Talk:Human evolution

Pliopithecus and human evolution

In an "old" time-life book a graphic showed human evolution from the "simian" pliopithecus to the human "homo sapiens sapiens" with demihuman and humanoid links between these two... Now I find out that being out of date that information was incorrect... Althought theorical, a similiar graph from the latest "simian" ancestor through humanoid and demihuman link onto modern humans would be a good addition... The graph (names only) presented in here has the flaw of 1.not being precise whether an ancestor is so only in theory or indeed and 2.it gaves no general ideas of whether such ancestor would or would not be thought of as "simian" by any of us (for, of course if get to see a boisei, let's say in the fictional circumstances of dna-restituion, like in Jurassic Park, we would easily identify the creature as something somehow human and somehow simian, even if we were ignorants of taxonomy)...

---

Please dont think I want to create any problems, but as fas as I can see theres a (BIG) difference in the human evolution and the evolution of Homo sapiens, why I think its incorrect to redirect the page.

The human evolution of course, may start earlier with any Homo or even far back. Stumbling upon this page just becuase I wanted to make an interlink, I do not, (despite my opinion) belive that I could presently make a good article about the human evolution, but if any one does, then please make a language link to the swedish page like: [[sv:Den mänskliga evolutionen]] which is presently on the evolution of Homo sapiens page. Thanks, Dan Koehl 16:56 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

This taken from main page:
"Anthropologists currently identify two subspecies of H. sapiens: neanderthaloids, and modern humans (originally identified as "Cro-Magnon Man"). Current evidence suggests that the two subspecies diverged during the fourth glacial period around 40,000 years ago, after which neanderthaloids died out. All human beings today belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

Now, I am strongly of the opinion that Neanderthals should be classified as a seperate species, not merely a sub-species, but this is debated so I'm not going do anything with that yet, except maybe strengthen that side of the arguement while acknowledging that it is still debated. But, other parts of this paragraph are just plain wrong. It seems to imply that Neanderthals died out almost as soon as they came into existence 40K years ago. In fact, they existed for at least 150KY, I think rather more; and their fossils are known from as little as 27KYA.

But I don't have nearly enough time nor references at the moment to fully correct this, so I'm leaving it here for now. Je reviendrai. -Aidan Elliott-McCrea

Moved from main page:

Vaccination and other medical advances since the start of the 19th century have caused dramatic improvements in the survival rate of humans. The number of offspring per birth surviving infancy was 0.99 for singleton births, 1.74 for twin births and 2.78 for triplet births, between 1995 and 1997 in the United States. Natural selection is therefore acting to increase the human brood size.

Well, actually, it's not. Those figures show quite plainly that if you're a singleton, you have a 99/100 chance of survival, if you're a twin you have a 88.7/100 chance, and a triplet has a 92/100 chance: that gives any singleton child having approximately a 10% better chance of survival than a twin or triplet. Malcolm Farmer 05:16 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

The above comment is on target. the incidence of natural twins has been lessening, not increasing. And notice, a .99% survival does not mean a population decline as long as women have a number of children. SA

---

This article would be very well served by some literature lists! Good work! -- OlofE

---

Humans acquired language gene 50,000 years ago. During the last ice age interglacial they spread out of Africa, where they had to fight mute Neanderthals from Europe who were bigger and stronger, but mute. More articulate than these savages they menaged to commit genocide and Neanderthals ceased to exist 20,000 years ago. After that they have domesticated dogs and other animals.

The out of Africa model is well established if not universally agreed on, and the domestication of the dog is pretty solid. The rest of this, though, seems speculative at best.

---

Removed from article:

Today's Uzbekistan-Turkmenistan-Xinjiang area had been a cradel of Northern Eurasian and Amerind populations. Most ancestors of modern Europoids, Semites, Iranians, Berbers, Uralics, Siberians, Tibetans, Chinese, Korean-Japanese, Mongolians, Turks and Amerincs inhabited this area which was humid and warm until 17,000 Before Present.

About 40,000 BP, the ancestors of Europoids and other Caucasoids wandered off towards the west, splitting in to Europoid, Middle-Eastern and Berber groups. The population in Central Asia continued to evolve in to Mongolinds. In 17,000 BP, due to the climate turning cold and dry, several waves of migration started off towards the East, some ending up in the American continents, some ending up in Southern China and India, blending with populations of Subcontinental and Southeast Asian origins. The Central Asian population continued to evolve into classical Mongoloids and Tibetans. Finally These groups evacuated the inhospitable Central Asia and branched off into Siberia, Tibet, China and Mongolia around 6,000 BP. Around 4,000 BP, the Indo-Europeans, a group mostly closely resembling, and including the Iranians, re-colonized Central Asian with the help of their advanced pastoral culture, equipped with horses and wheels. Two Indo-European gruops, the Tocharians and Iranians were for a long time masters of the Central Asian steppes, the latter having the supremacy in mobility and number. Mongolian groups adopted the pastoral culture of the Indo-Europeans around 3,000 BP and became very good at it starting 2,000 BP. Several waves of Mongolian migration, often coupled with swift military conquests, started out West, South and East, leaving their legacies in Japan, Korea, China, Yakutia, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Russia and Europe. The above passage is plausible, but nevertheless speculative concerning a period of human history for which we do not have a complete record. But that is not my main objection. I deleted it because it simply does not belong in this article. It is not relevant to the evolution of H sapiens -- it describes migrations of H. sapiens long after they evolved. At best (it would still need accuracy work) it might belong in some other article, say, human prehistory, or paleolithic history. Slrubenstein

Do any articles on Wikipedia discuss the similarity between humans and chimpanzees, and how they should be classified? I want to try and add some info on the following news item, but I am not sure where it should go. Also, is there any discussion here of the significance of that 99.4% figure? I mean, this figure seems to includes exons as well as introns, which would seem a bit misleading. RK

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chimpanzees are more closely related to people than to gorillas or other monkeys and probably should be included in the human branch of the family tree, a research team says. The idea, sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and the relationship between humans and animals, comes from a team led by Morris Goodman at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit. Currently, humans are alone in the genus Homo. But Goodman argues, "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes." He says humans and chimps share 99.4 percent of their DNA, the molecule that codes for life.

CNN Science website

---

The aquatic ape hypothesis is not generally accepted, and there are a number of points on which it is questionable. Why does this page give it so much more prominence than the conventional view, criticizing only the latter? This seems like a promotional, rather than a neutral, treatment.

---

Comments on: It is believed by some that human evolution has ended, because humanity as a species no longer has to adapt to its environment: rather, humans are capable of changing their environment to suit their needs.:

The wording seems inadequate; there are far fewer selective pressures to be sure (but this too will cause 'adaptation', i.e. myopia), but what pressures remain prioritize different features and behaviors. Additionally, we might want to differentiate evolution in the form of natural selection and other "natural" mechanisms, and artificial selection and reengineering; the human species is likely on the verge of accelerated genetic change in the form of intentional reengineering; if we define biological evolution as a change in allele frequency in a population over time, then it would be prudent to include this under that process.

Two points. First, it is, as you say, totally inadequate. It is also false, and ridiculous :-) which is why the weasel words "it is believed by some" have been included. You are welcome to expand this slight introduction to a controversial idea. In this talk page alone, you've tripled the size of it. Second, it is customary to put your talk page comments at the bottom. --Yath 00:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Proposed move

We need to move this page to human evolution; the present name is rubbish, and it does not take into account other hominids. hominid evolution or hominin evolution would also be better but not as good. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No real objection from me, would also pass the Google test nicely ("human evolution": 409,000 vs "evolution of Homo sapiens" 3,570). We could also use the opportunity to integrate/delete/redirect or otherwise incorporate the rather awkward page: theories of the origin of humans, which isn't a true encyclopedic article, nor a proper disambiguation page (references to wikipedia should never appear in the text of wikipedia articles to maximize 3rd party re-use of content, hence the generic text for Template:Spoiler which doesn't mention wikipedia). --Lexor|Talk 13:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm good with the move. - UtherSRG 13:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No objections for a week, page has been moved. --Lexor|Talk 08:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neanderthals

Hi there,

I found this website via Google http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm whilst researching whether Neanderthals made a genetic contribution to us. Your site seems to think not

The following is an extract from Almas section on the above site.

---

The Neanderthal DNA evidence that was reported in the July 1997 Edition of Cell was based on one sampling of DNA taken from a bone. This sampling was also of the mitochondria DNA (mtDNA) which is often utilized for its abundance and that the mutation rate is higher in mtDNA then in nuclear DNA (cell nucleus as source of DNA instead of mitochondria which is a cell substructure).

Mitochondria DNA is also the DNA used in the theory of a “mitochondrial Eve”. This specialized DNA is also only passed on by females.

A sequence of this mtDNA consisting of 379 units was isolated. This was then compared to a human population sampling. Neanderthal DNA varied by 27, there are 55 differences between humans and chimpanzees (Pan troglodyte). This suggests that based on the mtDNA mutation being consistent that humans and Neanderthals separated anywhere from 125,000 to 690,000 years ago, and thus are distinctly separate species. This compliments the theory of “Out of Africa”.

Dr. Christopher Stringer (the lead proponent of “Out of Africa”) does say that taking a sequence of mtDNA of 379 units does not necessarily prove Neanderthals were a separate species. This is based on the fact that human mtDNA contains about 16,500 units (meaning that only about 2.3% was analyzed). He has also stated that this kind of DNA analysis on old cells is controversial due to a possible breakdown of the cells. What follows is a statement by Dr. Stringer : “ The Neanderthal mtDNA sequence thus supports a scenario in which modern humans arose recently in Africa as a distinct species and replaced Neanderthals with little or no interbreeding. But they point out that other genes might tell somewhat different stories. This is certainly possible because, as mentioned, mitochondria DNA is only inherited through females. So genetic heritage passed on from Neanderthal males to present day populations…would not be recorded in that particular DNA.”

Some scientists have stated that if humans populations were isolated from each other then they would accumulate drifts in their mtDNA. This would continue until their physical appearance differed. Taken one step further, their shared ancestor between varied isolated people would appear archaic.

A geneticist named Simon Easteal has stated: “chimpanzees and other primates display much more with-species mtDNA variation than humans do. The amount of diversity between Neanderthals and living humans is not exceptional.” Geneticist Alan Templeton has stated that: “You can always construct a gene tree for any set of genetic variation, but there’s a big distinction between gene trees and population trees.” Population trees being those histories of genes of a group, not individual.

Other DNA work is overruling the “Out of Africa” theory now. Some of which is variations within betaglobin genes and Y chromosome evaluations. Some of this work now suggests expansion out of Africa and interbreeding among populations. Multiregional evolution is now becoming popular as well.

---

I do not feel qualified to edit the information presently included on your site under the heading Human Evolution. It is that the section below taken from your site may just be behind the times.

---

Neanderthal Man There is ongoing debate over whether "Neanderthal Man" was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens. While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that there was no gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and therefore the two were separate species.

In 1997 Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Penn State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors."² Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings.³

---

What do you think?

Regards,

Perry (originally posted by User:82.44.184.185 at the Wikipedia:Help Desk and moved by Noisy 12:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I think its becoming pretty clear now that Neanderthalis is a different species. Neanderthalis seems to have been outclassed by Homo and competed out of existence. However, they also seem to have had the ability to produce art and jewelery, so they were capable of symbolic thought. Had not Homa wiped them out, they might have been our ancestors instead, so they deserve a mention at least in our evolution

on a different note, dont we need to add a bit about Ardipithecus ramidus ?

Lincolnshire Poacher

---

Article needs more info on the species which preceded the first Homo species. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

I rewrote the entire intro. The old intro was confusing, too specific, and dealt with topics that weren't even about human evolution. In short, the previous Human Evolution Introduction was neither about Human evolution nor an intro. --JPotter 00:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hominid ancestors

• Proconsul

• Aegyptopithecus

The earliest hominids

• Sahelanthropus tchadensis

• Orrorin tugenensis

• Ardipithecus ramidus

The Australopithecus genus

• Australopithecus anamensis

• Australopithecus afarensis

• Australopithecus africanus

The Paranthropus genus

• Paranthropus aethiopicus

• Paranthropus boisei

• Paranthropus robustus

Image:Darwin-chart.PNG - eugh! horrible.

So then guys, evolution involves progression up the great chain of being then does it? Our job as science communicators is made hard enough by our own ignorance. Paleontology and human evolutionary biology has a history of falling for the fallacy of evolutionary progression, and the general public are suckers for it too, so we shold steer well clear of any monkeys to man side-by-side pictures. Find some bones or something. Dunc|☺ 21:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

to get separate species of humans should exist genetic barrier of infertility.  

Human have 10 times longer maturation period, 10+ years. The genetic infertility barriere should be proportional to Generation offspring's if for dog it is 1MY for Human may be 10My. It is perfect with separation of our other cusines (chimps &c)

The fact that each anthropologist want to find new species give us a sytuation that we have tree full of hanging dead humans and no even race betwenn living population.

So dont be racist for ancestors, there is no realy reason to separate them in different species. Especialy H. Neander. Did HN mix? In fact we can say. The other species where whiped out becouse there was no barier of infertility and they mix (which realy mean there was no separated species)

ps.PLs edit typo.

Multiregional hypothesis vrs. out of africa

Multiregional hypothesis needs alot of content added by an expert or student of human evolution. Please come lend a hand, those in the know. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Genus Homo

Shouldn't all of the species in this list be consistant in "H." vs. "Homo"? I'd edit, but I really don't know much about taxonomy. --Tydaj 21:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lucy

Recently the article Lucy refered to Australopithecus afarensis. I understand why many would find this acceptable but the fact that it is a name is clearly the primary meaning. I have therefore changed the article and am in the process for changing all lucy links to Australopithecus afarensis| lucy. Trouble is, there's one in the human evolution box, and I don't know how to change its. Can anybody help? (Comment by User:Matthew Mattic)

Done, by editing the Human Evolution template. The best way to have done this was by looking at the 'What links here' page for Lucy, and following the link to the template (and all other relevant pages) from there in order to eliminate any disambigities. Noisy | Talk 08:41, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Behe and MENSA state that evolution story is a lie foisted on an unknowing public by those pushing their own agenda. The story is wrong on its molecular biological level. Adding deliberate falsehoods and pranks furter discredits the whole story.--Numerousfalx 18:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind citing when and where MENSA stated that evolution is a lie? Thanks. --JPotter 21:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Evolution of race

What are the best current estimates as to when the races of humans first emerged during the evolutionary process?

Well, according to my Biology book, there was a large split from Africans about 40,000 years ago. So :I assume that means that there was a later split of Mongoloids off from non-Africans a few millenia :later.Amren 15:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Whups, here's some more information from higher up on the talkpage that's more detailed than my :comment above.

About 40,000 BP, the ancestors of Europoids and other Caucasoids wandered off towards the west, splitting in to Europoid, Middle-Eastern and Berber groups. The population in Central Asia continued to evolve in to Mongolinds. In 17,000 BP, due to the climate turning cold and dry, several waves of migration started off towards the East, some ending up in the American continents, some ending up in Southern China and India, blending with populations of Subcontinental and Southeast Asian origins. The Central Asian population continued to evolve into classical Mongoloids and Tibetans. Finally These groups evacuated the inhospitable Central Asia and branched off into Siberia, Tibet, China and Mongolia around 6,000 BP. Around 4,000 BP, the Indo-Europeans, a group mostly closely resembling, and including the Iranians, re-colonized Central Asian with the help of their advanced pastoral culture, equipped with horses and wheels. Two Indo-European gruops, the Tocharians and Iranians were for a long time masters of the Central Asian steppes, the latter having the supremacy in mobility and number. Mongolian groups adopted the pastoral culture of the Indo-Europeans around 3,000 BP and became very good at it starting 2,000 BP. Several waves of Mongolian migration, often coupled with swift military conquests, started out West, South and East, leaving their legacies in Japan, Korea, China, Yakutia, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Russia and Europe. Amren 05:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Isn't there one picture that shows how man has evolved over the years? It starts with a picture of a monkey and then other pictures of more advanced monkey's (I dont know what they're called) and then it comes to a picture of a human. Wouldn't that be the perfect picture for this page? Will someone please put that picture on this page? Rentastrawberry 23:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That image was asked to be taken down as, to the person who complained, it represents evolution as a progressive force ala the Great Chain of Being --JPotter 23:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

-thal or -tal

I reverted the recent edits that changed all instances of Neanderthal to Neandertal.

1) The article is entitled "Neanderthal" and these edits create an uncessary redirect. 2) The scientific community is ambigious about which should be used. The change is because of a vowel change in the German language that changed the word valley from thal to tal. (or something like that). However, the species was named before the change. 3) Other changes occur to names and places and the scientific community does not necessarily adopt the change, ie Peking Man has not been changed to Bejing Man 4) It doesn't improve the article, we don't normally change words from the English usage like behaviour to behavior just because. --JPotter 18:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative theories

I believe it's important, to keep things objective here. I seems this topic should point out that evolution, while quite convincing, is still not conclusively proven and that there are other theories that can, to varrying degrees, offer other causes for the same observed facts.

Except there aren't currently any competing theories. Evolution is as "proven" as anything in science is. I think the note mentioning the political and religious controversy is sufficient, as there is currently no scientific controversy as to whether evolution took place or whether humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. There are of course many controversies about the details of what species is ancestral to what and where it happened; the more significant points of disagreement are already included in the article. thx1138 14:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a small comment under "Additional Notes" is sufficient to convey this information. Please stop removing it altogether. Edit the phrasing or add skeptical comments or whatnot, but it should be clear to the reader that the Darwinistic theory of evolution is not 100% proven law and that there are competiting and complimentary theories .

The information is not accurate or encylcopedic, but I did leave the link to creationism, but removed the link to Intelligent Design, as there is no cohesive model of human evolution in the ID hypothesis. There are other problems with your verbiage: Neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories. No scientific theory is ever "100% proven law".

As for the following paragraph:

It is commonly believed, in American culture at least, that the Darwinistic Theory_of_Evolution is a matter of fact, and not proper theory. A recent survey by Elaine Howard Ecklund at Rice University (14-AUG-2005 presentation before the Association for the Sociology of Religion in Philidelphia) showed that the majority of scientists surveyed believe in a god and that the Theory_of_Evolution might not adequately explain the origins of species.

I am not sure what you mean in the first sentence; facts and theories are not mutually exclusive, please see theory and the scientific method. As for the survey of scientists, what is the relevance to human evolution that a majority of scientists believe in a god? And most importantly, no where in the study does it say anything confirming the statement " and that the Theory_of_Evolution might not adequately explain the origins of species." You also failed to mention that a majority of life and earth scientists do not believe in a god, only when lumped in with all scientists does theism gain the majority. It still isn't relevant, however. --JPotter 17:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC) [1]

(Start Cmyers) The point was that the majority of scientists do not necessarily subscribe completely to Evolution. This human evolution topic is controversial and it's important, for historical purposes, to explain that it is not a done deal. You do not get that impression from the rest of the article. As for the Rice survey, it said that 38% of natural scientists did NOT believe in god (implying that 62% DID). It didn't specifically mention Earth or Life scientists, though I would imagine these would be lumped under Natural scientists (as opposed to political or social scientists).

Here's the same story, but with more detals: [2]

According to that news story:

• Natural: NAY: 38% YEA(?): 62%
  • Biologists: NAY 41% YEA(?): 59% (only sub-group mentioned in the article)
• Social: NAY: 31% YEA(?): 69%
  • Poli-sci: NAY: 27% YEA(?): 73% (only sub-group mentioned in the article)

Presumably, the majority of biologists believe in a god (and, I think it's reasonable, a creator of some sort, or perhaps in guided evolution or ID).

So, the facts are:

1. Evolution is theory and it's possible it can never be conclusively proven

All theories hold provisional doubt. Proof is not a concept in the scientific method.

1. There are competing theories with varrying levels of believability and evidence
2. The majority of scientists are not necessarily completely subscribed to Evolution

You have not proven this statement. The survey asks about religious belief not evolution. --JPotter 18:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

These are pretty major facts that impact whether our information on Human Evolution is entirely correct.

The article is beautiful, don't get me wrong. But for completeness' sake, it's important to mention that it's not all completely figured out and that the reader should be aware that there are other theories.

This is why I thought the link to the Creation vs. Evolution Controversy article was sufficient to convey that there is currently intelligent debate (for the most part ;) ) going on about the origin of species.

I was hoping not to turn this into an Evolution vs. Religion debate. In fact, it's quite possible and probable and another naturalistic theory will come along that will explain everything with none of the current holes that Darwinism has. --cmyers 18:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the majority, even biologists, believe in a god, but where does it say anything about skepticism about evolution? That would be major, but I don't see anything other than questions about god belief, which doesn't mean they don't accept evolution. Thanks! --JPotter 18:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Homo sapiens domesticus

Wouldn't it be more correct to call the modern man Homo sapiens domesticus rather than Homo sapiens sapiens? When we take a look at human populations that have lived as hunters and gatherers until recently, like the aboriginals, they have a much thicker skull and bigger jaws and teeth than most other people.

When humans domesticates animals, the same pattern is always repeated; an increase in under- and overbites, smaller body size (at least in the start), expanded breeding season (or breeding year round), shorter jaws, smaller teeth, monomorphism (males and females looks more alike), neotony, juvenile behavior, skull changes, reduced brain size and other stuff. When humans selected the kind of animals they wanted, they were picked for their meat, milk and fur and so on. Never for reduced brain size, curled tail, reduced jaws or any other well known traits, even if modern breeding of today are often extreme and selecting animals because of the way they look, that was a luxury out ancestors could not afford. These are traits that just followed. Not just once or twice, but as far as I know, always, no matter what species of mammal who were selected. So it is clearly not a coincidence.

Each time humans have become farmers and starts to live in permanent settlements and change their way of life from something "primtivie" to more modern, we see exactly the same changes in us after some generations.

In the last thousands years most people over the world have evolved shorter jaws (which often gives too little room for all the teeth, even if also they have been reduced in size), a reduced sense of smell, even new blood types and bio chemistry, an increase in under- and overbites, monomorphism (reduced secondary sexual characteristics, neoteny in other words), reduced brain size (if I remember correct, it has become reduced with as much a 10% since humans started to grow their own food), thinner skull and weaker muscles, most likely more juvenile behavior and other traits.

Just the same pattern as in domesticated animals. It seems that after humans started to live in early permanent villages and towns, where they domesticated animals and were growing their own food, they became self-domesticated.

In crowded environments and a new way of living, there is always someone that will do it better than others, and there is always someone that will produce more offspring than others. Even today we will probably see some pattern on who is having most children in the biggest cities in the world, and who is producing few or none. Of course, the bigger the cities are, the slower the evolution goes with all those poeple there are not bottle-necks which can speed it up. The original natural selection may be gone, but there is still other forms of selections going on, even if it may not be constant over time and goes very slowly.

Some says those humans living today have almost identical DNA with the humans that lived in caves and made paintings on the cave walls. Maybe, but this is also the case with domesticated animals and their wild cousins, and still we see some very big differences. It is said if we took a new born baby from its parents hundred thousands years ago and brought it to our modern time, no one would be able to tell the difference when he or she grew up. This is probably true, but I suspect it would be a very big chance the child would not like to go to school and sit on a chair most of the day and listen to teachers. There is a big chance the child would become one of these problem childs, not being quite comfortable with the modern way of living and all its noise, rules and laws and so on. That's just my opinion, but thats what I think.

It seems like Homo sapiens sapiens is almost extinct, and is being replaced by Homo sapiens domesticus. Is there any other way to explain the changes in us that have showed up since we stopped living as hunters and gatherers?

Cladistics and human evolution

It seems to me that this article, or the series of species articles on hominids, would benefit by some information on cladistics. The family tree timeline chart currently in this article is very nice, as getting the timeline straight is a challenge. And although cladistics has limitations, it would be nice if that methodology could be represented here, assuming that there's sufficient information about hominid fossils available for an analysis. Has anyone published a cladogram of hominids? If so, can it be adapted for use here? Sorry to whine and make suggestions about content that I can't generate myself; this subject is outside my field. --Jeff Medkeff | Talk 17:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)