Talk:Kenyanthropus

message: This article reads more like a Meave Leakey press release than scientific reporting. Without attribution or support, it lists as facts many assertions still widely contested, such as that these fossils represent a new species, let alone a new genus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.11.172 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello! I added some information to the Kenyanthropus platyops article. As it was, the article was short, and did not include the anthropological significance of the find. I attempted to create a re-direct from Flat-faced man to Kenyanthropus (a term with which the non-anthropologist individuals would be most familiar), but I couldn't get it to work. Would someone else give it a try? I'll check back later. Thanks! Firecircle (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. All you need to do is create a link someplace like this: Flat-faced man. then follow the link and add the redirect info. (Go here to see what it looks like.) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The justifications presented for sinking this into Australopithecus are terrible. Is there any primary literature that suggests this? 23.242.48.53 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australopithecus platyops 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kenyanthropus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216225447/http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/images/md/kenyathropus-platyops.jpg to http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/history/images/md/kenyathropus-platyops.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It was a subspecies of Australopithecus afarensis. Due to climate change we had less species.
Even if one actual evolutionalry branch survived, that doesn't look weird. Climate change had a huge impact because it forced plants also to change. Bottleneck phenomena can be explained. Skeleton differences doesn't mean that at rare occasions these species didn't copulate. If they copulated sparsely over millions of years... that isn't actually a sparce phenomenon, but a non immediate panmictic phenomenon. Non immediate panmixia which has some patterns, is an extremely crucial evolutionary tool, for example your particular subspecies that way, might get immunologically more robust, but without to become silly (by not getting the retarded brain genes = wrong timing of neuronal cell motions [because many cerebral cells travel inside the brain], and wrong timing of axonal branching in the brain, different patters of branching and slightly different neuroendocrinology) as the other species that finally got extinct. You get periodically extremely few genes of the other subspecies. But for millions of years (thus the impact is huge, but the rare patterns of mingling are beneficial - it acts as a sieve/a filter of non beneficial genes).
::the partonizing part of the theory I mentioned (superior race of "us") is wrong but they created a patronizing theory against another patronizing theory
Things are probabilistic and statistical... After 3 million years of separation, species copulate extremely rarer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8453:800:75BA:931C:93AA:4BD1 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its discoverers distorted science to prove speciation 

message: No mention of the fact that some scientists think Homo rudolfensis should be assigned to Kenyanthropus?  216.255.165.198 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''rudolfensis'' 

message: A. bahrelghazali, Ardipithecus, Orrorin, and Sahelanthropus, which has complicated discussions of hominin diversity,[3] though the latter three have not been met with much resistance on account of their greater age (all predating Australopithecus)
Oops, no, reading it three times over I guess I understood. It's three other genera predating the later genus Australopithecus.
MistaPPPP (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australopithecus predating Australopithecus ??? The cake's older'n the cake....