This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A rather remarkable video just posted on BBC today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255 might this or something like it be useful here? Harel ( talk) 17:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I stopped looking after those two sets of contradictions. Please go to Primate and look at the information there and on other pages in WP:PRIM, as they are all built together. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, the page states both:
This is seemingly inconsistent. Thangalin ( talk) 18:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice Mateuszica commented that technology/cultural were dropped. They now exist at the Timeline of evolution but they make even less sense there. I just posted this there:
Alternatively, we could have a "timeline of human cultural and technological landmarks" or some such thing. Nice job on the pics incidentally--it looks good. Marskell 13:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
when i created the article , i think a lot of names for the article, i think in "Timeline of human evolution"too . but i tried to afoid put the "human evolution" on the name of the article , because its deeply associated with just the homo (genus) evolution.
UtherSRG changed the name Timeline of evolution of our species to the actuall name.
of course the actuall name of the article is a good name...not a long name.. and i really agreed to let this one
but if someone has a name that disassociate with human evolution , and that would fit well with this timeline , would be very nice . your ideas are very welcome.
Mateus Zica 14:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe this species-based approach to evolutionary timelines is highly artificial and fundamentally flawed:-
1) Each component in the biosphere is intimately inter-connected. For eg Human domestication and hunting of animals has affected the evolution of many non-human species. Having a separate timeline for each species is highly impractical, and ignore this inter-connections, interactions and causal relationships. It also lead to replication of materials.
2) Taking humans away from other organism seems to be very human-centric and seems to imply that humans are somehow special and no longer subjected to the laws of evolution any more, and also can live independently of other living things, which is wrong.
I think it is better to seperate the timeline of evolution into various chronological stages like:-
1) Chemical Evolution (4BYA) 2) Beginning of bacteria life (3.8BYA) 3) Multicellularism begins (1.2BYA) 4) After Cambrian explosion (543 BYA) 5) After the extinction of dinosaurs (65 MYA) 6) Era of the apes (25 MYA) 7) Beginning of Hominid evolution (8 MYA) 8) Rise of anatomically modern human (200KYA) 9) Rise of human with high cognitive powers(40KYA) 10) After the agricultural revolution (11KYA) 11) After the invention of writing (5KYA)
BC, I liked most of your rewording of the intro. I suggest you get yourself a user name and put it back in. Some users (I think) tend to revert the edits of anonymous IP addresses on principle, if their merits were not immediately clear. If that's too much commitment to Wikipedia for you, perhaps you can leave a note at the user page of the person who reverted your edits, asking for discussion. TriNotch ( talk) 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoever submitted the images has traced them from other images, personally i would find it much easier if the original images were posted instead, unless that would cause a copyright issue, but i would think that tracing the image would too
example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PlesiadapisZICA.png http://www-personal.umich.edu/~carpo/CV_files/image008.gif
I am currently doing a 3D animation on the subject of evolution, and find it a lot easier to draw an animal if it is shaded (the shading has been ommitted in the tracings)
this is the first reference to human evolution (from bacteria to homo sapien)that i have been able to find, so i would find it very useful if someone could find the original images or direct me to another site (i can't find anything in external links)
I have difficulties in parsing the third sentence in the "850 MYA" entry of the timeline. I really don't know anything about the subject involved to fix it myself, but in the spirit of trying to narrow down what my difficulty is I would have thought that instead of the current
"Proterospongia is not the direct ancestor of sponges, but it looked like what the ancestor of sponges all multicellular animals may have looked like. (the connecting link between protozoa and metazoans.)"
one could have something akin to
"Proterospongia is not the direct ancestor of sponges, but it looked like what the ancestor of sponges and all multicellular animals may have looked like. (the connecting link between protozoa and metazoans.)" -- 24.149.52.94 02:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"13 MYA Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the great apes." We are great apes. What did the author mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 ( talk) 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Just a few concerns about the wording of this article. It gives the impression of a linear "ladder" approach to evolution, with other species rungs en route to humanity. Whilst I appreciate that this is to a degree the point of the article, I feel it ought to be done more carefully. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there are lots of statements that give a misleading picture of the process of evolution, making it sound as if it's directed, or at least leads somewhere.
For example, at a first glance, I'm left with the impression that humans evolved from Choanoflagellates, not that we are sister crown groups. Further, the word "lead" is over-used. I can't work out what Eomaia scansoria, a eutherian mammal, leads to the formation of modern placental mammals is meant to imply in the slightest, and many other quotes give a misleading impression...
Further, the graphical timeline does not display properly in Mozilla Firefox. Perhaps consider replacing with a template-based {{ Graphical timeline}}?
Verisimilus T 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What would god say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.30.55 ( talk) 07:46, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Well if you think about it, humans are evolved from choanflagellates because every single thing in the animal kingdom evolved from choanflagellates Phthinosuchusisanancestor ( talk) 15:59, 23 October 2008
should one of these videos be included on the links of timeline of evolution?
Rafaelamonteiro80 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't pay attention to the first vid, its a load of tosh as according to the vid we evolved into monkeys straight away from amphibians which as rubbish as we became reptiles, pelycosaurs, therapsids and proto-mammals during that time Phthinosuchusisanancestor ( talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor
We could, of course, go with this one (lol):
Deepest apologies if I've offended some protocol but I was nor sure where to post.
The Human Timeline totally ignores the enigma of Australia, with early hominid skulls 7 million years ago and evidence of land being cleared in controlled burns 120,000 years ago. see
http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
A j beswick (
talk •
contribs) 15:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is cro magnon not listed on the timeline?
In the timeline humans are mentioned entering North America at 31 ka. AFAIK, this is about 20.000 years too early, or at least everything I've read suggests than man found America around 12.000 yrs ago. -- 80.222.32.123 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
31Ka does seem to be a bit early for most, some researchers are willing to push it back that far but around 20Ka is more accepted as the first migration and about 12Ka for the second migration. 131.91.92.184 ( talk) 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The year "12,000" should be suspect for ALL evolutionary Wiki pages. This is the creationist timeframe. On that note, I am editing the species and subspecies entries to the correct years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.131.235 ( talk) 03:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Mateus Zica 04:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The Ma used links to mya (unit), shouldn't it link instead to Annum? -- 70.21.26.190 ( talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello- I'd just like to note that the page is completely wrong about Pikaia being the earliest vertebrate/animal with a notochord. There are several organisms earlier(all from 530 mya): Haikouella lanceolata Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa Haikouichthys ercaicunensis Cathaymyrus diadexus And several others that are just as likely to be chordates. Sorry, I'd fix this myself, but I don't have the time right now. InterwebUsr ( talk) 14:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There is an entry claiming that the appearance of human FOXP2 was after the split from Neanderthal. However, the recent genetic analysis of Neanderthal showed that they have the identical FOXP2 gene as we do (this is IN the FOXP2 article). This is in line with Stephen Mithen's theory that Neanderthals could talk and sing just like we do (which predates this genetic analysis.) That means, of course, that the claim of behavioral modernity including the origins of language is highly suspect -- some form of proto-language (at least the ability to articulate modern human-like distinctive sounds) is quite likely much older than the time shown in this list. Qed ( talk) 15:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So, you go from Homo heidelbergensis to a bunch of white people waving. Very racist. Very wrong. Better to add a photo of two Africans. Just can't do it, can you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.27.179 ( talk) 03:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should use a picture of a khoisan individual .
Haplogroup A is common among Khoisan people.
Haplogroup A (A-M91) refers to a major cluster of human Y-chromosome types that represent one of the two deepest branches of the human Y chromosomal family tree.
Studies suggested that the Khoisan may have been one of the first populations to differentiate from the most recent common paternal ancestor of all extant humans, the so-called Y-chromosomal Adam by patrineal descent, estimated to have lived 60,000 to 90,000 years ago. [1] The authors also note that their results should be interpreted as only finding that the Khoisan "preserve ancient lineages", and not that they "stopped evolving" or are an "ancient group", since subsequent changes in their population are in parallel and similar to those of all other human populations. [2] Mateus Zica ( talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Mateus Zica ( talk) 01:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a cute picture, and certainly of historical interest, but on an article like this one which seems to be frequented by, um, nonexperts, is it really a good idea? Creationists like to use stuff like this to "refute Darwinism", you know. False vacuum ( talk) 15:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Homo sapiens taxonomy", it's unclear exactly what the "years ago" column really represents. It seems to contradict the later timeline in places. For example, Homo sapiens sapiens is listed as "200,000 years ago", but in the timeline lower on the page, the "earliest fossil evidence for archaic Homo sapiens" is listed at 200,000 years ago. So is this column meant to indicate when that taxonomic group split from its sibling groups? Most recent common ancestor? Other? stvltvs ( talk) 04:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Kermanshah Neanderthal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
I've written a similar article in my user area: User:Johntobey/Human_evolutionary_pedigree. Perhaps it could be merged or published separately? (Under what name?) Differences from Timeline of human evolution:
Johntobey ( talk) 18:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I am too overworked right now to look into this, but perhaps someone might like to merge this in:
Qed ( talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. An article like this but focused only in the brain would be great. Thanks. emijrp ( talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Some Related articles :
Articled that should be create
Mateus Zica ( talk) 18:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The modern definition of reptiles is synonym of Sauropsida
(see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile#Phylogenetics_and_modern_definition http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990 )
In the last row of the table "Tetrapods", "300 Ma", it is said: "Hylonomus is the earliest known reptile" (which is true)
"It is a precursor of later Amniotes and mammal-like reptiles." => wrong. Reptiles are amniote, not the opposite. Reptiles are not ancestors of mammal and mammal-like reptiles, but a sister group. They belong to the amniota clades. Amniota are thus not reptiles.
The first sentence is also misleading:
"From amphibians came the first reptiles"
=> No, Amphibia is "sister group" of amniotes, from which emerged reptiles
see also http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
"Evolution of the amniotic egg gives rise to the Amniota, reptiles that can reproduce on land and lay eggs on dry land"
=> We should just say something like "Evolution of the amniotic egg allowing to lay eggs on dry land is a caracteristic of Amniota"
"Reptiles have advanced nervous systems, compared to amphibians."
=> sentence should be removed.
Let me know what you think about this :) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.218.16.100 (
talk) 21:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The date at which neurologically modern humans appeared is controversial, and I have made an edit to reflect that. In particular, at the beginning of the article, I have changed the date from "0.07" to "0.2-0.07" to reflect that this could have occurred anytime between 200,000 and 70,000 years ago. This is consistent with information appearing later in the article, including the fact that "mitochondrial Eve," who lived 160,000 years ago, was no different genetically from humans who lived before or after her. This is controversial however, because the Great Leap Forward Theory asserts that genetic changes 70,000 years ago resulted in behavioral modernity suddenly arising, whereas the gradual accumulation theory asserts that fully genetically modern humans arose 200,000 years ago. All of this is discussed in the behavioral modernity article. ChicagoDilettante ( talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion about Neanderthal in the article, which is relevant because of the interbreeding that apparently went on. However, the article has nothing about Denisovan, which also apparently interbred with homo sapiens. I don't know enough about the subject (although interesting) to correct the article without probably making it much worse.
Could someone who knows something address this issue? Thanks,-- Fredrik Coulter ( talk) 15:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The article is outdated - to the point of being misleading. 173.173.20.99 ( talk) 02:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick ( talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
thebody.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).