral Homo Pekinensis. All of the archaic East Asian Homo Pekinensis and Homo Erectus fossils studied have shown a continuity of unique morphological and anatomical traits, such as small frontal sinuses, reduced posterior teeth, shovel-shaped incisors, and high frequencies of metopic sutures, which are virtually absent in modern day European, Middle Eastern, and African populations but widely present in the modern population of the Han Chinese.

New evidence also shows that Homo Erectus or the Chinese species of Homo Pekinensis lived 200,000 earlier than previously thought.

National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

• Slander? Where? I have merely said that you have presented no proof beyond your assertions that you are a professor -- and you haven't. There are no personal attacks in what I wrote.
• Your assertion that there are "some subpopulations of China that have not interbred with anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens even up until the present day" is not supported by any of the papers you have presented. Not even close.
• Many of your links aren't even vaguely related to your assertions. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious to any reader that your aggressive and hostile behavior is present in your previous statements, self-explanatory to anyone reading this discussion. I refused to be dragged down to a low uncivilized level of trivial human "tribal warfare." My position has been clearly stated and supported by the peer reviewed scientific journals I provided, and if you are not happy about some new evidence contradicting your beliefs on the "out of Africa" model than I implore you to provide some scientific evidence rather than engaging in unproductive arguments of which I will have absolutely no part. The "out of Africa" model, while partially true for most humans, does not hold up to scrutiny when we are talking about interbreeding with Neanderthals and the Chinese Homo Pekinensis! The evidence is here for everyone to see and become educated with up to date information!

"Education is the progressive realization of our ignorance." -Professor Albert Einstein

I agree with ArglebargleIV. Your claims go far beyond what the literature supports. ArglebargleIV is not attacking you. Stating in your posts that you are a professor serves no point here on Wiki. Anyone of any age or education level can go to a discussion page and make the same claim in hopes of pushing through his/her point-of-view. We have no way to verify your claim, so it won't influence our decisions. Furthermore, if you can't provide academic literature that fully supports the claim that some subpopulations of Chinese people are descended from H. erectus and not H. sapiens, then the material cannot be added to the page, and is therefore pointless to argue here. Wikipedia is not a forum. We're not going to debate it. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

To VisionHolder, first, both of you attacking my academic credentials as well as ArglebargleIV claiming this is my "hobbyhorse" constitutes a lame and useless personal attack. Since you guys have no scientific evidence to disprove the genetics studies I have previously provided you, you resort to personal attacks against my credentials, how uncivilized? And then you resort to attacking the scientific studies when both studies are from respectable peer reviewed sources. Namely, the Oxford Journals and the Genetics Society of America. Second, supporting ArglebargleIV for whatever reason will NOT lend any more credibility to the "out of Africa" theory. Third, I want to make it clear that I have NOT entirely dismissed the "out of Africa" model rather I am showing the evidence that other species of humans evolved separately and then interbred, in some cases but not all, with the Homo Sapiens which the "out of Africa" theory entirely dismisses. Science is about evidence and I have previously already provided peer reviewed scientific studies to you and sent to them your talk page, but you apparently deleted them. It appears that you simply dismiss these recent scientific findings and just don't want to admit that the genetic and fossil evidence shows a hybridization of African Homo Sapien and archaic Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalensis, which in turn suggests that modern populations, particularly in East Asia, are NOT entirely descended from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens as claimed by the "out of Africa" model. The personal opinions of you two people are irrelevant to anthropological science as time and time again it has been shown that the original "out of Africa" which dismisses any hybridization in favor of a replacement of archaic humans with African Homo Sapiens cannot be entirely correct, as the recent evidence is against it. And the scientific journals I sent to you, which you subsequently deleted, shows genetic evidence of this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk • contribs)

You need to chill out and stop making accusations about personal attacks. We're not attacking you. We're just pointing out that your professional role is unverified and, consequently, irrelevant in these discussions. We're not attacking your credentials, but we are saying that we have no way to verify your credentials. I'm not going to discuss the inconsistencies in your claims, and this will be my last reply to your posts since attempts at rational discussion appears to be futile. I will note that I did not delete anything of significance from my talk page last night. After you made your original post on this discussion page, you duplicated it on my talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to VisionHolder, in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia the past comments of you and ArglebargleIV officially constitute a "personal attack" as defined. But as I stated before I refused to be dragged into a low form human "tribal warfare," and as such I am just going to ignore those attacks and focus on the scientific method which some editors have been ignoring in favor of "manifested aggression." And I had specifically posted and sent to you the peer reviewed scientic journals which you subsequently deleted and ignored. I'm assuming you don't like the conclusions of the two genetics studies showing that modern day Chinese people retain genes from archaic Homo Erectus Pekinensis rather than being descendants of African Homo Sapiens Sapiens like the everyone else of the planet?

From my understanding of the articles (and YouTube videos) provided by 71.68.251.209, the Multi-regional hypothesis certainly has something going for it. Who's to say that modern humans and archaics could not have interbred? One can wonder why certain Anthropologists coined the term "Archaic Homo sapiens" to include Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, and Neanderthals into one species. However, who's to say that the Chinese evolved "independently" from African Homo sapiens? The apparent admixture in the modern Chinese genome seems so small compared to their relations with non-Chinese, in terms of mtDNA and Y-Chromosomal DNA.

Please watch the following YouTube videos which I believe prove, directly or indirectly, the African origin of modern Chinese:

• Chinese People come from Africa
• DNA history 1-the migration of old Asians

Now for the admixture of Neanderthal genes into the modern genome, which is about 1%-4% in non-African populations, I believe gives credence to the RAO hypothesis, albeit indirectly. Had non-Africans evolved from neanderthalensis, or even Asian erectus for that matter, wouldn't we expect to find a uniqueness greater than 1 or 4 percent in non-Africans today? All that the articles provided by 71.68.251.209 prove is that modern and archaic populations could apparently interbreed. Whether these prehistoric human populations were subspecies of the species Homo sapiens is a question that has yet to be met with a consensus. Regardless, Homo sapiens sapiens have ultimate origins in Africa, as does Homo erectus, but I cannot say the two are descended from a single family, as the Multi-regional hypothesis wishes to prove in the case of modern Chinese. Erectus may just have been an evolutionary dead end, and are now extinct. Some individuals within our species may carry an erectus pseudogene, but positive selection may have "felt" that the genotype was of some significance to the potential Sapiens-Erectus hybrid. Natural selection, however, may have favored the overwhelmingly modern traits over the archaic ones, and thus the archaics died out over time.

This is all just speculation, but I believe it can help in understanding the extinction of Homo erectus and why it took place, and why we obviously outlived the species. -Ano-User (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

To Ano-User, welcome to the discussion and thank you for your good faith edits. And thanks for making an effort to present evidence supporting your views on the "out of Africa" theory of human evolution.

In reply to the above links you provided, I have not only watched them multiple times but I have also extensively studied the scientific papers published by Dr. Jin Li et al. as well as the numerous other mitochondrial studies. You must realize that Dr. Jin Li et al. studied autosomal snps collected from a relatively small sample of test subjects in China that utilized 160K snps in only 1700 individuals out of all total population size that is somewhere between 1.5 - 2 billion people in China. And for Dr. Jin Li et al. to make this radical conclusion based on his studies of only 1,700 individuals and claim that this somehow "proves" the Chinese descended from African Homo Sapiens is a big leap of faith that is not supported by the genetic studies of Dr. Daniel Garrigan et al. and Dr. Murray P. Cox et al. who provide irrefutable evidence showing that modern day Chinese have archaic Homo Erectus Pekinensis genes in their DNA, different from all other modern humans who are descended from anatomically modern African "Cro Magnon" Homo Sapiens. These peer reviewed scientific papers provide additional support to the enormous amount of fossil studies that have been conducted showing that there is an evolutionary continuity between archaic Homo Erectus Pekinensis and the anatomically modern Chinese, whether they can be classified either as Homo Sapiens Sapiens or more accurately a more highly evolved form of anatomically modern Homo Pekinensis. Numerous Archaeological fossil studies and as well as the relatively recent genetic studies have shown that many modern Chinese people retain both the genes and their consequential phenotypic morphological traits, such as flattened faces, small frontal sinuses, reduced posterior teeth, shovel-shaped incisors, and high frequencies of metopic sutures, which are virtually absent in modern day European, Middle Eastern, and African populations but widely present in the modern population of the Han Chinese. This presents fossil evidence strongly suggesting a direct evolutionary lineage of the modern Chinese people from their ancestors of the species Homo Erectus Pekinensis.

Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJnuMx8KD84&feature=related

1.)Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

2.)Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

what is not OK with this information ?

Earlier studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA have largely supported a recent African origin, while genomic studies and evidence of genomic lineages do not support recent out of Africa replacement instead suggest multiregional evolution as coherent model, with both haplogroup and genomic data.

The above sentence cant be added. I think its pov, but the question is above. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One issue is the awkward placement of the "[1]" reference which breaks the sentence. Another is the awkward English following "[1]" – I would need a few minutes to work out what it is saying. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The text above is result of earlier text (see diffs); off course will be better to rephrase it, e.g.:

Earlier studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA have largely supported a recent out of African replacement, while new genomic studies and evidence of genomic lineages do not support replacement hypothesis . Multiregional evolution propose model consistent with haplogroup, genomic data and fossil record.

is ti OK? 76.16.176.166 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, although small tweaks to the English are needed, and we need to work out what to call the competing models, and the text should not sound as if it is promoting the ME view.

I have explained before that I totally understand that no species has an "origin" (and obviously if we trace any species back in time, the defining characteristics of the species we started with disappear – it makes no sense to talk about a species over large periods of time). Nevertheless, it is common to use the incorrect term "origin", and your text is intended for the end of the lead, just after it has mentioned "recent African origin of modern humans (RAO)". Therefore, it is confusing to suddenly drop "origin" and say "recent out of Africa replacement".

Although I have not read the papers you cited, my feeling is that the ME hypothesis will triumph over RAO. However, we still need to mention ME in a neutral way. Another issue regards including references that are actually links to another Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how best to handle that. In conclusion, here is some suggested text (although I'm not entirely happy with it):

Earlier studies of haplogroups in Y-chromosomal DNA and mitochondrial DNA largely supported the recent out of Africa model, while new genomic studies and evidence of genomic lineages do not[1]. The multiregional evolution model is consistent with haplogroup evidence, genomic data, and the fossil record[2].

I put "[1]" and "[2]" above; these need to be replaced with references, and a careful check that the words above are supported by the references is needed. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of important points in the article, so we need to check the article. Other comments would be welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as happy as Johnuniq is. The nuclear DNA evidence, even the long TMRCAs, is consistent with Out of Africa, as is the fossil evidence. This wording implies that they're not. It also uses a construction that makes it appear that the multiregional evolution work has superceded outdated research, which isn't the case. This wording isn't neutral or factual. p.s. While we're stating beliefs, I don't think multiregional evolution will be shown to be correct. Fences&Windows 02:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. As I said, I haven't read the papers, and the text only stands if it is really supported by the refs. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So is now OK to tag the art {POV} until you finally read the 'papers' or screens and contribute something meaningful or become fully happy?

ups it is already tagged POV 76.16.176.166 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is THIS why the entire article has been tagged for NPOV? (And after reading the discussion above, I'm still unclear as to what "this" is). I don't see any of the essentials here. There is no clear statement on this page about why the ENTIRE article has been tagged. In fact, there is no actual statement here by the tagger detailing and explaining their actions. IMHO, that tag should be removed, and a more limited NPOV tag should be applied to the section where there may (or may not) be an issue.

As it stands, it just looks like another act of creationist vandalism.--Digthepast (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur that in the absense of a clear and specific justification the tagging seems improper. This kind of drive-by tagging is relatively commonplace, and yet the follow-up rarely seems to be there. Doc Tropics 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was an IP editor who believed the page is biased against the multiregional hypothesis, see the discussion directly above. Fences&Windows 19:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fences, the discussion above concerns a small part of the article. Important though it may be to some, it does not warrant tagging the entire article for NPOV. There is no edit summary in the page history, and the IP address associated with this edit appears, from the associated talk page, to have issues with correct editing. (In fact, you yourself appear to have pointed this out on several occasions). I have to assume that they simply did not understand how to tag a section, and ended up tagging the entire article.

Here's the info on the specific edit...

13:27, 25 June 2009 76.16.176.166 (talk) (62,231 bytes) (undo)

This is what the editor has to say on the page itself: "POV|no data on currentdi autosomal genomic research contradicting RAR, problem with adding single sentence pointing to this subject|date=June 2009"

Accordingly, as the "POV issue" here appears to be the editor's inability to make edits, and as there has been no discussion of the substantive issue that started this in the month+ since the tag was put up, I will assume that the issue is resolved.

I will remove the tag. If anyone here has a problem with that, we can certainly discuss it further, hopefully on this page.--Digthepast (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I totally agree. Fences&Windows 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

nonsense multiregional origin

the term is multiregional evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

?

What is your sense ? 76.16.183.158 (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi 76! Always good to hear from you, but if you have something to say, the talk page of the article would be better. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't get the question. The question is: what reason you have to revert to nonsense ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My mind reading skills are getting a bit rusty, so I will await your elucidation on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to read mind just read the history.

[1] nuclear genes supports a multiregional origin evolution. Just first example of misunderstanding. Do you understand why?

For anyone interested, the above has been copied by 76.16.183.158 from my talk page to here.

I reverted this edit which involved:

1. Change "multiregional origin" to "multiregional evolution".
2. Add sentence "(Mounsterian Levallois technique outside Europe was used to more recent periods.)"
3. Replace a sentence with "(Hoverer lice DNA only lover bound match that date while upper point to origin of clothing before 100,000 years ago. Earliest known cave painting are more recent than proposed magic dates. In Africa about 20 ka. Some cultures till today do not bury death and some did not use clothing at all 200 years ago.)"
4. Delete large section "Implications for the concept of race".
5. Some other things.

Re (1): We have had this conversation before and you have never acknowledged the issue. I don't particularly mind about this point, but the fact is that words are sometimes used somewhat incorrectly, and we all know that "origin" ain't right. However, a little Google will confirm that despite its inaccuracy, "origin" is very commonly used in this context, so I would like to see the opinion of some other editors before accepting your view about changing it.

Re (2) and (3): I think some work is needed on the English.

Re (4): I haven't recently read the deleted section, but judging by its title, it might be a good idea to delete or refactor it. However, given the history of contentious editing, I think it would desirable to first give a better reason than "deleting chapter" for why it should be removed. Ideally, you would create a new section on this talk page proposing that the section be removed, with a brief reason. Wait 24 hours. Delete the section if no objections. Johnuniq (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever the anon. editor's native language is, maybe there is a wikipedia in that language she can edit. I have no problem making the intelligible expression of thought a requirement for editing at Wikipedia. Surely, if the point 79 is making is mainstream knowledge, an edior fluent in English (from any country) will let us know. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you like typing. If copy paste is not your favorite pleasure could you make an extra effort to copy the sources. Just to pretend that you present true image edits, Or are you already disvalidated the sources ? 76.16.183.158 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would be more patient, you might find that I could help with some issues such as English expression. Working with people is necessary here, so I do not understand why you appear to have disregarded my above suggestion that before deleting a large section you should post a reason here, then wait 24 hours to see if there are any objections. Also, there really is a problem with your English – do you doubt that, or do you think it does not matter? If you would just write out what change you think is necessary here with reasons, then respond to questions, it may well be that someone will help and we would have very little disagreement. Your above comments are more combative than collaborative, and will not help here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From a relatively new user...the Homo Antecessor and the lineage of the Homo Erectus conflict with information on the page of the extinct Neanderthals...saying that Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens and its cousin Homo Neanderthalis...but...the image shown in this paper, with the brown bubbles, specifically shows a distinctly different linage than what I would expect otherwise.. explanation? thanks. Spelaringenroll (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a variety of problems with this page. The picture referenced in the comment above is a good example. I am from Germany and was told that the "Neandertaler" actually is a subtype of homo erectus as well as homo erectus heidelbergensis. So there are a lot of branches of homo erectus, but homo sapiens comes from a genetic singularity. The genetics data hints at all of mankind being descendants of a single interrelated group, with an Eve as kind of "mother of mankind" (mitochondrial dna has very few mutations for all humans tested so far). The current theory is that there was some kind of extincton event and only a specific group of those half-naked almost sentient primates survived due to luck or some unique advantageous mutation. Another theory is of course the theory of distant origin or genetic manipulation by ancient astronauts. Please do not deride these theories but keep an open mind: I There is still the "missing link" missing; II Group of ancestors is small enough for a decent-sized spaceship; III There is a school of evolutionists who claim that life in general and intelligent life in particular had to develop as it did: Humans are rather weak but intelligence compensates physical deficiencies, they have to be warm-blooded mammals with thumbs and so forth, so all intelligent life would develop on earth-like planets and to human-like sentients; IV Humans without any means to measure time fall in to a regular activity-cycle of 25 hours (NOT 24h!) V A wide variety of unexplained artifacts (Nazca, columns of pure iron, radioactive hotspot in the Himalayans, Easter Island culture, bible Ezechiel 1, apocryphal book of Enoch, etc.) The problem with the extinction event theory is of course that only man was suffering from this event, the extinction associated with the ice ages came after the widespread advent of homo sapiens and homo erectus remains are found later than that... And "homo flores..." was a group of homo erectus suffering from some genetic defect on an isolated island, so it is probably the result of interbreeding. To make it short: The entire article needs a major overhaul! If anybody has the time and expertise, please verify the diverse claims and write an article of quality with reference to all theories. Thank you! [[[Special:Contributions/79.196.209.50|79.196.209.50]] (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)]

These beliefs are so fringe that they do not warrant inclusion in the article, I'm afraid. Fences&Windows 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fences and Windows is right, this is covered by policies regarding fringe views and undue weight. It's really not possible or appropriate to include those theories in this article, but thanks for your interest. Doc Tropics 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

1

1. to mark which statements in article represent ONLY RAO views. Which only ME. Not mark those Which are in agreement to both RAO and ME. If not marked only one sided statements portrait misleading impresarios (what is perhaps POV or more.=, rather it is MF) that those statement are supported by all scientific community.
2. put better wording in abstract as here (text below). Previous wording contains wording objectionable from one or both ME and RAO views.

The two dominant view among scientists are, recent African origin of modern humans, and the multiregional evolution. The Recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) view that H. sapiens speciated somewhere around 200 thousands years ago in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing other humans. The multiregional evolution (ME), view humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population, from beginning of Pleistocene around 2.5 million years ago. For RAO multiple speciation originated numbers of human species replacing each other, for ME the gene flow between regional populations evolved into H. sapiens living today.

The text above do not contain wording objectionable from each RAO and ME standpoint.(if has then what?) Who oppose and why ?Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

2

1. Instead of tagging or marking statements, edit those statements to conform to neutrality guidelines.
2. The dominant view among physical anthropologists is the Out of Africa model, putting the multiregional origin model side by side with equal amounts of information and arranging the text to make it seem the two views share equal status among academics violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. JPotter (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3

0. Re:JP: "The dominant view among physical anthropologists is the Out of Africa model"

1. Show good example of proposed changes. Start with filling up the citation requests.
2. Note quote from article abstract, "The fossil evidence were insufficient to Leakey to resolve this vigorous debate,"... How you transform this excerpt to your wording under #2? Richard Leakey, physical anthropologist is one of leading sponsors of RAO hypothesis.
3. 2(1,2) indirect answers do not seem to oppose proposed textual changes but if you oppose please state it more clearly. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

4 http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/migration.htm JPotter (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

5 Thats all? Should one asume the websites be prove to #3.0 Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else know what this person is talking about. He seems to want citations for the statements that the dominant view is the Out of Africa model. That's been provided (although I see the request for citations in the article still exist). JPotter (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not alone, I've almost given up trying to follow their talk page comments. XC's MO is to edit war, act as a POV warrior for the multiregional hypothesis, rewrite things in pidgen English, tag bomb articles, and ramble incoherently on talk pages. Fences&Windows 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• JP:He seems to want citations for the statements that the dominant view is the Out of Africa model. That's been provided
• The first (2001) website[2] only closest match for word 'dominant' is culminating in our dominance of the planet. Can someone, somehow, explain to above syndicated interlocutors, which seem not understand, what is the difference between: dominant view among physical anthropologists and human dominance on planet. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two quotes from the article

There are two theories about the origin of modern humans: 1) they arose in one place — Africa and 2) pre-modern humans migrated from Africa to become modern humans in other parts of the world. Most evidence points to the first theory because fossils of modern-like humans are found in Africa, stone tools and other artifacts support African origin DNA studies suggest a founding population in Africa

— Donald Johanson, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

For the moment, the majority of anatomical, archaeological and genetic evidence gives credence to the view that fully modern humans are a relatively recent evolutionary phenomenon. The current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model that postulates a single, African origin for Homo sapiens.

— Donald Johanson, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

Now, those are two quotes, from a respected physical anthro, who confirms the that majority view is a recent African migration. This website is the number one Google search for "out of africa vs multiregional". There are dozens of other websites, journals, and colleges that affirm this view is the mainstream view. You'll need to provide evidence that anthropologists have recently been convinced by newer evidence. Also, you are now reverting large swaths of cited text in contravention of the consensus here on the talk page. You'll need to stop doing that or else be subject to vandalism provisions as per Wikipedia policy. JPotter (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

JP:This website is the number one Google search for "out of africa vs multiregional". There are dozens of other websites,...

7. This #1 website is dated, May 2001. Do we agree that current year is 2009? (interlocutor argumentation seem to mix understanding, of scientific subject with voting contest of search engine ranking). The other website #2 cited by Jason Potter contain link to 2002 paper contradicting thesis you seem to back up by this link.

3.0. Re:JP: "The dominant view among physical anthropologists is the Out of Africa model"

<-Understanding that talk on Wikipedia is alternatively entertaining test of gentle patience of educational skills,--> Lets read excerpt (Multiregionalism vs. Out of Africa by Susan Carr) from [#2] website: Fossil evidence strongly supports the multiregional hypothesis... We should agree, that providing fossil evidence is major reserch subject of physical anthropologist. Do Jason Potter accept {failed verification} as proper tag for both refs? Cite current: Nature, Science, PNAS, or other peer revived journals. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to debate the veracity of the claims made by the two sides in the scientific debate. The matter at hand is to determine what is the mainstream view. Nothing more. I have provided a source that says, as of 2001, the recent African migration model was the mainstream view. Do you have any evidence to suggest that since then, the mainstream has shifted to the multiregional view? The http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/migration.htm website also has a link, a 2009 NY Times article you failed to mention, that says Dr. Tishkoff’s team has also calculated the exit point from which a small human group — maybe a single tribal band of 150 people — left Africa some 50,000 years ago and populated the rest of the world. The region is near the midpoint of the African coast of the Red Sea. The use of Google is to point out that it took me literally five seconds to find an article that supported the consensus view here. I'm sure you are compelled to make Wikipedia better and not to push your own personal view, no matter how right or wrong, into the article.

So again, you'll need to provide evidence that the mainstream view has shifted. JPotter (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If this mess media article (perhsps based on 10.1126/science.1172257 [3]) is the "last nail" to to quote/prove/refere The dominant view among scientists is [2][3][4][5] the recent African origin of modern humans ...it do not show it. Just quote from this article:

• Since the geneticists’ calculations refer to people, not geography, ... therefore the site of greatest human diversity — might have been located elsewhere in the past. (but do not ask why this quote was used since as teach us JP We are not here to debate the veracity.

• Locations for the 'Garden of Eden'(sic) have been offered many times before, but seldom in the somewhat inhospitable borderland where Angola and Namibia meet.Map date 50 ka contradict the article date 100ka. Note the article NYT article do not support one of main thesis of RAO: the putative "origin" of modern humans in east Africa what is clearly visible on just linked map(it show west-south Africa), but again to debate the veracity or that the 40mM supplemental (to Science Express article) data show genetic refugia. Just concentrate on neutral referring what is inside of source... Anyway no single source, sticked as <refs>, match the string "dominant view" or close approximation of it. Some superficial reasoning may be regtarded as sportive to thesis JB, but skipping its debunking perhaps match the policy wp:point, won't be ethical; and given, all surrounding admin.co-episodes do not make any sense. 76.16.183.158 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Previously hidden comment by IP 76

the article DOI: 10.1126/science.1172257 do not pretend to interpert the gentic data in remote ~200-100ka past below the fragments qouting dates: in accord with linguistic evidence of repeated Nilotic assimilation of Cushites over the past 3,000 years possibly reflecting the spread of Bantu-speaking populations from near the Nigerian/Cameroon highlands across eastern and southern Africa within the past 5,000-3,000 years Fig. 5, B and C, and fig. S13). Additionally, all Nilo-Saharan speaking populations from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad clustered with west-central Afroasiatic Chadic speaking populations in the global analysis at K < 11 (Fig. 3), supporting linguistic and archeological data suggesting bi-directional migration of Nilo-Saharans from source populations in Sudan within the past ~10,500 - 3,000 ya The proposed migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers ~7,000 ya from the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin may have resulted in a Nilo-Saharan to Afroasiatic language shift among Chadic-speakers (36). However, our data suggest that this shift was not accompanied by significant Afroasiatic gene flow. Pygmies diverged >18 kya (44–47). Western Pygmy populations usually clustered (Fig. 3 and fig. S13), consistent with a proposed recent common ancestry within the past ~3,000 years The diversity among populations from this region reflects the proposed long-term presence of click-speaking Hadza and Sandawe hunter-gatherers and successive waves of immigration of Cushitic, Nilotic, and Bantu populations within the past 5,000 years Of particular interest is the common ancestry of the Akie (who have remnants of a Cushitic language) and the Eastern Cushitic El Molo and Yaaku at K = 9, consistent with linguistic data suggesting that these populations originated from southern Ethiopia and migrated into Kenya and Tanzania within the past ~4,000 years These results suggest the possibility that the SAK, Hadza, Sandawe, and Pygmy populations are remnants of an historically more widespread proto-Khoesan-Pygmy population of hunter-gatherers. Analyses of mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages in these populations suggest that divergence may be >35 kya (4, 17–19, 42). The shared ancestry, identified here, of Khoesan speaking populations with the Pygmies of central Africa suggests the possibility that Pygmies, who lost their indigenous language, may have originally spoken a Khoesan-related language, consistent with shared music styles between the SAK and Pygmies Although the Hadza and Sandawe show evidence of common ancestry (Fig. 1 and figs. S12, S16, and S19), we observe no evidence of recent gene flow between them despite their geographic proximity, consistent with mtDNA and Y chromosome studies indicating divergence >15 kya

Please don't lecture us about disrupting Wikipedia! First remove the plank from thine own eye.

The New York Times article isn't inconsistent; it says the approx. date for the Out of Africa migration via the Red Sea was 50,000 ya; where did you read 100,000 ya? The fact that Tishkoff et al. in their Science paper estimate the point of highest genetic diversity to be modern day Botswana doesn't mean the population now living there always lived in that exact location, as the NYT times article explains. Recent Out of Africa isn't dependent on modern human origins occuring in any specific location in Africa.

The Susan Carr essay you're using as support for multiregional evolution was never peer reviewed, and is now inaccessible.

Do you want good evidence that Out of Africa is accepted and multiregional hypothesis isn't? Try the National Geographic[4]: According to the multi-regional model, an archaic form of humans left Africa between one and two million years ago, and modern humans evolved from them independently and simultaneously in pockets of Africa, Europe, and Asia. Wells's work and that of others confirms the more widely accepted Out of Africa model, which says that all modern humans evolved in Africa and then left in several waves of migration, ultimately replacing any earlier species. "Genetic evidence tells us that Homo sapiens are of recent origin and arose in Africa," said S. Blair Hedges, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University. "African populations have the most ancient alleles [gene pairs that code for specific traits] and the greatest genetic diversity, which means they're the oldest," Hedges explained. "Our species probably had arisen by 150,000 years ago, with a population of perhaps 10,000 individuals." Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins Program at the Natural History Museum in London, said: "The multi-regional model of Homo sapiens evolving globally over a long time scale is certainly dead." Whether archaic humans and modern humans interbred is another point of debate. "Given the uncertainties, it isn't yet possible to establish whether we are entirely recent African in origin—certainly my preference—or whether there was a little bit of hybridization/assimilation" between modern and archaic species," said Stringer. Wells says there is no genetic evidence that supports the idea of intermixing, and several DNA studies actually argue strongly against it.

NG again:[5] The new data support the single origin, or "out of Africa" theory for anatomically modern humans, which says that these early humans colonized the planet after spreading out of the continent some 50,000 years ago. In the past, experts have also argued a "multiregional" theory, which held that Homo sapiens arose from different human populations in different areas of the world. "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much-heated debate," lead author Manica said. "We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area."

The Independent:[6] The multiregional proponents will no doubt stick to their guns and come up with yet more arguments for the continued evolution of humans outside Africa that involve some sort of interbreeding with more archaic humans. However, the latest study certainly adds to the growing, and some might say overwhelming, case in support of the out-of-Africa model for human origins.

And as supporters of the multiregional hypothesis are so keen on fossil evidence:[7] That finding supports the idea that modern humans emerged from Africa and spread out, replacing the Neanderthals. The "out of Africa" theory predicted that there would be similar fossils from the two locations from the same time. "The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction," the researchers said. The alternative "multiregional hypothesis" holds that some interbreeding took place between Neanderthals and early humans." Fences&Windows 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposition #2

Proposition #2 mark/describe RAO as refuted hipothesis, statistically strongly rejected (place RAO in history of science as other refuted stuff) :

Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans postulated in RAO conception < ref>{cite doi|10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.02.006}}</ref>< ref>quote: Ten years ago (in 1995), evidence from genetics gave strong support to the “recent African origin” view of the evolution of modern humans, which posits that Homo sapiens arose as a new species in Africa and subsequently spread, leading to the extinction of other archaic human species. Subsequent data from the nuclear genome not only fail to support this model, they do not support any simple model of human demographic history</ref>< ref>{cite doi|10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00164.x}}</ref>< ref>quote: many of the genetic studies on recent human evolution have suffered from scientific flaws, including misrepresenting the models of recent human evolution, focusing upon hypothesis compatibility rather than hypothesis testing, committing the ecological fallacy, and failing to consider a broader array of alternative hypotheses. Once these flaws are corrected, there is actually little genetic support for the out-of-Africa replacement hypothesis. Indeed, when genetic data are used in a hypothesis-testing framework, the out-of-Africa replacement hypothesis is strongly rejected.</ref> To above 2 'refs' one may add, most of sources, from multiregional evolution article. 76.16.183.158 (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=SopsLRo1QyUC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=berkeley+human+evolution+recent+african+origin&source=bl&ots=1OIpczJlV_&sig=RKtrcFvSdswrvxBG46gI9YYuor8&hl=en&ei=QJeuSr7dMoqkMde34fIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=berkeley%20human%20evolution%20recent%20african%20origin&f=false

Although less clear cut than the original conclusions, the out-of-africa model is still the most strongly favored, with little or no support for the multiregional model Richard Lewin, 2005, 5th Edition Human Evolution

JPotter (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously proposing that Wikipedia states that Out of Africa is scientifically disproven?! Er, no. Just because Harpending, Rogers and Templeton state that they've disproved Out of Africa that doesn't make it scientific consensus.

Just to chuck a single reference back at you, an August paper from PNAS casts further doubt on the multiregional hypothesis, which in the paper they call the archaic persistence model:

“ If the source population is placed in Africa, then the serial founder model explains three patterns observed in data: a decrease in heterozygosity, increase in LD, and decrease in the slope of the ancestral allele frequency spectrum with increasing distance from Africa. Our use of an instantaneous divergence model suggests that the patterns observed in the data—and the success of the serial founder model—are due to an increase in genetic drift and a corresponding increase in elapsed coalescence time with increasing distance from Africa. Unlike the serial founder model, an archaic persistence model, in which a migration wave of modern humans into preexisting archaic populations has the effect of increasing the diversity of the ancestors for populations at a greater distance from Africa, does not produce increasing drift with increasing distance from Africa, and does not explain observed patterns. [my bolding] ”

I've already explained to you three months ago why a long coalescence time - what you call a "deep genetic lineage" - for a few genes is perfectly consistent with a recent origin Out of Africa,[8] see Talk:Multiregional origin of modern humans#Edits by 76.16.176.166. The explanation is nicely summarised thus:[9]

“ The genealogical relationships at any one locus in the genome do not necessarily correspond to the phylogeny of the species as a whole. As we trace back the lineages of two genomic segments, sampled from two separate biological species, they may coalesce in a common ancestor at any time before those species became completely reproductively isolated. In the simplest case of a single, well-mixed ancestral population coalescence times are exponentially distributed, with a mean number of generations equal to twice the effective population size, 2 Ne. This distribution is highly variable, so that there is a 1% chance of coalescence more recently than 0.02 Ne generations before speciation, and a 1% chance of coalescence earlier than 9.2 Ne generations. Thus, if we have three species that diverged at closely similar times, it is quite likely that genealogies of individual genomic segments will not correspond to the overall phylogeny. [my bolding] ”

You're cherry-picking and misrepresenting the genetic evidence. Fences&Windows 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Question of terminology

At what point in human history are remains found described as 'men' or 'women' rather than 'female of the species X'/'male of the species Y'? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean at what point in time do we designate the beginning of "humankind" (genus Homo)? Or are you suggesting at at some point in history paleoanthropologists began calling bones "men?" If you mean the latter, I think, never - I do not think anyone calls fossils "man" or "woman." We use these terms for humans who are alive (whether historically or in pre-history). Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In some of the newspaper articles Ardi was referred to as a woman. While this may be a tabloidism, I wondered how the distinctions would be made with other hominids - would one say a Neanderthal man and a Homo heidelbergensis woman or a male N, female Hh? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I consider all people from genus Homo to be humans and thus men and women, but I do not know if this is a widespread view among scientsts. I am talking about men and wwomen in an abstract way, most scientists are dealing with very specific fossils and it is weird to call a skeletal reman a man or a woman, even if they are Homo sapiens sapiens. But this is just my opinion, does anyone know if there is a scientific convention? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

'Looks human' and 'looks ape-like' are non-scientific (and possibly speciesist) - but is there any better dividing line? There are potential uses terms might be used in 'artistic reconstructions of an xxxx community', time travel, 'very historical' and somc science fiction stories, and similar contexts. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

opinions needed at List of human evolution fossils

I am currently defending the use of Smithsonian non-free images of fossils as comparative tools at Talk:List of human evolution fossils and could use some more opinions. thanks Nowimnthing (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously

Who would believe this? If humans are "evolved" from animals, shouldn't all present-day animals be humans? Seriously, Scientology is ACTUALLY more believable than this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.204.176 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a chat room. Please use this page to discuss changes to the article. You can find an evolutionist answer to your question here and the Creationists (Answers in Genesis) agree with the evolutionists on this one in an article here. DoktorDec (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must ask..

Can I just point out that there is no conclusive proof for the Theory of Evolution? For one thing, people still haven't found a mechanism that will show that the Theory can work with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Change from a disordered lifeform to an ordered lifeform.)

Also, if it has been proven (Maybe I live in a backwater civilization? =P) could there at least be a section on the page about the proof? Because, if someone scientifically 'proved' it (Fat chance. Science can't prove anything - it's the forming of rules of behaviour for specific situation.) I would seriously like to see the information. Otherwise, it has as much salt in it as a religion-on-faith-alone, which means Wikipedia is POV.

No offense! Please answer. Amatsu-Mikabushi (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 22:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As it is used in the vernacular, evolution is "proven" (ie supported beyond all reasonable doubt). Scientists merely use words such as proof in a more precise way (ie shown correct with absolute certainty), hence the avoidance of the term. From the layman's point of view, evolution is as much proven as heliocentrism and gravity. The position on evolution is supported with objectively verifiable evidence and is thus not POV. Please note that this page is not for the discussion of the veracity of evolution or Evolutionary theory, but for changes to the connected article. There are many internet forums where you can air your criticisms. Your comment on the Second Law is based on a misunderstanding of that law by some and is addressed here.DoktorDec (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. I suspect someone has lied to you. Do yourself a favor and do some research for yourself. thx1138 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No there is no contradiction at all between the second law of thermodynamics and evolution. For a start thermodynamics doesn't really talk about long term historical trends in *abstract* organisation, but even if it did, it would be fine , because the entropy effect is that of a closed energy system. Obviously life is not an example of this because of the energy inputs and outputs, most notably, the sun. This is very basic physics and the only people, literally, claiming this of any import are American theologists, not scientists. Regardless this is hardly the correct forum for such a debate. 121.45.238.150 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is concerning Human Evolution, not the theory of evolution. Evolution is taking place and is measurable quantity, for example rates of recombination, rates of SNP evolution, etc are measurable between generations. The appearance of new mtDNA mutations outside of 3 'hot spots'(with observed events within different isolates of the same individuals) mutations appear about once every 4000 years. The rate of Y chromosomal evolution has been measured. So in terms of evolution as an ongoing process, evolution = change, and change is occurring.

The second issue is theory of creation or neobiogenesis. Since I run a molecular anthropology group I have been asked how life was created. My answer is that I don't know and don't really care. Within evolution everything is convergent on something older, and this process continues back to the putative first cellular species. Problem is that the convergence masks what happens before, ergo we cannot see. With convergences in humans, for example human mtDNA converge about 200,000 years ago, we can't see any evolution of mtDNA prior to this without using a different tool (for example sequencing Neandertal DNA, or chimp or gorilla DNA). This creates blind spots that can be filled in with information from X-chromomal or autosomal studies. However all of these reference points blend together at the same virtual point, the LCA of all life. Of course this is not precisely correct, within the first lifes history there was duplication of genes, etc but at some point all of these become extremely fuzzy representatives of the first biopolymers that coexisted within a consolidated form of life.

Human evolution is not interested in these early issues, these revolve around Neobiogensis theories and models, and the early evolution of life. Human evolution concerns primarily evolution from Old-World monkeys to Modern Apes, with a focus on the later, and even more focus on hominids. I cannot tell you how life was created. What I can say with certainty is that: Given: -over 500 individual representations of Neandertals -1/3rd of the Neandertal genome sequenced -6 full length sequences of mitogenomes of Neandertals -Several different species of late hominids that were not human. -The alignment of DNA evolution models and physical evolution models for Humans and Neandertals, for humans and Chimpanzees for Humans & Chimpanzess versus Gorilla that Human Evolution is unrefutable for anyone who has examined the current data.

Just a question on that please (mostly out of curiosity), when you say "late hominids that were not human" you mean non-Homo sapiens, non Homo (genus) or not belonging to the human clade after the human-chimp split?--94.69.128.204 (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of posting on Talk-pages that aspect which is designed to improve the Main page, this is part of the talk page guidelines. Questions of Evolution are better suited for pages on the Theory of Evolution and Neobiogenesis.

Questions pertinent to this talk page might include the following:

Why is the discussion of when Orangutan/Homo and Gibbon/Homo split so outdated? The more recent literature places the Orangutan/Homo split at 13 to 17 kya, and the Gibbon/Homo split at 16/22 kya. Why are not these "recent split times" referenced.

There is a hand-waving discussion of the Miocene large-bodied hominoids however the placement of these hominids as protohuman is questionable at best. The most similar large-bodied hominid to great apes is Pierolapithecus from 13 kya and White and other are claiming that the Gorilla/Homo split is in excess of 10 mya, with human chimpanzee split between 7 and 10 Ma, it seems that the new information of White is more pertinent to these discussions that alot decades old material on the page.PB666 ^yap 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of thermodynamics can be answered quite easily. The sun is approximately 95 million miles from earth, and there are heat sources within earth. As a consequence there is a gradient of energy that extend from sources of energy into the emptiness of space. Imagine if the earth continued to absorb the suns light and not emit radient energy itself, the temperature would climb to billions of degrees, eventually the earth would itself explode in a supernova, as uncommon nuclear reactions begin to occur at earths core. Instead energy adsorbed at the surface is converted to radient energy. Even a plant that can intercept that energy 1 micrometer before it strikes the earth is favored thermodynamic energy, the energy in light cannot anticipate what better randomize energy (Hv -- chrophyll --> Radient heat, reflected light, chemical energy). It may be true that the rock completely randomizes the energy faster, however the light cannot anticipate the better recipient. The event that trigger lights fate begins 95 million miles away, in the very energetic Sun's corona, from that perspective any randomization of energy is better than the energy remaining in the corona indefinitely. In additon, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will move to a lower state, that light could travel to an intercept an exploding super-Nova, therefore thermodynamics is probabilistic, not deterministic. A plant that can intercept energy prior to that energy reaching the earth is free to utilized that energy, in doing so it modulates the amount of energy striking the earth and created a steep temperature gradient at the surface. In compliance with the second law, plants with unlimited nutrient and water resources compete in the tropics to intercept light. Light drives the competition, and the competition drives life to stockpile chemical energy in the form of cellulose in tree roots and trunks, water transportation structures,etc. This further drives downstream complexity because other species then take advantage of the accumulated chemical energy to convert that energy to its final form, radiant energy that escapes earths atmosphere. Species like the Brazil nut tree grow higher and become sources of other forms of diversity because they are more efficient at intercepting light. In places where these sources of energy are less abundant, there is less force driving life and the number of versions of life are fewer, so that by the time one reaches the South Pole, there is so little energy residing that the only species that can survive are those that transport energy from elsewhere (for example the Emperor penguins). Evolution appears to be more rapid at the tropics, and while species form more rapidly in the arctic, they also tend to go extinct more rapidly. This is pertinent to the evolution of humans and great apes, as there have been a number of speciation events within the hominid lineages. An example of how tropics and arctic affects human evolution is for example certain peoples living in the tropics are almost entirely vegetarian (other food sources limited to insects, eggs, small amounts of fish) and other groups that have a large carnivore component, whereas in the arctic food sources for humans are almost entirely animal, many sources are the consequence of transport systems (oceanic) and breeding strategies. For example, Evolution has shaped the metabolism of Inuit peoples so that they can live healthy lives with large percentages of fat calories (particularly omega-3 rich sources), however they more adversely affected by carbohydrate calories, this appears to be a factor in the survival of the Inuit versus the Greenlandic Norse.

You might want to ask the question, what about before chlorophyll evolved. The answer is very simple, its not human evolution. What happens in heated clays of the early earth or with thermophilus aquaticus, methanoccus, methophilic bacteria is not an issue for this page. Furthermore to set the perspective strait, in Wikipedia we present answers to questions that have been published from reliable sources, and the reliable sources that involved the paleontology, archaeogenetics, molecular evolution, paleobiology, paleoecology on the topic of human evolution are numberous and well known. What this means is that we need 2 things, a reliable source of information (hopefully primary and secondary peer-reviewed material) and some tacit connection with the topic (human evolution as it can be separated from the evolution of other species), IOW the further a species evolution is from human evolution, the less appropriate it is to be posted on the main page.PB666 ^yap 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Though the chemiotrophic prokaryotes of both clades (archaea, eubacteria) seem to be the most ancient, if Cavalier-Smith is right (again), then the photosynthetic blue algae (cyanobacteria) are among the most basal lineages, so photosynthesis could be among the first remarkable biologic phaenomena (also its large scale and gradual effect on the biosphere through the procambrian is pretty much observed in the record of iron-rich minerals). Nevertheless life would not make any radical difference on the planet's temperature simply by absorbing solar radiation (most plants utilize less than 10% of solar rays reaching their leaves). Gas excretions of organisms seems to be more effective (though still not of critical value) in regulating surface temperature of earth. Life's needs of energy for metabolism,reproduction, activity and evolution are rather insignificant to a planetary scale.--94.69.128.204 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New Studies

Systematics of early and middle Miocene Old World monkeys - E.R. Millera, , , B.R. Benefitb, , M.L. McCrossinb, , J.M. Plavcanc, , M.G. Leakeyd, , A.N. El-Barkookye, , M.A. Hamdane, , M.K. Abdel Gawade, , S.M. Hassane, and E.L. Simonsf, Journal of Human Evolution. PB666 ^yap 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Two sections are too short

This article contains two sections Human evolution#Evolution of contemporary humans and Human evolution#Genetics, which are two short and which have too short paragraphs. I added some material today to the former but the article still looks unbalanced. The genetics section really just looks like mostly fluff so I wonder about combining the two? (see WP:STYLE and WP:1A#Achieving flow for further information.) Regards to all.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information

I was hoping to find some insightful and up-to-date information about how humans evolved (i.e. what adaptations led to bipedality, brain, speech, consciousness, etc) but this is lacking in this article - other than a short reference to tool use and brain development. If you visit 'horse evolution' or 'whale evolution' you immediatly get information about why we think horses or whales evolved they way they did (i.e. hoof adaptation to grassland and teeth adaptation due to change in diet). What does the latest research say about why we walk upright? The latest I have read suggests bipedality arose from adapting to walking on flexible branches. Is this supported? In my opinion, this article needs to focus more on why and how we evolved. --Kreid 2 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know this questions are not answered because there is not even a shadow of agreement about these answers. Bipedlaism is very hard to explain, as there are no parallels. While the loss of body hair and brain size increase MAY be explained by "I run therefor I think" and its relatives among theories, this is very far from a forgone conclusion. The best one can currently do is to summer the disputes. 79.181.14.188 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof?

There is no undeniable proof that evolution happened. Until it can be reproduced, it cannot be declared fact. Many noted evolutionists have disavowed the theory of evolution, and many so-called 'great discoveries' were proven to be hoaxes. Don't respond to this if you are going to say that it has been proven - I know for a fact that it has not and I will continue this until I get a section on 'controversy.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.46.103 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for any of those assertions? thx1138 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which evolutionary biologist have disavowed evolution? Mindmatrix 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have logic. How can one animal turn into many? How could that animal have come to exist? What existed before the animal? Look at the complexity of the human brain, and tell me how that could have just come into being? I could spend hours writing thousands of different questions, and I will not believe it until every single question is answered without room for doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.8.169 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to cite reliable sources and not contain original research. thx1138 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they are not citing sources. I am saying that there ought to be a controversy section. Other issues I've read on here always includes a section on controversy, why not this? Evolution is a highly controversial theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.7.167 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you need to cite reliable sources for the things you are asserting. thx1138 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an objections to evolution article. Look at that, a whole article devoted to the "controversy"! Of which none exists in the relevant scientific communities, incidentally. Mkemper331 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No controversy? I read a news article that said that most Americans do not believe in evolution. Explain to me how gases have turned into the complexity of the human body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.5.232 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A news article citing an opinion poll is not proof against a scientific theory. Mindmatrix 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

objections to evolution is a very lopsided argument stating evidence for evolution, rather than both evidence for and evidence against evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.5.232 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To which scientific evidence against evolution are you referring? Mindmatrix 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks, we should have a permanent banner on the top of any Wikipedia page that states: "I have logic" is never an excuse for not having an education. In the meantime, DNFTT. This discussion is over. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to 'Do you have reliable sources for any of those assertions?' asked of the guy who has logic by thx, Michael Behe was an evolutionary biologist. So was Dean H. Kenyon. They are both now staunch creationists.

And while I may 'not got logic' like the guy above, he's right in his first sentence. I understand if Wikipedia is just quoting guys, but it should at least point out the fallacies everytime a scientist says "Intelligent Design" is not scientific (and thus dismissing the argument) or "Evolution actually does explain that" (and not following up) or Richard Dawkin's "He's a creationist of the old school." Amatsu-Mikabushi (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Calories to Watts

I noticed that the conversion between 400 Calories and 20 Watts has a minor issue. "Calories" or "kilocalories" are a unit of energy and watts are a unit of power (energy/time). According to Wikipedia's Conversion of units page, 1 international calorie (cal_IT) = 4.1868 Joules, and 1 Cal = 1000 cal_IT. Here is the math I came up with to verify the proper units. Average Human Energy intake per day = 2000 Cal/day, brain calories/day = 2000 Cal/day * 1/5 unit energy used by brain/unit energy total = 400 Cal/day. 400 Cal/day * 1000 cal/Cal = 400,000 cal/day * 4.1868 Joules/cal = 1674720 J/day * 1/24 day/hr * 1/60 hr/min * 1/60 min/sec = 19.3833... J/s ~ 20 W. So, 400 Cal/day ~ 20 W. I guess this is a really long winded way of saying that 400 Calories Per Day ~ 20 Watts (about 5 cal/s or 17 Cal/hr), not 400 Calories = 20 Watts. Tysior (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. In that paragraph "kilocalories per day" is being converted into Watts, not "kilocalories". A quick googling on "20 Watts in calories per day" sans quote returned "20 watts = 413 001.912 calories per day" --in my book very similar to "20 watts (400 kilocalories per day)". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it now says 20 kilocalories "per day", it did not say that before. Tysior (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Darwin-Wallace Controversy

"However, many of Darwin's early supporters (such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Lyell) did not agree that the origin of the mental capacities and the moral sensibilities of humans could be explained by natural selection" Perhaps we need a page on the Darwin-Wallace controversy (that our mental capacities and ethical and aesthetic sensibilities cannot be explained on the basis of natural selection and the struggle for existence). Has this controversy ever been properly resolved? What are the main theories as to how, in the words of Wallace, "an organ (the human brain) developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor?" African gaucho (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable enough to have a page on. thx1138 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture on front page out of date

The picture we have for the lead, while expectedly simplistic, is also out of date. The picture represents the human ancestor as knuckle walking, similar to a chimpanzee, when even the oldest hominid fossils are bipedal, with no indication of knuckle walking. It is today generally believed that the Human-Chimpanzee last common ancestor was bipedal and not a knuckle walker, and that knuckle walking was later developed independently on the chimpanzee branch of evolution. Unfortunately I don't have a replacement to suggest, I just thought I would bring attention to this issue. 74.107.142.232 (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with this statement. Wikipedia has to be up to date for all subjects, and especially for those that have been controversial in the past years. Furthermore, the idea that man evolved in "a particular direction", that evolution has "a sense" or is lead by any "will" has been scientifically considered as wrong for decades by now. I removed this picture : no picture is better as a picture that would maintain wrong ideas about evolution. Joscquin 12:17, 30 April 2010 (Paris time)

Homo mauritanicus

One of the diagrams has H. mauritanicus, but we don't have an article or a redirect for it... that should exist... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Neandertal Genome Sequenced

The May 7th edition of Science is dedicated to the Neandertal Genome and the significant difference that contributed to our evolution. Exciting times! Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exciting times indeed! It is now safe to say that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals were able to, and did in fact, interbreed. This is a change I would make in the Neanderthal subsection of the main article to this discussion. I always knew that the evidence for this was there, it just took us a while to find it. -Ano-User (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Toba

I don't think the Toba Eruption is mentioned here, can we put it in somewhere?

67.85.177.204 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fire

I note the article seems to have little or nothing to say about the significance of fire use and how it enables especially efficient food digestion
Without that efficient food digestion, would humans have the energy to run their large complex brains?
And how did they acquire the ability to cook food without having such brains in the first place?
No other animal has acquired the ability, not even chimpanzees, despite having the human example to learn from
Laurel Bush (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bonobo Kanzi has been taught to light fires using a lighter. So at least he gets the concept of fire, even if he can't make it (from scratch) himself. In any event, the earliest in the Homo line had larger brains but only ate raw meat. Its brains must have been just large enough to figure out fire, which then allowed for a feedback to growing larger brains. Qed (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers
Lots of animals eat raw meat
Perhaps more than one prehistoric primate species acquired the ability to cook food at about the same time, but competition between them was then so close that only one could survive, and modern primates, apart from humans, have only just evolved to the point were they might be able to acquire the ability
Perhaps we are close to witnessing the acquisition of use of fire by another species
A more fanciful idea is that only one prehistoric primate acquired a taste for a particular mind-expanding herb or fungus
Has Kanzi used fire to cook food?
Has anyone tried supplying him with pieces of flint and dry vegetative matter?
I imagine fire was first made somewhere that suitable flint was readily available
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems that given matches and marshmallows, Kanzi snapped twigs for a fire, lit them with the matches and toasted the marshmallows on a stick
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of Humans

How come this article is titled Human evolution but the all the other articles on Wikipedia about the evolution of animals (e.g. Evolution of birds, Evolution of mammals, Evolution of dinosaurs]], Evolution of the horse, etc.) star with the phrase “Evolution of…” What separates the Humans from this commonality? It isn’t a big deal, but I suggest we change the title of the article to Evolution of Humans just to keep the commonality and simplicity between articles. Suggestions? Andrew Colvin • Talk 05:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not completely alone. See: Lemur evolutionary history. In the case of the lemur article, it's title was discussed at its FAC (search "evolutionary history of lemurs"). Some wanted its current name, others wanted it renamed. The consensus there was to use the current name. As for this article, I think the phrase "human evolution" is used extensively. Usually when people discuss the topic, they talk about "human evolution" not the "evolution of humans". If you want, you could always put up a move request and see how it goes. Of course, I suggest searching the discussion archives first to make sure this issue hasn't come up before. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That’s true. I noticed there were some other articles that didn’t start with “Evolution of…” It can still be kept the same as it is, though eventually it could help for better and easier searching if all the article about the evolution of a particular organism or part of an organism started with the same string. However, most of them do as it is, and most of the ones that don’t, redirect anyways. Andrew Colvin • Talk 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts about evolution in general, and hominoids out of Africa

Are we sure that species adapt to their environments? To external effects that their DNA changes to?

I do not think this is true. I think DNA evolves entirely separately and without any influence from the "outside", (ie. cold climate, food at the top of the tree (giraffe)). Instead I think evolution of species (DNA) is natures way of keeping itself healthy and doing its best to ensure that life has the best way to continue, much like the theory that we humans purposely get sick every year maybe to keep our immune systems healthy and strong.

Nature (life) wants to ensure that it survives the longest and its way of doing this, is to speciate (create as many different variations of itself as possible to hopefully withstand disease maybe, or comets striking the earth, anything that could cause it to stop living). I do not think different animals compete against each other or that DNA evolves to try and be better than other species on earth. It evolves instead to make sure on its own, that life itself, any and all forms, has the best chance of survival. A species dying out and a new evolved (better capable of living in various ways) one taking over, is natures way of making sure or keeping life as "up-to-date" as possible and ensuring that life can survive the longest.

I believe that race (human race - Asia - Africans - Europeans) is a further division of the species trying to diversify itself as much as possible. This happens because of widespread geographic locations on earth.

Did homo move out of Africa because the nature wanted a species or genus to populate the whole earth, with eventually race becoming the next genetic form of dividing itself up? I may be completely off track here, but hominoids are the first species or genus to "move" around the earth and populate the entire planet (land area). Do we move out of Africa, millions of years ago, subconsiously sensing that we should populate the entire planet? Because nature wants to change and manipulate everything about DNA, and it tried to change the colour of a monkeys skin (dark to white), but the DNA said "no I need dark skin to stay not burnt this close to the overhead sun", and so monkeys/hominoids had to move out of Africa (away from the overhead sun) so nature could change the colour of our skin (and continue evolving as it likes to do, it literally reached a blockage and could not change anything else about the DNA).

Nature had never created a species that could move long distances and start living 2000KM away. Being upright we are a "different" sort of species (nothing like homo has ever existed before) and sense have a better "sense" of what we are doing maybe, and are able to "move" and live elsewhere.

When homo reaches Europe or the Middle East it can again return to evolving (skin colour is now variable and the DNA can manipulate it), but in the process it created an upright species, which links to a large brain and intelligence, and is getting closer to being able to have a species that can populate the entire planet and then split into race to speciate even further....

I do not think evolution causes species to adapt to their environments. Nature simply, at will, evolves DNA in hopes of creating as many different species as possible, nothing to do with competition, rather doing its best to ensure that life continues for as long as possible. Each species dies out eventually because nature wants to "re-freshen its chances of continued survival", and create a better, more adept species. Life loves to branch off into as many different categories as it can to best ensure survival. (A business that sells the most variations of products will do better than a business that sells only a few - a natural law).

Each evolved species will be better off at survival than its precursor.

Am I mad or might this make some sense? I do not have any scientific data to back it up, just thoughts and trying to understand how a giraffe has a long neck (nature will have created a species that is very tall in the first place, the giraffe does NOT grow its neck over millions of years) to try and reach food at the top of a tree). DNA evolves from the inside out, seemingly creating random species. Every species that it creates will have a niche and fit into a food chain somewhere. Nature is always experimenting and trying new things.

Comments...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.213 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For one, this is not a forum. Discussion pages are for comments geared towards improving the article. Second, if you make a mistake in your post, you still should not delete people's comments. Again, I suggest that you read the article Evolution and some of its related (and more general) articles. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)