Talk:Human/Archive 17

message: It took a considerable amount of effort to get all the pics in high-resolution as requested by the peer review. It also took considerable effort to lay the page out so that all images can coexist nicely in the article, adjusting sizes to befit each image. So I object to the recent changes, deletions and additions of images. If any of you want to make changes to layout and/or images, please discuss beforehand out of respect for the hard work we have put into responding to the peer review. Thanks. I am reverting all changes. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout, images, etc 

message: I find it strange that in anatomy and physiology there is a large section on tanning and then in the body image section there is a section on nutrition.  Would it be more appropriate if they were switched since they seem strange to see them under their respective sub headings? Likewise, what does sleep have to do with body image?  In this section I would expect to read about eating disorders (not from the starvation dehydration perspective)  Possibly a bit about steroids and body building and plastic surgery.  Or am I missing the point of the body image section?
There seems to be quite a bit of redundancy between the genetics and life cycle sections.  
The evolution section seems bloated compared to the other sections.  Especially since it points to two other main articles.  I find it quite strange that the creationism section is in, first, with evolution and second under the biology section.   Most people would not consider it biology.  Very few, if any practicing biologist consider it to be biology. Wouldn't this be more appropriate under the 'consciousness' heading? Or even the culture heading.
The absense of a religious section is striking.  There is a breif mention of beliefs in the culture section and that is it?  Yet there is a massive section devoted to humanism.
I am willing to make some edits but I don't want to tread of peoples feet.  David D. (Talk) 22:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that last comment about religion.  Somehow I overlooked the first section on beliefs. David D. (Talk) 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. This article could really use some pruning. Turnstep 23:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me too. Go ahead and show us what you can do...! ≈ jossi ≈ 01:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a general "Body - Mind - Spirit" progression of the overall article, with sections sequenced and transitioned along the lines of those three general themes?  — RDF talk 01:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, but I do not think it would be acceptable to some editors ... as such a taxonomy may be considered POV by some... ≈ jossi ≈ 02:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, what are the apparent themes that emerge from the existing sections?  Is there any other mutually acceptable progression they follow to some extent, such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs? Would such a framework help order the sections, as well as suggest what's missing?  — RDF talk 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maslow's framework is interesting but not mainstream, in fact his model is widely challenged by behavioral psychology. I would not think that his framework (even if I personally find it quite appealing) is appropriate as a a framework for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's say the objective is to find a widely acceptable and noteworthy (e.g., has a Wikipedia article about it) conceptual framework to organize the sections of this article.  What options are out there? :-)  — RDF talk 16:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange locations for some information

message: How should the sections be formatted? What do you think? ;) Sam Spade 16:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll assume you like the number of main sections and titles.  As far as the order goes, I see it as a general progression from the "concrete" to the "subtle." :-)  — RDF talk 11:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as coverage goes, I wouldn't remove anything.  Over time, I support adding more substance to the later sections.  — RDF talk 11:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way that RDF has broken up the sections.  With regard to order is does not really bother me.  I do like the logic of starting with the more concrete and progressing to the more subtle, although, my first thought was that it was alphabetical ;).  I also agree that the article is top heavy on biology, especially given the links to other more detailed articles being prominent throughout the article.  My background is biology so I'll be happy to try and prune it when i have time.  i would not freel so confident in the other sections. Again can someone clarify the point of the body image section.  i'm still not sure of the goal/aim for that section David D. (Talk) 15:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved pertinent content to the section "Anatomy and physiology". and the rest under a "Body image" subsection in "Culture". That would do it. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jossi, that edit did the trick.  it seems much more logical now. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I say go ahead and pick something then go for WP:FAC and watch what happens.  There's no such thing as "finishing" an article around here anyway. ;-)  — RDF talk 13:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Next is to nominate for FAC. Who would do the honors? ≈ jossi ≈ 19:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Sam? Didn't he make the original proposal?  — RDF talk 19:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That makes sense to me.  — RDF talk 19:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to see some pruning in the biology section first, if I saw this I might object to it as unbalanced, w that section being so much larger and more comprehensive than the rest. Also, if the content isn't redundant, some of it should be moved as being too specific, like some of the genetic material, hardly any readers are going to be interested in that level of detail, and if they are, it can be just a click away. Sam Spade 00:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prune away, my friend, prune! ≈ jossi ≈ 21:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets discuss formatting

message: Theres nothing necesarilly wrong w any of this, but I think it should find a new home elsewhere, unless its redundant:
Partial genome sequencing resulted in these conclusions: "[C]himps, gorillas, and humans form a clade of closely related species; orangutans are slightly less close phylogenetically, and gibbons are a more distant branch."  "To study the genomic divergences among hominoids [we] sequenced [DNA] in a human, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and an orangutan. The average sequence divergence was only 1.24% ± 0.07% for the human-chimpanzee pair, 1.62% ± 0.08% for the human-gorilla pair, and 1.63% ± 0.08% for the chimpanzee-gorilla pair. [...] The average sequence divergences between orangutans and humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas were 3.08% ± 0.11%, 3.12% ± 0.11%, and 3.09% ± 0.11%, respectively." 
DNA evidence supports an African origin for the maternal and paternal lineages of contemporary humans. An unintuitive complication for this debate is that the evolutionary lineage of an individual may differ from the evolutionary history of each of an individual's genes. An emerging synthesis theory proposes that the genes of contemporary humans are predominantly descendent from a recent African origin, but that interbreeding and assimilation with other hominids may have contributed genes to local populations (Templeton, 2002). Eswaran et al. (2005) speculate that "as much as 80% of the nuclear genome is significantly affected by assimilation from archaic humans (i.e., 80% of loci may have some archaic admixture, not that the human genome is 80% archaic)."
During the 1990s, variations in human mitochondrial DNA were recognised as a valuable source for reconstructing the human "family tree" and for tracing early human migrations. As a result, the ancestors of all modern humans are thought to have evolved in Africa over 150,000 years ago; modern humans began to move out of Africa less than 100,000 years ago. Australia was colonised 70,000 years ago; Europe 40,000 years ago with later waves 22,000 and 9,000 years ago, according to Ornello Semino of the University of Pavia and Peter Underhill of Stanford University ; and the Americas 30,000 years ago, with a second colonisation from across the Pacific Ocean 15,000 years ago. (See Human migration.)
Since the human embryo normally takes its mitochondrial DNA from its mother's egg and not from the sperm, variations in human mitochondrial DNA provide a means of identifying those individuals who share a common matrilineal ancestor. A mathematical analysis of mitochondrial DNA from thousands of living individuals suggests that the matrilineal lines for the people analysed converges on one ancestor called Mitochondrial Eve (ME) who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. That is, ME is claimed to be the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today with respect to matrilineal descent (Boyd and Silk 2003:389–99). 
Sam Spade 23:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content I removed 

message: And I will nominate it if their arn't objections or challenging edits for a couple of days. Sam Spade 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the article is now ready 

message: I just made some edits that may not go down well.  Be gentle. 
I am also wondering about the double helix image.  It looks great but I do not think it is very applicable to the human article.  In my view a karotype depicting the human chromosomes would be much more appropriate. There are even a couple of pictures available in wiki (see to right). David D. (Talk) 03:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unusable for this article. The Peer review requested we find high-resolution images, as this article is too important (and may be printed hardcopy at a certian point) ≈ jossi ≈ 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a shame about the resolution, i had not checked before posting them.  I still think the DNA should go even if we cannot find a karyotype. David D. (Talk) 04:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I took the plunge and removed it.  i hope this is OK.  David D. (Talk) 06:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: I have removed this text from the evolution creation section:
;There is also the intellegent design movement, which intends to prove creationism by scientific means.
;While the general idea of natural selection may fit into various particular views, the evolutionary concept of common descent —that humans are "descended from lesser creatures" — is a point of great debate. Some creationists may also dispute scientific accounts of the origin of life, and of the geological history of Earth, the formation of the solar system, the origin of the physical universe, and a few even support such ideas as geocentrism. Argument from evolution and creation (theology) discuss this debate in more detail.
My reasoning is several. Firstly, I'm not sure the ID movement is about proving creationism by scientific means.  This is close to a POV. As far as I can tell even the Discovery Institute, one of the original champions of ID do not endorse it anymore. Their approach now is teach the controversy from a perspection of bringing down the so called 'icons of evolution' such as the peppered moths and Haekaels embryo's. 
Secondly, evolution does not propose that ancestors are lesser creatures. In the sentence above i cannot tell if the great debate is about the 'existance of common ancestors' or the 'descended from lesser creatures'. With reagrd to this there is really no deabte at all in the scientific community so where is the great debate? From the perspective of the US there is a debate in the high schools with regard to curriculum but i'm not sure that that debate should be in this article.  certainly not in the biology section.  
Thirdly, the other things mentioned have no bearing on this article, origin of life is not even addressed by the theory of evolution and the others are not even biology, i.e. the formation of the solar system.  This is much too broad for this article and detracts from the good points that are made.
You will note that I have not cut creationism completely. I don't want this to be a revert war.  I think what i have left will get through a FAC.  i think what I have cut will cause problems in FAC which is why I cut them now before it goes forward.  I'd be interested to here what you all think? David D. (Talk) 04:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the way this section reads now. Great NPOVing. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 06:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism bit deleted, discuss

message: The image of the fetus and the image of the man with the beard are low resolution images. The peer review requested that we find high-res images, which I did. Please restore the images of the 11-day baby and the image of the elderly lady, or find alternative ones with at least 1200 px resolution witdth. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the images. You are welcome to go and find more suitable ones, and if you do, please make sure that are at least 1,000 pixels wide and that are not copyvios. Also removed the social infobot. (Do we really need it? ) ≈ jossi ≈ 06:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am looking for a better image for the foetus, to replace the baby pic. As for the pensioner, I thought it worked because we can see progression from baby or pre-born, childood and then elderly. If you pefer a photo of a man, pl;ease find one that is high-res. Thanks.≈ jossi ≈ 15:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the images. Are these OK with you? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images - please restore