Talk:Human

Main Article Image

I dislike this article's main image of the two Thais. I find it would be better to place a more "modern" couple. Think of an industrial American business man and woman.. the height of human progress! These farmers are living in the past!!

Am I prejudice? Probably! ;P But as beings capable of abstract reasoning, art, math, sciences, etc.. let's put something that represents are defining characteristics at their peak.. not as serfs!

Mat Wilson (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The image should be representative of typical humans. The current picture fits that purpose very well. Balfa (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove the racist rant simply to maintain the courtesy of discussion here. Whatever the merits or flaws with the current lead image, the fact the pictured subjects are Thai (rather than great and glorious "modern American business men" is not a flaw. The perfectly modern Thai farmers pictured are at least as capable of abstract reasoning, etc. as is any other modern human. Xenophobia, progressivist ideology, and cultural bias is simply ugly, and has no place on the article, nor really even here on the talk page. LotLE×talk 08:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, let's leave it be, if only as a reminder that human folly knows no bounds. I was left scratching my head, wondering whether Thai businesspersons or American farmers would have been acceptable but the combination somehow wasn't. I also wondered at the strange reality of "modern" humans "capable of abstract reasoning" but apparently incapable of understanding that if farmers are "living in the past", we're all due to starve very soon. (Also, some of these "modern" humans seem woefully incapable of proofreading their own talk-page posts, but that's neither here nor there.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually.. yes, my previous comment was somewhat racist. Thailand has business people too! I just prefer the industrial style over any sort of farmers (whether they're Thais or any nationality). But that's probably because I ain't a farmer and I like industrial cities with skyscrapers and all that. Then again, Balfa said: "representative of typical humans".. and it is true, still, a large portion of the race is not industrialized and still doing traditional farming methods and not yet rich enough for more machine power due to abusive governments that stifle man's mind. I did not mean to express that Thais were inferior in anyway! And indeed, I should have proofread before I posted, like Rivertouch said. I am not racist and I agree 100% with user, "Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" that Thais are just as fully capable and have same type of brains as Americans. By "modern", I mean anything within the past 100 years and specifically from the past 50 years on up in terms of technological progress... like machines, computers, steel building, et. al.. I also hate progressivist ideology and the new racism: multi-culturalism. Cheers! Mat Wilson (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a species that is about 200,000 years old. During at most 150 years of that existence, humans lived in the large, industrialized cities that Mat Wilson mentions. Choosing such a narrow and unrepresentative depiction would be something like insisting the article Canis must be represented by an image of Soviet space dogs. In contrast, the current image represents (approximately) a level of technology and style of social and economic activity that humans have engaged in for at least a large part of our history (still probably only 20,000 years, but at least that is 80x as long). LotLE×talk 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is very true!! I just recall (maybe it wasn't this article) of the main image being the Pioneer plaque and I really liked that because of it's simplicity and nakedness. Again, nothing more than personal preference.. I am being arrogant in this case! ;) If I don't like it though, I'm free to write my own webpage on my own server. ;) And the Pioneer plaque is great for aliens!! So.. we can end this discussion. The image is fine for Wikipedia! Mat Wilson (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Aliens might read this, so go with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.198.158 (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See response just above! ;) Mat Wilson (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This image is proof that there are sad power hungry political correct individuals who limit this most primitive picture as the example of human progression. If anything, the photo should show one of the Moon astronauts, to show us in the greatest light. What is this bullcrap anyways? Why not just put a person in a cave as the picture so we can please the cry babies who see everything good as racist and evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haselnuss (talk • contribs) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current image seems very arbitrarily chosen and unrepresentative. Back to the Pioneer plaque I say. FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you participate in the months-long discussion resulting in consensus to use the Akha image? The point of the Akha image is that it is arbitrarily chosen. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I participated in a discussion prior to that where it was agreed the Pioneer plaque was the most appropriate one. Hadn't seen the newer discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well...if you have lots of time on your hands, you might start with Talk:Human/Archive_28, then continue with Talk:Human/Archive_29 and Talk:Human/Archive_30. It's not exactly a gripping read, but I think it provides a good illustration of how opinions can shift and fresh consensus emerge over time. It worked that way for me, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the moon landing photo... it represents us at our highest achievement

And I've removed it as it's a picture of a spacesuit, not a human. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And who do you suppose is in that suit? Alf? Ok fine, I'll get something more appealing to you ladies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.255.190 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And the current image shows mostly linen. If we're ruling out covered skin, that doesn't seem to support the present photograph. I don't have a preference, myself, I'm just pointing this out. --Saerain (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That the moon landing constitutes humans' "highest achievement" is subjective. Even if it were not subjective, NeilN is correct: the picture is not suitable for the lead image here because it doesn't show humans (let alone typical or random humans). At its core, this article is on a species and should be analogous to other species' articles. Obviously, due to the unique characteristics of humans, the article goes way beyond that core, but it does need to start out that way. Thus, we have a lead image that is roughly comparable to the one found in other articles on species. An image of astronauts might well be appropriate further along in the article, though. If you and Haselnuss are genuinely interested in finding a new lead image in line with WP policies, including WP:Consensus, please take a look back through the last three archive pages and see how the decision to use the current lead image came about. (Incidentally, referring to fellow editors as "ladies" is usually not the most effective method for prolonging assumptions of good faith towards oneself. Your choice, but consider your apparent objective, which would require consensus to achieve.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have not changed my opinion, that I've had for a couple years through dozens of discussions, that the Pioneer plaque image is an excellent choice of lead image. I still think it is a bit better than the one we currently have. However, I most emphatically do not accept any racist, or even progressivist, claptrap about the best image being one that is of a human in a more technological context, nor still less a whiter human for the sake of bigotry.

I have no need or desire to rehash the Pioneer image discussion. Two many electrons have already been killed, and the current Akha image is perfectly good in itself. Assuming a photograph of actual humans is used, it really should look a lot like the Akha image in several respects:

• It should show humans in a typical environment, that represents our ecological lifestyle over tens of thousands of years, and as much as possible avoid features or activities that are specific to very recent times. Anything depicting technology of the last couple decades is pretty much out.
• It should show a male and female. Optionally, it might show a child as well.
• It could be either clothed or naked figures, but neither seems obviously preferable to me. Humans have worn clothes of some sort for many tens of thousands of years. Ideally (as is true of the Akha image), the clothing should not be too culturally or activity stylized. No style of dress is without cultural markers, but the clothing should not be a costume or uniform.
• It should show roughly the fully body plan of humans in "natural" positions. Something representing extreme capabilities, such as an athletic achievement or a contortionist would be misleading. Standing or kneeling would give a better overview of body structure than sitting, curled up, or laying.
• It should not have any humans who are independently recognizable or notable as individuals. This isn't an article about some particular human(s) we admire (or hate), but about the species generally.

I don't think anyone will find anything better in these terms. But if there is a suggestion, make it about these encyclopedic goals, not about bigotry and unencyclopedic purposes. LotLE×talk 09:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of the current Akha image for primarily for the reasons given by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters but I think you are being a little hard on the original poster here by accusing him of racism etc. He does not mention race in his suggestion just that we have an 'industrial American business man and woman'. In other words he is just suggesting that we have a picture representing humans from what is probably the dominant culture in the world today. This seems entirely logical to me. The problem is that we could not find a free-use image that met the requirements stated above. If Mat could find a suitable image that we could use there is no reason why it should not be given proper consideration.

I still find it hard to believe that some people want to replace the current realistic image with a poor quality line drawing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a real picture we have! A human at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haselnuss (talk • contribs) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Either the Pioneer plaque (as mentioned above) or the Human_anatomy.jpg image can be used, discard the thai farmers image. This, as Thai represent only a very small portion of the human population. In addition (to have the article be a little more international), the different types of races can be shown in an image added somewhere else in the article. Btw I prefer to have the image showing people accompanied with the race names (eg Causasian, Bantu, ...) rather than "black", "white", ... Finally, we'll need to add more info about the spreading of the population (eg by means of a genographic project image) and finally, we should also mention that the races are again evoluating increasinly rapidly apart from each other. Ref= Jonathan Pritchard, John Hawks, Gregory Cochran, Robert Moyzis, Eric Wang

KVDP (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire notion of races is unscientific and should not be lent credence by emphasizing "racial" differences in the article. As the draft FAQ answers quite nicely, there are other axes of difference besides race that are arguably more significant anyway. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a few images showing the different cultures of the world? Or perhaps one main image that shows both males and females of different cultures. It's either got to be multi-cultural or non-cultural at all. And something to consider is that humans know what a human looks like. Probably, the most plausible non-cultural and least controversial solution would be the Pioneer plaque. llehsadam×talk 22:39 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the Pioneer plaque is not a human at all but a bad quality line drawing with bits missing. All we need is an 'example' of some real humans, which we have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several images would reduce the size to insufficient detail and would require determining what the "different cultures" of the world are and which ones to include, which is impossible to do neutrally. There's no such thing as a non-cultural human. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, we can never hope to show all races and cultures in an unbiased way in one picture. All we need is a good example of humans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the setup of the image, but I would prefer one where the clothing isn't so loose so that you can see the body shape. As for the race, it doesn't really matter as long as you don't purposely choose the lightest or darkest skinned person. The race of the people in the photo is nicely middle-of-the-road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.8.92 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The current image is a rather pathetic and bureaucratic attempt at portraying modern humanity, who reside more in cities on average than in rural areas. I think the World War 2 page had a nice compromise with their collage of images, and anything would be better than this ludicrous representation of human-kind. When I first saw the image I wasn't sure if I accidentally wandered onto a National Geographic spread on the Third World. I don't mean it to be crass, but the subjects of the photo don't seem to even know, nor care about the picture, or the fact that they are now being used to describe a race of billions of individuals on the worlds most popular encyclopedia.

Let's face it: the only reason this picture is here is because nobody wants to be deal with the inevitable charge of racism for using a much more suitable photo of a white or European person. The virgin cultural sensibilities of the Wiki'ing community apparently were too much even for a depiction of white people laser-engraved onto aluminum plaques.

It really has nothing to do with skin-color or ethnic background at all; modern humanity is not rural in any sense of the word, and agriculture while still essential, is not near as close to the forefront of human enterprise as business is.

I think we should commission a community effort to create a suitable image from scratch using multiple subject of differing ethnicities. This image just doesn't cut it at all. F33bs (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction: the current image makes no "attempt at portraying modern humanity"; it simply depicts two humans. And they're just as human as any city-dwelling "white or European person". I smell socks. Rivertorch (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What about socks? I didn't say they weren't human, nor did I say they were any less human for being rural. I said it's not a suitable image to describe humanity in its present condition, which is the point of an encyclopedia. I think a collage would be best, including nice images of humans of different cultures. 68.104.30.225 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that collage idea is worth its salt. If you can put one together in PhotoShop or something and then post it to this Talk Page first, then by all means do that, and you'll probably get to copy it from here to the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it even NECESSARY to have an image there, we do know what humans look like... Black Cat Claws (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture is still generating flak I see. David D. (Talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have to choose a race, I'd choose either East Asian (because they are the most common) or West African (because they were first). My first choice is a collage, like they do in the article about mammals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.8.208 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Species of the human is not H. sapien, that is the scientific name. The human species is sapien, this page is incorrect and should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegtar (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Humans are herbivores

Most biologists agree that humans are herbivores. Our digestive systems are far more similar to that of other herbivorous species, not omnivores. I'm not suggesting take everything about being omnivores out, because we obviously act like we are, but adding something about how humans are biologically herbivores.24.17.64.28 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think popular usage applies here meaning we can't say something even if it's true if the general population believes or says otherwise. For instance, we can't say Obama is the first mixed president. we have to say he's the first black president since that's what the media says.username 1 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all. Common knowledge is often mistaken and WP often debunks common misconceptions. The vegsource article cited seems reasonably reliable. I don't see why the info couldn't be incorporated. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources all seem to be from vegetarian web sites and do not support the assertion that most biologists agree that humans are herbivores.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It ought to be something more like "Some biologists/doctors/whatever such as XX and YY believe humans are anatomically herbivores." --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We are NOT anatomically herbivores. We are true biological omnivores. Members of Homo sapiens HAVE what are called canine teeth near the front of the mouth. True herbivores (such as horses, cattle, and rabbits) LACK that type of tooth altogether. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a scientifically sound conclusion. Gorillas (which of course are much closer to us than the ungulates and rodents you use as examples) have enormous canine teeth, and are complete herbivores. They use their canines to cut into hard plants such as bamboo. It is invalid to conclude that the existence of canines equates with meat-eating. — Epastore (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans were never capable of eating any plant as hard as bamboo, so our canines can't be for that as those of gorillas are. (I will not even emphasize the fact that gorillas do eat certain insects, and insects do count as animals rather than plants.) Meat, I might point out, is far softer than bamboo, and what's taught in bio. classes is that we evolved omnivorous, and, when eating meat, tearing it straight off the bone. This explains the shape of a canine tooth that is nowhere near strong enough to tear very hard plants. Also, can gorillas digest true cellulose? (Humans can't. I can tell you that much for certain.) Furthermore, our Australopithecine ancestors were not like modern gorillas in their diet. See the "Diet" Section in the Article Australopithecus. We are also directly descendant from Homo erectus, a largely carnivorous scavenger, by way of our immediate ancestor, Homo rhodesiensis. In any case, even the very oldest fossil sites of Homo sapiens (after our own speciation) sometimes have animal bones near them, which means we are true biological omnivores. To be exact, we are supposed to be primary-secondary omnivores, which means the animal prey we eat is itself herbivorous. (So, we eat plants and herbivores but not other carnivores.) With some exceptions, we largely adhere to that even today. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion below under the subject heading Humans Are Biological Frugivores. The cuspids ("canines") are adapted for cracking nuts. Our cuspids are short, stout and slightly triangular, and bear no resemblance to the long, round, slender, curved, sharp canines set apart from the other teeth, which is a feature of all true carnivores (except birds).

Anthropologist Nathaniel J. Dominy of the University of California,Santa Cruz and colleagues have found that Homo erectus has a stable isotope signature that is consistent with a high-starch diet, not a carnivorous diet. Pearl999 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I said most biologists based on personal experience. Every biologist I've spoken to/met has agreed that humans are herbivores. I don't suggest using this wording in the article. Yes, the sources are from vegetarian web sites, sure, but they are all articles written by biologists with no ties to these web sites themselves. I merely couldn't find the articles posted elsewhere. Also, the third source was meant to be 24.17.64.28 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Biology Major. We are true omnivores. Even the very oldest fossil records of humans show at least some meat consumption. Actually, let's go even further back to "Diet" in Australopithecus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen humans in real life several times and they were eating meat, so based on observation alone it appears the the species is omnivorous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.8.92 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also encountered several humans who, in their natural habitat, were eating meat. Seems to me they're omnivores and should be listed as such.AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll avoid entering this dispute for the time being, but my personal opinion is that humans are unique and cannot be classified in a category with any other animal. Yes, we eat meat, but generally only if it's of an animal that's been dead for a long time (relative to the fresh kills we see in the wild), drained of blood, cleaned of internal organs, and cooked in a very careful way. Yes, there are exceptions, but they're rare, and no human will take all of the exceptions at once, by e.g. hunting a small animal and then eating it raw right then and there. People who do try things like that (see raw foodism) suffer health problems, because it's not just a preference, it's an actual evolutionary adaptation. So there are quite a lot of differences between us and nearly every other "meat eater". Also, we're the only animal in the world that by nature eats grains ... we invented grains. So we're not really much like any of the other herbivores in the world either. Hence, I say that humans are unclassifiable on the herbivore/carnivore/omnivore spectrum, though if we have to pick one, I would say omnivore is the one that makes the most sense because pigs are omnivores and we're the most like them. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason I said I'm avoiding the content dispute and then went on to reply to the discussion is because my argument is pretty much classic original research, which is sometimes acceptable on an article talk page if (and only if) it oontributes to the discussion at hand, but is never allowed in the article itself. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Locusts eat grains. Unless i'm mistaken. But I digress. username 1 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of animals eat grains: insects; birds; rodents; many large herbivores as supplements grasses; etc. We're the only animal who eats ground and cooked bread, for example (except for others that scavenge it from humans)... but then, we're also the only animal who eats hot dogs or sushi too (modulo the scavenging thing, of course). There's nothing hard to classify about human diet, particularly; albeit the amount of preparation humans apply to most foodstuffs is certainly more than with other animals. LotLE×talk 22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We can probably put a paragraph or two on Human nutrition though we need a better source. username 1 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Evolving to eat cooked meat and processed grains is pretty notable and should be mentioned. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Herbivores hmm why do i eat meat? Why did my ancenters have incensors? y does every time i eat meat i dont barf

I don't know about you, but I've seen plenty of meat-eating humans. Making the majority of humans omnivores. Black Cat Claws (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of biologists classify humans as omnivores. Just look at homo sapiens the way we would look at any other species: what does this species eat, and not just recently, but over the history of the species? Going back tens of thousands of years, at the very least, our species eats both meat and plants.--RLent (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the fossil record? We've always eaten meat. The fossil record is unambiguous. Chrisrus (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsustainability?

The transition to civilization section states that humans consume more resources than are available to them. It's uncited and isn't this also a logical impossibility? How can you use more resources than are available? In a market economy (a system created by humans for resource distribution), as resources become scarce their price increases which causes voluntary rationing, as well as creating an incentive to increase production. I move for deletion of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voisine (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The civilization is unstable in the long term. Just because it works now, doesn't mean it will continue to do so in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.64.28 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We're working on that. That's the point of alternative energy research. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there's a difference between "unstable" and "unsustainable." Some things are both [insert joke about fat actress here], but the words are still completely different. Either way, it is as impossible to consume "more than is available" as it is to work 25 hours a day. J.M. Archer (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is simply out of context, it is possible to consume 'more than is available' to us as a race. Consider the fact that if we were all to consume the same as Americans consume then we would need 3 planets to sustain us. Therefore the americans are consuming more than is available to the americans, they are consuming what is available to other nations as well, hence the instability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.65.201 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What, seriously? Which of these does not belong?

From the article:

There have been a wide variety of rapidly advancing tactics throughout the history of war, ranging from conventional war to asymmetric warfare to total war and unconventional warfare. Techniques include hand to hand combat, the use of ranged weapons, and ethnic cleansing.

I'm curious: since when was "ethnic cleansing" a tactic used in warfare? Sure, sure, maybe it's something that warring factions will do, but does that really make it a tactic? Today, class, we're going to learn about judo, marksmanship, and ethnic cleansing!

...come on, guys. I'm totally deleting that. I know that we have to list things in threes and that once you cover "up close" and "far away" killing it's difficult to think of a third, but this is ridickerous.

J.M. Archer (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

Almost all of the images are of mongoloids and negroids. Would it not be more suitable to have images of caucasoids as well? They are at the forefront of modern civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.11.75 (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Although this is most certainly a trolling attempt, I'll answer it pretending it isn't - this article is not about "modern" civilization, its about the species as a whole. Therefore, the current image is far more representitive than a snapshot of middle-class western suburbia. --Viciouspiggy (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing domain taxon

Humans are part of the Domain Eukarya. Domain level is a basic taxonomic rank, every bit as necessary to list as the ranks from Kingdom down to Genus. It's not a Super- or Sub- anything or anything trivial, so stop removing it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article..." And that is an EXACT quote from the very template on whose grounds you people keep yelling at me over the Domain Eukarya. Domain has come to be recognized a major rank unto its own, and is no longer considered another word for Superkingdom. I know that because the same can be found in any relatively new college biology book, and you can trust me on that because I'm a Biology Major. So, given that Domain level is a major rank, not a minor one, why is it less necessary than other major ranks? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that text was ever intended to include domains, given that most articles, including the example at Template:Taxobox, don't. I'll bring this up at Template talk:Taxobox; if we agree that the domain is needed, it may be best to tweak the taxobox to automatically include the domain for every animal, not only humans. Ucucha 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See Template talk:Taxobox#Domain. Ucucha 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Major taxonomic ranks, including Domain, are not unnecessary clutter. That is true by virtue of being major ranks, meaning main ranks and not Super-, Sub-, or Infra-whatever-else. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Many taxonomic ranks that are not super-, sub-, etcetera, are still considered minor; e.g. tribe, section, series, variety. I consider domain to be minor too. Hesperian 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that your information isn't just old? I was under the impression that Domain was officially elevated to a major rank in late 2006. If not, the fact that you can find entire chapters devoted to Domain-level classification in early 100-Level college Biology books nowadays certainly makes it seem like a major rank to a Bio. Major. In any case, the facts that there are only 3 Domains in existence (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya) and that it is the highest taxonomic rank (unless a Clade of the Whole Biosphere is counted as a Supreme Taxon, of which there is only 1) make it not at all cumbersome to include. Besides, Variety is a synonym for Subspecies and therefore does fall into the Supers and Subs category, as does Race, another term for Infraspecies. (Most articles here on Wiki use Subspecies for animals and fungi, Variety for plants and maybe a few other autotrophic eukaryotes, and Strain for all members of the Domains Bacteria and Archaea, but I do believe at least the 1st 2 terms are technically interchangeable.) If memory serves me right, the same can be said for Tribe, which is another term for Infrafamily. Domain, however, is not correctly interchangeable with Superkingdom. Between the Domain Eukarya and Kingdom Animalia, the currently considered-unranked Clades Unikonta and Opiskonta could very well turn out to be a Subdomain and Superkingdom, respectively. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Variety and subspecies are not synonyms; at least, not in botany. Nor are tribe and infrafamily. Hesperian 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the article entitled "Variety (botany)," a Variety "As such...gets a ternary name (a name in three parts)." It should be noted that Subspecies, such as Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu, are likewise listed with trinomials. I'm pretty sure Variety is generally used in botany while Subspecies is typically used instead in zoology, but that isn't the same as one being a rank above the other. Furthermore, the article entitled "Tribe (biology)" explicitly begins "In biology, a tribe — or infrafamily — is a taxonomic rank between family and genus" [Italics added]. So, in any case, none of that changes the fact that an early 100-Level college Biology book will devote entire chapters to Domain-level classification but not to Tribe-level or Variety-level classifications. That certainly makes Domain seem like a major rank to today's Biology Major. Besides, Domain has the very notable distinction of being the very highest taxonomic rank. Last but not least, the Template:Taxonomic ranks displays all major ranks, including Domain, in bold. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Botany, in fact, uses both subspecies and varieties; for example, Banksia ericifolia has subspecies and Banksia sessilis has varieties. The text on the tribe page appears to have been wrong; "infrafamily" is apparently a very rarely used rank that is usually placed above the tribe [1]. Ucucha 03:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It has become clear that your certainty exceeds your knowledge. Until that has been rectified, I have nothing more to say, except that you are going to have to conform to the strong consensus that has formed at Template talk:Taxobox. Hesperian 03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The lower ranks like Infrafamily and Tribe are not the point. I admit that I know more zoology than botany. In any case, I do have a little expertise unless everyone here is also a Biology Major. Anyway, the other template, Template:Taxonomic ranks, does show Domain in bold, indicating a major rank. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to take my word for it

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it. It says in this Article that there are 8 major ranks including Domain. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Human vs. Homo

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – Consensus seems to be that this is the common usage for "Human". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Human → Homo sapiens — Content of Human should be moved to Homo sapiens; and possibly also Human should redirect to Homo. — Epastore (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I have heard scientists refer to any member of genus Homo as "human." However, this article seems to use the word Human to only refer to homo sapiens. Yet in other places, the article (and the disambig at the top) refers to homo sapiens as "modern humans," while indicating that there were other humans in the past. So shouldn't the rest of the article be more consistent in what it is talking about? Is a human only a modern human? If so, then why the word "modern" at all? Why not have the article Human redirect to Homo and have most of the content in this article be listed under "homo sapiens" (which currently redirects here)? — Epastore (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Human" is the current page; the vast majority of the time, if someone is searching for humans, they want the current page. The current page already has hatnotes for the other meanings/interpretations of "human". --Cybercobra (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To Epastore, first of all, a genus taxon must always be capitalized. In other words, there is no lowercase "h" in Homo sapiens. Second, you are actually right about the definition. Humans are in fact defined as any member of the Genus Homo. Given the fact that all other species of humans are extinct, however, the article on Homo sapiens will inevitably receive more hits than the articles on all the other types of humans. People tend to look up living species and taxa more often than extinct ones. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can see the desire to avoid confusion of people searching for "human" being directed to Homo, but is convenience really the driving factor? If someone looks up "human," and finds, correctly, that the term embraces all members of Homo, then aren't they gaining from the experience? But assuming that you don't buy my previous justification; I still put forth that this article needs a change in tone. The hat note leading to the genus is immediately contradicted by the first sentence, which very clearly defines humans as H. sapiens. The article then goes back and forth, sometimes using "human" and other times "modern human." The current setup with Homo sapiens redirecting here may be convenient, but it decreases understanding and clarity. Nothing would be lost by having Human redirect to Homo and putting this article's content where it belongs, in Homo sapiens. And the end result would be that people might learn something. That's a worthy goal of Wikipedia, is it not? — Epastore (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I spent a while reading about these topics recently, and I was frequently confused by which terms were used, and where links were directed. I'll try to find some specifics later, but the root confusion was surrounding the terms/links Archaic Homo sapiens vs. Homo sapiens vs. Homo sapiens sapiens (currently bolded in the infobox here, but the link is a redirect to Anatomically modern humans) vs. "human". I completely understand that this is a problem to do with scientific-evidence and theories and taxonomy slowly developing over the decades, which Human taxonomy and Human evolution go into a bit, but quite a few of the explanations could use a re-examination by a topic-expert/experienced-technical-writer. The Timeline of human evolution was the clearest, in the end, for me. Definitely something to keep an eye out for. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support (from proposer) — Convenience is no substitute for precision, clarity, and education. — Epastore (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose MOS recommends using a common name for the article rather than binomial nomenclature whenever possible. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). —Soap— 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Use most commonly used common name in English. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose people will search for the article using the term 'human' and will expect to end up here. Although the proposer is doubtless correct that human can be applied to anything in the genus 'homo', that's not the way the audience that uses the wikipedia think about it, and the MOS says we should use common usage. The situation is currently being dealt with by links at the top of the page- this seems the correct way to do this in the Wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 15:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This has to be a joke, anyone on Earth can tell you that the common name for our species is Human. TJ Spyke 18:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyone? You mean most anyone, but certainly not anthropologists. Most anyone will tell you that the name for Cattle is "Cow." But the article is under Cattle, because "cow" can refer to more than one thing... same as "human." — Epastore (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per naming conventions. Rivertorch (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UCN Flamarande (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because common usage rules. -- Scray (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to all of above (from proposer):

1. The Manual of Style is a guide, not a rulebook. It shouldn't be applied blindly, and it is misleading to be telling people that the common name for the genus Homo only refers to one species just because that is the only one around at this time.
2. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) article applies if the word in unambiguous, which "Human" is not, seeing as it is a common name for a genus, not a species.
3. However... since it seems clear that consensus isn't likely to go my way, then I'll revert to my other alternative, which is that the article needs serious help. A single hat note which is immediately contradicted by the first sentence of the article is not sufficient. The article should start by saying that Human refers to the genus, but that since there is only one extant species, it now commonly refers to the species. Would that work for everyone? It also then should gain more consistency in its word choice since sometimes it says "modern humans" and other times just "humans." — Epastore (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think most of the opposers above have lost the point that "human" is, in fact, an ambiguous term. The OED defines "human" as "A human being, a person; a member of the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo." (among other things). Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, gives "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly: HOMINID." The relevant text from the Britannica article on Homo sapiens is worth quoting:

“ Following our ancestors into the distant past raises the question of what is meant by the word human. Homo sapiens is human by definition, whereas apes are not. But what of the extinct members of the human tribe (Hominini), who were clearly not us but were nonetheless very much like us? There is no definitive answer to this question. Although human evolution can be said to involve all those species more closely related to us than to the apes, the adjective human is usually applied only to ourselves and other members of our genus, Homo (e.g., H. erectus, H. habilis). Behaviorally, only Homo sapiens can be said to be “fully human,” but even the definition of Homo sapiens is a matter of active debate. ” — Homo sapiens. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9040899.

In that light, I prefer a split between Homo sapiens and "human", with Homo sapiens covering the species and "human" the general concept and history of the term. Ucucha 02:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's ambiguous or not, what matters is whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and most seem to agree there is; even if there were to be a move, "Human" would redirect to the present article for the same reason. If we didn't allow any ambiguity, every page with multiple possible meanings would be a dab page, which isn't the case. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not positive that there is a primary topic. Human usually means Homo sapiens because that is the species we most commonly encounter, but are people who search for "human" likely to want information about Homo sapiens, rather than the broader concepts of "humans" that includes neanderthals and H. floresiensis (i.e., our closest relatives)? I am not sure. Ucucha 03:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Epastore, I am having difficulty understanding your point. You say, 'The article should start by saying that Human refers to the genus, but that since there is only one extant species, it now commonly refers to the species'. The article starts, 'Humans commonly refers to the species Homo sapiens..... However, in some cases the term is used to refer to any member of the genus Homo'. Is this not much the same thing. You say that 'human' is the genus but sometimes the species, the article says that 'human' is the species but sometimes the genus. The point is that 'human' is not that rigorously defined, as Britannica says, 'There is no definitive answer to this question'. That is why we have scientific names. On the other hand 'human' is the best know word and thus the best title for the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It used to say that Human only referred to H. sapiens. I changed it, and User:Cybercobra improved my edit. I still would like to see a move, but it's clear consensus isn't swinging that way, so at least the current article is more clear. I also favor the distinction made above by User:Ucucha, where "human" refers to everything having to do with Homo, and "Homo sapiens is specifically about the distinguishing characteristics of our species. — Epastore (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not my opinion. Ucucha 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources do we have on this subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary entries I'd presume. See above where a couple are quoted. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

interesting debate

That was an interesting debate to read. It is true that experts do refer to non-sapiens species of our genus as "humans", but that's never set well with me. If you don't paint your walls, store food, eat vegetables, or innovate your technology hardly at all for thousands of years, there's definately something inhuman about you. What normal humans habitually poo where they eat? No people poo where they eat, sleep, live. The English words, "human", "person", these words are pushed beyond the limits of the normal referent to include those species, IMHO. They don't pass the duck test. Kudos to those who limited it to sapiens.Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Morphologically incorrect image

The two specimens shown both lack pubic and armpit hair. I believe it would be better to show humans in their natural state without artificial modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.219.181 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While I completely see your point, the main reason that we do not have a more typical image is the sheer amount of work that one person would be required to do and the rarity with which Wikipedians actually do that much work on a single project (we tend to like to jump around like fish with extremely short attention spans, that's why we're Wikipedians). Creating an image that would be comparable to the one that is already up there would require someone to say they wanted to create the image, to find two willing models who seem as typical of natural human beings as possible, to take the pictures, to have all the necessary technology and software to put the image together, to label all of the parts, to upload it to Wikipedia, and then go through the immense amount of talk-page work that it requires to change a picture on Wikipedia without someone else reverting the change three seconds later. If you can find someone to do all of that, please do. But frankly, considering how hard good educational diagrams are to come by on this site, I'd say that image is "good enough". from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion might be to point out in the image captions or related text that these images show humans with certain features removed and give some explanation as to why this is the case. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Age of Modern Humans

The opening of the entry is wrong when it states that modern humans originated 200,000 years ago in Africa. The reference cited for this statement actually says that modern humans diverged from the common ancestor in Africa 200,000 years ago and that "the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa." This timeline needs to be clarified. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexually Transferrable Diseases

I think there should be something on this topic a.o. so that people looking for info on the subject on e.g. std's can find the articles on these subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs)

These are by no means unique or special to humans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reproduction - Fertility

I think there should be something on this topic a.o. so that people looking for info on the subject on e.g. fertility cycle / birth control / std's can find the articles on these subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs)

Humans Are Biological Frugivores

(Copyright violations removed.) Ucucha 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (...) http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

(...) http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

(...) http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

(...) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

(...) http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679

Pearl999 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The way I read hominid articles, all apes eat lots of fruit, but it tends to be a boom-and-bust source of food. The robust australopithecines were built to handle eating plant material we couldn't possibly deal with. Their skulls look like those of gorillas, with huge bovine teeth, so they moved on beyond fruit to grains and other rougher stuff. And they died out, while the gracile australopithecines, which seem to have built for meat and lots of other things, gave rise to our genus; while the robustus types died out. Which makes sense because a varied diet with lots of meat pushes an animal towards intelligence, organization, and pressure to solve problems. We recently seem to have eaten a lot of fish at one time, but early on we ate a lot of marrow. Fish is good brain food, and that seems to have helped us over the threashold to humanity. Our closest cousins/enemies such a neanderthals, well, we've got more evidence there, according to that article we know practically for sure that they ate meat, meat, meat, and then for dessert some meat. They were a wierd bunch, those neanderthals, very unlike us in many ways, so what they did doesn't say anything about what our ancestors ate, but there's no doubt at all that they weren't vegetarians.

In fact, modern vegetarianism is only possible thanks to the artificial selection work of many generations of peasant farmers in Asia and Mexico, quite recently in terms of our evolution, desparately trying to grow meat on a bush. Thanks to them, you can be a vegan if you want to by eating lots of soy beans and mexican beans and such, lentils, but these didn't exist in nature, we had to artificially create them, and our ancestors did not have that option, at least not until way too recently to make a difference. And still you will notice, -"burp"- still don't ("toot" - excuse me burritos for lunch) - still are WAY far from easy on the ol' human digestive system, much less to subsist on.

Plants want you to eat their fruit, so they make it easy on the species they contract with for seed dispersal. But they hate to be eaten, so making themselves unpalatable, if not poisonous or impossible to digest. All but the best herbavours have to stay where they evolved because they're not used to the plants in another biome. Meat eaters don't have that problems, because, as the Africans say, meat is meat. If you can eat a zebra, you can eat a caribu. Without meat eating, how could our ancestors have spread across the world and learned to live in every biome, just about.

By the way, think about eskimos, they didn't eat any vegetables at all. How do you explain that?

So eating too much meat is bad for us? No doubt, but what does that prove? So is eating too much salt or sugar will also kill you. But having too much meat and salt and sugar wasn't a problem homonids had, was nothing we evolved to cope with. Quite the opposite. Humans will, if given the chance, eat way too much meat and salt and sugar, that's true. But if you stop and think about that for a bit, it's pretty obvious why that is. We didn't evolve with supermarkets and restaurants in the enviroment! Chrisrus (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Humans are opportunistic omnivores, able to survive and reproduce on a very wide range of foods. In any case, the claimed harm from eating some foodstuffs in excess is actually insignificant in evolutionary terms. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Human anatomy is almost identical to the anatomy of frugivorous primates. Gut measurements do not support theories of an adaptation towards carnivory, but are grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

That is not what this article is all about. It basically makes the point, 'while meat assumed a more important role in hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, and contrary to popular belief. Whatever the article is about, the measurements of the (modern) human gut are grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr Alan Walker and associates, anthropologists at John Hopkins University, found that "Every tooth examined from the hominids of the 12 million year period leading up to Homo Erectus appeared to be that of a fruit-eater." (NY Times, May 1979). Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis. discovered that Australopithecus afarensis did not have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut animal flesh. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011

Indeed, humans developed tools for killing animals and cutting meat and thus do not need specialised teeth.

If humans were naturally carnivorous, we wouldn't need external aids. Humans also constructed airplanes, but flying in airplanes doesn't make us birds. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans have used tools since they first evolved. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And ...? Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So noted, Pearl999. We must now stop flying and eating dead animals. :) J.M. Archer (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you can do, the fact remains... humans are by nature terrestrial frugivores. Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

K. Sure. So tell me something: how many animals are classified by what it looks like they should do rather than what they do? J.M. Archer (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Really! Mr. Pearl, let me ask you this: What would you say to an anatomist who, if you were a panda caretaker, who came to you with a skull pointing out that this animal is clearly a carnivore, so you should stop feeding it bamboo? What would you say to him? Would you say "ok" and then start feeding Ling Ling only meat, based on the anatomy of the skull, plus the fact that almost all other members of the order are carnivores? Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Ms., but you may call me Sir.  ;). WRT the Panda. Pandas are closely related to the bears, and whilst indeed being almost completely herbivorous, Pandas do in fact sometimes still eat small animals. With the exception of the polar bear, bears are regarded as omnivores, having molar teeth adapted to grinding plant-foods. The bears "diverge from the carnivorous type towards the Ungulata; the result being the same,- that is, regarded in the mass, they become omnivorous. But the exceptions, so far from being inconsistent with the law of correlation, furnish fine illustrations of the manner in which its details are carried out, in contrasted cases of mixed types." http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/comm/ScPr/Falc.htm (Hope that cite's not excessive) Pearl999 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Species throughout nature intuitively consume the foods they are specifically adapted to consume. So normally there's no discrepancy between what other species do and what it looks like they should do.

Speaking of classification, Linnaeus, who introduced the system of naming animals and plants according to their physical structure, wrote: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." Pearl999 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're answer is "yes"? Chrisrus (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See reply above. If something's still unclear, just ask and I'll do my best to clarify. Pearl999 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Underground roots and tubers would have been an important nutritional addition to the diet of Australopithecus during short periods of above-ground food scarcity. Their dental and microwear patterns are compatible with the additions of roots to a chimpanzee-like diet (Hatley and Kappelman, 1980; Grine and Kay, 1988). http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html

Yes, humans are omnivores and eat roots.

There's no mention of flesh-eating above. Humans can be omnivorous (behaviour), but that still doesn't mean that humans are omnivores (biology). Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP says 'Omnivores... are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Geologist Frank Brown, dean of the University of Utah's College of Mines and Earth Sciences, says that while the emergence of Homo sapiens is about 195,000 years ago, evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, even tools. comes in very late (appearing together with cultural artifacts as a coherent package only about 50,000 years ago), except for stone knife blades, which appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm Professor of anthropology and physiology Jared Diamond wrote in The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee (pp.33-34) that there is good evidence of human hunting skills only around 100,000 years ago, and that it's clear they were very ineffective big-game hunters. According to professor of anthropology Robert W. Sussman, some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think humans had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011 Thus it's very unlikely that animal flesh was a primary source of food for at least the first 140,000 years from the emergence of Homo sapiens, and the species didn't suddenly become biological omnivores thereafter any more than cows fed animal protein. Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A review of Plio-Pleistocene archaeology found site location and assemblage composition to be indicative of low-yield scavenging in the context of competitive male displays, and not consistent with the idea that big game hunting and provisioning was responsible for the evolution of early Homo. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

Again nothing here says that humans have not evolved to eat meat only that meat eating did not play an important part in human evolution. These are not the same thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here (or anywhere, for that matter) says that humans have evolved (as in biological adaptation) to eat animal flesh. That's the point. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But nevertheless nearly all humans did eat meat.

Sorry but that's an unsupported claim, and even if they did the biology hasn't changed. Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Early mastery of fire would have further increased the calories available from tubers (by 50%). Most wild yam species are non-toxic and available in large quantities throughout African forests and savannas (A. Hladik and Dounias, 1993). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

Note that taro root is believed to be one of the earliest cultivated plants. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taro

What is the relevance of this?

That gathered foods including roots and tubers could have provided the energy needed to support human populations for most of human history. Arrowroot (taro) is found worldwide in temperate zones and the tropics. http://www.wilderness-survival.net/Appb.php And that's just one edible wild plant food source out of thousands. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The neanderthals are long extinct. Short lifespans and evidence of arthritis in their skeletons, systemic illness or a severely deficient diet. "no worse off than the Inuit"... http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/neander.htm

Or this?

You: "we know practically for sure that they (neanderthals) ate meat, meat, meat, and then for dessert some meat. ... there's no doubt at all that they weren't vegetarians. .... think about eskimos, they didn't eat any vegetables at all. How do you explain that?"

As it goes, the Inuit ("eskimos") traditionally went to great lengths to gather available plant foods. I'd give you an authoritative quote from a post to a public forum but sorry that's been deemed by the WPTB to be copyright violation.. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, no one maintains that humans are exclusively carnivorous but they can clearly survive and reproduce on a wide range of diets. That makes them omnivoresMartin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. Humans have no biological carnivorous adaptations whatsoever, and the omnivorous diet is associated with disease and premature death... Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Clinical and epidemiological nutritional studies consistently reveal health benefits from the consumption of plant-based foods and conversely, significant increase in the risk of chronic degenerative diseases with the consumption of animal-based foods. According to the findings of the most comprehensive large study there was no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-based foods in the diet. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 Pearl999 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Eating too much of anything is bad for you. Many humans do that now, because they can.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read it again. An 'ability' to do something doesn't mean that you should be doing it and that there won't be severely detrimental consequences from doing it. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my point. Humans eat too much of certain foodstuffs because they are now much more freely available than they were historically. Most notable are fat (animal origin) and sugar (vegetable origin). Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please acknowledge what's posted just above? Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe the guys at the Frugivore article sent Pearl to the Human article to make trouble, as if there isn't enough here already. I'd suggest you fellows review her contributions over there, just in case you're curious what has already been debunked, etc... 12.19.84.33 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that comment above is me. I don't know why it won't log me in when I tell it to, but it's evil. >.<

Also, you might note that this Linnaeus guy Pearl keeps pulling out died in 1778.

J.M. Archer (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Clothing and grooming

There has been much discussion, over time, as to whether humans depicted here should be clothed and have body hair. This discussion arises principally because there is no really 'natural' state for humans. As far as is known, since humans have existed, they have worn clothes of some kind and engaged in some kind of grooming activity, such as the trimming of hair.

Apart from a word or two in the lead there is little mention of these very human activities. In modern cultures, the wearing of some clothing is almost universal, as is the trimming of head hair to some degree. In many cultures, shaving of male facial hair is prevalent and in some cultures, trimming or removal of body hair is practised. Body modification and adornment is also common in many cultures.

We need a section on clothing, something pretty well unique to humans, and also something on grooming etc. Proper discussion of these issues in the text may also help to reduce arguments over suitable images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's in Our Kind by Marvin Harris. Chrisrus (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone like to start something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a section under 'Culture' called 'Clothing, grooming, and body adornment and modification'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)