Talk:Homo antecessor

message: Although I called for possible mergers on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Primates/category_rework, I'm not sure this is a merger I'd support. Mikko's phlogeny page supports them being distinct. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, they're distinct species. Ucucha (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you have a full citation for Falguères ? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to ''Homo heidelbergensis''

message: 'At the site were numerous examples of cuts on the bones, which indicates that H. antecessor could have practised cannibalism.'  - changed from 'could have been victim of cannibalism'
Someone in the page history argued that H. antecessor was the victim of cannibalism but may not have been the predator. Is is then cannibalism? I think not. 84.13.171.245 01:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were most definitely eaten by people. But were they eaten by people of the same species, Homo antecessor? Does it count as "cannibalism", if not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.122.106.48 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibalism

message: I'd like that somebody expert looks at the claim that Antecessor and Heidelbergensis are possible ancestors of homo sapiens (a claim that the funding-hungry scientists in charge of the Atapuerca digs make every other day, leaving little room to doubt). There appears to be a contradiction with the scientific consensus that the sapiens sapiens didn't leave Africa until 200,000 BP. If true, how come these European hominids have anything to do with us? Aussiesta (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Most scientists, right? Including pretty much every expert in human genome, and some who go as low as the 50,000 BP year. Then, shouldn't this article say that? That, as far as the scientific consensus goes (and it's wrong very often, we know that), the Homo Antecessor antecedes no living being, and was probably an ancestor of an extinct line of big humanoids? The way it goes now, one gets the impression that the average expert has no objection to the claim that modern Europeans (and white North Americans, white Australians, etc) descend from some humanoids who once lived in Burgos these many hundreds of thousands of years ago. Which I take to be a minority position, isn't it? Just checking that I got it right... Aussiesta (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In line with my previous objections, I removed a tentative, unsourced line suggesting a genetic tie with modern humans. Aussiesta (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: H. antecessor may be the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis, which may be the ancestor of H. Neanderthalensis. H. sapiens seems to have arisen from African H. heidelbergensis (H. rhodesiensis) via H. helmei, but H. rhodesiensis may have evolved from H. ergaster (the supposed ancestor of H. antecessor) thereby supposedly excluding H. antecessor from modern human ancestry, but it has now been shown (2010) that non-African people have as much as 2% Neanderthal ancestory. If this is true and H. antecessor is the ancestor of H. neanderthalensis - then H. antecessor is at least partially ancestral to modern Europeans (and white North Americans, white Australians, etc), and also to Papuans, Polynesians, Japanese, red North Americans and even Egyptians (as they are mostly of non-African origin). It has been estimated that the split between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens happened around 500 000 years ago, but genetic dating is still questionable. Michaelwild (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are many statements and suggestions here which are either a) untested and with no empirical support at all and/or b) not attributed to any published source. It is not for us to put our ideas in, but we might point out that much of this speculative content is not supported by evidence. Or we could edit out the speculations: we're supposed to be an encyclopedia... Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestor To Modern Humans?

message: Why is not the skull from Ceprano (Italy) considered H. antecessor anymore?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceprano Skull 

message: A 2013 DNA analysis from a 400,000-year-old femur from Spain's Sima de los Huesos in the Atapuerca Mountains – the oldest hominin sequence yet published – I do not understand this statement (400,000 which is outside the range defining H. antecessor in this page.
Renebach (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your logic is valid, but you've got a few things backward. H. antessesor is the name attributed to the earliest known humans in western Europe. By definition. Whether or not Neanderthals are their descendents is pure speculation. Also, with regards to dates - be aware that any dates that pertain to when group A split off from group B, based on genetics, is the least reliable of dating methods, because at this point scientists are still just making their best guesses. but the dates are constantly being revised, and nearly all of said revisions are to older dates rather than younger ones. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates do not match 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Homo antecessor. 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/20140207143405/http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/02/07/the-earliest-human-footprints-outside-africa-2/ to http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/02/07/the-earliest-human-footprints-outside-africa-2/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308154227/http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8A538AEA-ED81-498B-8525-6CE2AD89B578/0/ArchaeologyoftheSuffolkCoast.pdf to http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8A538AEA-ED81-498B-8525-6CE2AD89B578/0/ArchaeologyoftheSuffolkCoast.pdf
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) 07:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion