|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Come on, some one else has had to of noticed the picture and it's racist propaganda. We go from Negroid looking to Caucasoid looking as Humans? Furthermore the last photo isn't even a "Human" it's a picture from American science regarding Neanderthals.
So the "final" step in the picture isn't even a Human, it's a Neanderthal.
- The article isn't about modern humans, it's about the genus to which we belong, which includes a number of extinct species. The image is a representation of all of those species. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Unsigned, I too am concerned. Could you give the exact citation for the Neanderthal images? Though given that you wrote over a year ago and things remain the same, I guess we shall just be talking to each other.
Nonetheless, I should like to say in addition that the Homo "Restoration" images seem to suggest that the African phenotype--broad nose, thick lips, kinky hair-- represent the early forms of Homo, whereas the European phenotype represents the Homo sapiens form. It is hard not to read the order of the images as suggesting that Homo evolved from pre-Homo sapiens who look very much like modern Africans and the African diaspora to Homo sapiens who look very much like light-haired Europeans. Perhaps, reviewing Stephen Jay Gould's discussion with images in , though written for a different purpose, might sensitize the original contributor as well as other readers to the nature of evolutionary anthropological transgressions involved in the "Restoration."Yurugu (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The image is pretty bad for another reason, it isn't representative, and the choice of images is poor. Few species are represented. Why two Homo antecessor? Why a model of a modern human, instead of just a photo? In my opinion, a selection of skulls would be better, what we have now is too speculative. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
wait, so we now cannot show reconstructions of species of Homo by leading experts in the field because random people on the internet get the impression that it "looks racist"? Surely, this is beneath Wikipedia? I hope? Anyway, there is no problem with showing a photograph of a modern H. sapiens sapiens looking as "African" as you like, say a Kalahari bushman. But I am afraid it would be this choice that would be open to criticism of race-baiting with more justification than just showing pictures of reconstructions by experts. Seriously, how is this even an issue. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Melanin in black skin and hair absorbs ultraviolet light which might otherwise damage DNA and cause mutations. Those Homo sapiens that settled in colder north latitudes (as in Europe) the UV irradiation is lower and they had to dress better, so the environmental pressure to produce melanin in the skin and hair was greatly reduced. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Before we do that, don't we need an authoritative source that has accepted that they are correctly "assigned to the genus Homo" (and not Australopithecus)? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Undesignated, rather than start up an ugly edit war, let's refrain from the usual return to "status quo" and talk about your removal of a species that has been in this article, listed along with other human species (in or out of an actual infobox), . What the heck are you thinking??? Surely your edit does not take the newly discovered Homo naledi into consideration? And what about Homo heidelbergensis – sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis? Please do us the honor of explaining in detail about why you think it is so vital to go with the "mainstream thought", especially where a notable human species has been ! Painius 10:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:BOMBARD on age
"about 2.8 million years old;" -- this isn't good style, and it is abominable style for the lead section. The important point is that the age of the genus is a matter of convention. There is no possible objective criteria, it is simply as old as we (the relevant taxonomists) want it to be. The convention is "H. habilis is the first member of Homo", so this boils down to the age of fossils accepted as belonging to H. habilis. That's all there is to it. So there have recently been some discoveries that slightly push back the age of "H. habilis". Big deal. Just say that H. habilis is estimated at something less than 3My, and cite a single good refenrece, if any!). Detailed debate on the age of H. habilis can very well go to the Homo habilis page, just as detailed estimates on the hybrid speciation of Hominini is perfectly at home at the Hominini page (because it doesn't concern Homo proper, at all). This is not a matter of "zomg scientists find humans are older than anyone thought". But unfortunately this seems to be the level this article is too often forced to deal with (see the "which species of Homo is the most racist" 'discussion' above; you could not make this up). --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree; as long as there isn't scientific consensus that the 2015 finds actually belong within the Homo genus proper, and are not just an intermediate form between Australopithecus and early Homo, this article has no business running in front and declaring that Homo is 2.8 million years old. There are lots of intermediate or disputed-status genera of hominins: Sahelanthropus, kenyanthropus etc, and the new finds might become one more of those intermediaries. Strausszek (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)