This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I already replied to you here and here. I reiterate: "Unless you have proof that the scientific consensus has changed, we stick with what the sources state...with WP:Due weight." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok i accept that you yourself do not have the ability to dispute the thesis. Lets wait for your help. But do you asking in right forum? The subject is evolution.paleoantropology why Human/people/whoiswho?126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you find majority scientist uphold Copernican principles? No, just natural disaperence of heliocentic is deduced by fact nobody seriusly use it. One contradiction in theory is enought to disqualify given theory. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC) that was eralier colision reply but may be over(to much to think)
I asked at a talk page that has a number of watchers familiar, or slightly familiar, with this topic. But since none of them have yet to weigh in, it would be good to take this matter to some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. You were also reverted by Donner60 at the Archaic humans article for adding "undue weight to specific instance in an otherwise general introduction." And after I reverted you there, Drbogdan thanked me via WP:Echo. So maybe they have something to state on this article matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to dispute that year 2006 was 10 year ago? If you agree that publication from year 2006 can not prognose consensus of scientific majoruty in future there we agree. If we agree then my edit is ok, and your argumentation against it is wrong. If i misundestad your point. Could you repharese what is your argument against my edit? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No; this is not compromise wording. Unless there is proof that the scientific consensus has changed, we should not be challenging it. The WP:Due weight policy is clear; read it. I am done entertaining you on this. I'm taking the matter to WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
And your "10 years ago" argument is silly. We don't need an update on the scientific consensus just because it's ten years later, in the same way we don't need an update on the scientific consensus that the world is round, or for a variety of other scientific things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
nobody contradict ~spherical earth.
I've listed the matter at WP:Third opinion. Now we should wait for that other opinion. And as for proof on my part, this Google Books search shows that the "Recent African origin of modern humans" view is still reported as the predominant scientific view in the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
So update the references. But please use sources with at least one citataion in the comunity the 'predominant view' relate to. Is it honest criterium? In other words newer sources wich claim 'predominat view' and are used in citation in other scientific publication by the scientific comunity. Some of the books your search pop are science fiction novels not what mean more fiction than science.
Moreover you ma not pay atention to the results you produce forth one read:
For much of the 20th century, the predominant view of human evolutionary history was
There is no need to update the references. We don't need a newer reference to report on what is still the majority viewpoint. And I am aware that the sources in the Google Books search range in quality; this is the case for any Google Books search. Same goes for Google Scholar. Nothing stated in this section so far can challenge the fact that I am correct on this matter, and that the WP:In-text attribution violation will subsequently be reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
How do you think that aleged 'majority viewpoint' (RAO) is contradicted by new discovery? (as just above your source spel out) Do you undrstand what it mean? 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You aren't making a bit of sense. You don't even know what that source states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
That aboive ip perhaps cut obvious "is possible" on position [4:]. Do it now make sense to you? 220.127.116.11 (talk)
And this edit was either made by you (which, in case, the IP-hopping aspect of WP:Socking applies), or it was made by one of my stalkers. Either way, it will be reverted since it is calling into question the majority viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
So why you saying "You don't even know what that source states". [[User:Flyer22 .< I see ip abstracting mainline from the source. U got the link and page #. It seem you do it while being not interested. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Should just close the section - just need to look at what is taught in the most modern textbook we use...explains the problems and gives a conclusion on the current data ..perhaps best to add a new source like...Mark Jobling; Edward Hollox; Matthew Hurles; Toomas Kivisild,; Chris Tyler-Smith (2013). Human Evolutionary Genetics, Second Edition. Garland Science. pp. 313–314. ISBN978-1-317-95226-8. -- Moxy (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The only "change" is further confirmation through genomic analyses. There is no controversy happening nor "updates needed" to the theory. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Moxy, this textbook do not use term Recent African Origin but predominantly African origin. Predominantly African origin is a multiregional evolution thesis - it support the opposing theory. This is stated in the source in the middle of the page. Exactly where your only link point to. Can you confirm you can see it? Also there is as i quote: low level gene flows . This obviously contradict following main premises of RAO (i quote from this wp article)
'evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa' < because evolution take place not solely in Africa. What mean word solely?
'these humans replaced other populations of the genus Homo such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus' < because sexual reproduction and following inheritance take place from other genetic pools. So not replaced but mixed.
' recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the predominant position held within the scientific community' < it suggest most of members of scientific community are fools insensitive to obvious textbook stated contradiction. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you need to look at what the 2 theories cover...out of Africa does not exclude any hybridization....just the amount of it. Interbreeding has been found to be relatively low and many many reports attributed this to shared ancestral ....this is the current debate that is ongoing....not that there was larger scale interbreeding all over the world.-- Moxy (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this intrebreded hybridization a kind of starwars monkey uking or an alien DNA engeniering. How the Recant African Origin intrebreded hybridization diffeer form our baby making, how it diffeer form beatiful love in one single human species? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The scientific consensus following the acceptance of Neanderthal admixture: Humans originated in Africa, they migrated out in waves, the latest wave which represent Homo sapiens sapiens, admixed with earlier Homo varieties including Denisovan and Neanderthal. This is not multiregional which refers specifically to the Homo erectus -> Homo sapiens continuity scenario. The IP does not seem to actually understand the sources they are referring to.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Who is the original author of this RAO? It seem strange any other theory do have someone who did create it in the first place. Was it Charles Darwin ? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No! No Darwin. I did dig the history to the first here edit in 2002.9.23. We have to check the eventuality the whole RAO theory was assembled by wiki editors. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Really think insulting those that have in goof faith and on their free time have regurgitate what mainstream scientist say will win anyone over. Great rebuttal!! Best to cite sources over telling us we are wrong. --Moxy (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so emotional. You started editing it late. Better find out who are the proponents of RAO hypothesis.220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
A third opinion has been requested. I see at least two registered editors and multiple unregistered editors, some coming from different address blocks and so probably more than one human. I am closing the third opinion request because it involves more than two editors. I will also comment that the discussion here has not been concise, and so I would have difficulty in addressing it even if there were only two editors. I suggest either moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a neutral concisely worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
LOL it was quite intelligent creative design call the crap 'creation science'. Now folks thinking (who 'have experience' in this crap 'creation science') is blocked by antisemantic words usage. Of course 'creation science' crap is not a science. And i have no idea what part of my here discussion prompting you to your above conclusions. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the predominant view in the scientific community today is the RAO. There are plenty of sources that support that.1234 I did a quick search among academic papers and ratio of papers on MO to those on RAO is about 0.008, with the important fact that most of the papers written on MO are not supportive. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need a long list of articles, which are inaccessible for most Wiki-readers, while we already have 100+ sources? I think we should mention here a strict selection of the most relevant scholarly articles, like Macaulay (2005) and Posth (2016). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not see anything wrong with it. Five articles is hardly long, and it will provide a useful starting point for some readers for further research. I do think there is a case for deleting the external links as they are mostly either out of date or not specific to the subject of this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)