Template talk:Human evolution

message: i see that this template is not fitting well in most articles
i think a horizontal instead of a vertical template would be nice
Mateuszica (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal/vertical 

message: I'm sorry, but this template is too ugly to place on every article. It's dominating the whole page. Maybe a template like Template:Mammals is better. Ucucha (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very much in agreement! I've gone ahead and made the initial edit, both the vert -> horiz change, plus a few others. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ugly

message: # Forgive my ignorance, but how can homo sapiens be a member of proto-humans?
# Wouldn't it be better to title the box "Human taxonomy"?
Rich   Farmbrough 14:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two questions

message: #What do we mean by "human" in this context? 
#What about  H. s. idaltu etc?
Rich   Farmbrough 14:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: And two more

message: I think that this would fit better in the australopithicenes rather than the proto-humans. 68.97.8.174 01:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenyanthropus platyops

message: I realize there is still controversy regarding the nomenclature for Neanderthal people.  The present choices are:
# H. neanderthalensis
# H. s. neanderthalensis
Since the Neanderthal genome has been found in present-day humans, and since by definition of "species", only members of the same species can interbreed successfully, the second choice above is the correct one, or am I missing something? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not 100% clear if Neanderthals are a sub-species yet. The species definition is not that simple. TL565 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked you to discuss, not to revert my edit from the "status quo".  Your argument is ambiguous and you appear to be careless about how it may affect your ability to edit Wikipedia.  Rather than harp about edit wars and the 3RR policy, you have me curious about your response.  There is no doubt in the sources about finding the Neanderthal genome in amongst the rest of our genes, and one definition of "species" covers the ability to reproduce itself.  If, for example, an animal mates with another and produces offspring, but the offspring is infertile, then the parent animals are of a different species.  Examples are lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, chimps and bonobos.  Can you provide a source that shatters all that? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes your edit more important than mine? It is not widely accepted that neanderthals are a subspecies as it is still debated. Defining a species/subspecies is not that simple. You can't just come to the conclusion that it is a subspecies due to some sources saying they may have interbred. Even in the main article there is no definite classification. Until then, leave it as a separate species as it is the most accepted classification at this point. TL565 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I could ask you the same question re: importance of your edit over mine; however, since I never said my edit was more important than your edit, that would be pointless.  It's been over three years since the DNA evidence was found that was measured to definitively show that all modern humans with the exception of African people possess 1% - 4% Neanderthal genes.  So there is no doubt that H. s. sapiens bred successfully with H. s. neanderthalensis.  So if your argument holds up, then you should be able to point people to a reliable source where this is still debated.  Same goes for your species-definition argument.  Sure, there is much debate about the classic definition of species where bacteria, a few birds and mammals are concerned, and yet if this debate reaches the level of humans, genus Homo, then please point people to that one as well.  We're not talking about defining any subspecies; we are talking about defining human subspecies, so please keep that in mind.  Stop being so defensive and keep to the point, please. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: And one more thing:  your edit summary accused me of edit-warring against consensus.  Please show me the discussion where this consensus was reached.  I would like to AGF, but I don't take too kindly to your accusal. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a reliable source where Neanderthals are definitely a subspecies. You have not given any sources of your own. If it is so crystal clear that they are a subspecies, why does the main article give no definite classification? Also when I said against consensus, i meant that there was no consensus to change it to subspecies. TL565 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No consensus to change it to subspecies still implies past discussion(s).  Where are these mysterious discussions that resulted in no consensus?  There are sources that bring out that there had been interbreeding among H. s. sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans such as this interesting article, and since the sources all agree on the percentages, 1 - 4% of today's human genome is actually from the Neanderthals, there can be no doubt that some interbreeding took place before the Neanderthal genome disappeared altogether.  I grant you that the taxonomic concept of a species may not always follow the classical reproductive definition, but it usually does.  When the definition of species is examined, it is found that the meaning usually becomes exclusive when offspring are infertile, which implies that even some of those infertile matches may be considered to be from members of the same species.  The offspring of sapiens and neanderthalensis would have to have been fertile to have left parts of their genome to be found in today's scientific studies.  The Neanderthal article is still wishy-washy on this subject and should be changed to reflect recent findings.  Wikipedia is sometimes slow to change.  If we can get the lead changed to reflect recent studies, would that not convince you? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these sources say anything about them being a subspecies due to the interbreeding. You are using the traditional simplified definition of "species" which is not the same in this case. In this case, we are talking about something that is long extinct and so closely related to us. It is obviously still being debated, shown in this article. There is even more recent studies that cast doubt on any interbreeding, such as this article. As for the Neanderthal article, the findings have been added to the lead, but that obviously is not enough as it is still classified as H. neanderthalensis in the info box. So what I'm saying is you can't simply come to the conclusion that they are a subspecies based on a few articles saying that there was evidence of interbreeding. TL565 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since you and I and the other contributors on both sides of this issue are probably not going to settle it here, let me suggest that we adhere to WP:MULTI and go to Talk:Neanderthal#Lead question to continue discussion.  I've searched and can't find any consensus on this either way, but maybe there are others who have? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neanderthal controversy 

message: I've added a list of evolutionary models that are available in Wikipedia, also a list of topics (may include various models inside). ChakAzul (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Models 

message: I noticed that Aquatic ape hypothesis was part of it, but is also not mainstream (disproven).  I wonder if it should remain, —PaleoNeonate – 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquatic ape

message: New studies place this species as Meganthropus palaeojavanicus, as a non-hominin hominid ape(and as I suspect, a pongine). Shouldn't H e. palaeojavanicus be taken off this template entirely, or placed in a different row? MrSpikesss (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  H. e. palaeojavanicus 

message: Evolution of human colour vision has just been merged - and now redirects- to Evolution of color vision in primates. See the discussion. In a nutshell, there has been virtually no evolution of color vision in the last 30 million years. Therefore there is no evolution of human color vision just like there is no evolution of human Hemoglobin - a process that was "complete" prior to the existence of humans. Should it remain in this category as a redirect to the primate page or get removed completely? Curran919 (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color vision to remove