![]() | Yuanmou Man has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 18, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yuanmou Man article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This Page suggests that the Yuanmou Man is probably more like 500,000-600,000 years old rather than the 1,700,000 as claimed in the Wikipedia article. It bases this on an interpretation of the site where the fossils were found as well as putting it in context with current knowledge of the movement of human ancestors into Asia.
I'm not particularly well-versed in this area so I thought I'd leave this note for a Wikipedian who's more knowledgeable in this area than I.
Well, let us see if China can find any Australopithecine fossils.
That page, doesn't provide factual helpfull geological or paleological information. It just mentions strata are inverted. (not how much or what for) its also anoying to see no comparison with other local fossils, its suggestive the tooth are from the same individual but, it proofs either side of the discussion. That your page doesnt mention what specific nature of deposits would prohibit such an assemblage 1.7 mill years ago, isn't helpfull.
Therefore its a matter of giving credit.Well i am willing to give credit to chinese research. So what is the motivations for (western) science to counter the find... Firstly its rather obscure, (very old and relatively isolated) it's only 2 teeth from 1 individual, and it wouldnt by far be the first time we find divergence of shape of teeths in and between differently classifed hominid species. Or the opposite, convergence and opportunist traits.
Writing this i tend to the latter, assuming some more flexibility in the dental component then is usually assumed. Furthermore since i have no better accounts of the finding place it's indeed worth noting it was found on a hilltop. Even superficial study of the erosion pattern would probablty tell all. So I assume it's just what the chinese did.
Chang Kwang-chih writes on p.39-40 of his latest (1986) edition of 'The Archaeology of Ancient China' ( ISBN 0-300-03782-1):
For this last statement he gives as sources (using Wade-Giles):
[2] brings an update of this age-discussion:
Conclusion: I think a summary of these opposing views should be in the article Guss2 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by "ancestral human" in the opening paragraph? If it means "ancestor of humans" then we shouldn't state it so directly in light of recent research. Quoting from the Peking Man article:
Some Chinese paleoanthropologists have asserted in the past that the modern Chinese (and possibly other ethnic groups) are descendants of Peking Man. However, modern genetic research does not support this hypothesis. A recent study undertaken by Chinese geneticist Jin Li showed that the genetic diversity of modern Chinese people is well within the whole world population. This shows that there could not have been any inter-breeding between modern human immigrants to East Asia and Homo erectus, such as Peking Man, and affirms that the Chinese are descended from Africa, like all other modern humans, in accordance with the Recent single-origin hypothesis.[8][9][10] However, some paleontologists still see continuity in skeletal remains.[11]
I'll slap a dubious tag on for now. Readin ( talk) 04:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Therapyisgood ( talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments
![]() | Yuanmou Man has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 18, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yuanmou Man article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This Page suggests that the Yuanmou Man is probably more like 500,000-600,000 years old rather than the 1,700,000 as claimed in the Wikipedia article. It bases this on an interpretation of the site where the fossils were found as well as putting it in context with current knowledge of the movement of human ancestors into Asia.
I'm not particularly well-versed in this area so I thought I'd leave this note for a Wikipedian who's more knowledgeable in this area than I.
Well, let us see if China can find any Australopithecine fossils.
That page, doesn't provide factual helpfull geological or paleological information. It just mentions strata are inverted. (not how much or what for) its also anoying to see no comparison with other local fossils, its suggestive the tooth are from the same individual but, it proofs either side of the discussion. That your page doesnt mention what specific nature of deposits would prohibit such an assemblage 1.7 mill years ago, isn't helpfull.
Therefore its a matter of giving credit.Well i am willing to give credit to chinese research. So what is the motivations for (western) science to counter the find... Firstly its rather obscure, (very old and relatively isolated) it's only 2 teeth from 1 individual, and it wouldnt by far be the first time we find divergence of shape of teeths in and between differently classifed hominid species. Or the opposite, convergence and opportunist traits.
Writing this i tend to the latter, assuming some more flexibility in the dental component then is usually assumed. Furthermore since i have no better accounts of the finding place it's indeed worth noting it was found on a hilltop. Even superficial study of the erosion pattern would probablty tell all. So I assume it's just what the chinese did.
Chang Kwang-chih writes on p.39-40 of his latest (1986) edition of 'The Archaeology of Ancient China' ( ISBN 0-300-03782-1):
For this last statement he gives as sources (using Wade-Giles):
[2] brings an update of this age-discussion:
Conclusion: I think a summary of these opposing views should be in the article Guss2 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by "ancestral human" in the opening paragraph? If it means "ancestor of humans" then we shouldn't state it so directly in light of recent research. Quoting from the Peking Man article:
Some Chinese paleoanthropologists have asserted in the past that the modern Chinese (and possibly other ethnic groups) are descendants of Peking Man. However, modern genetic research does not support this hypothesis. A recent study undertaken by Chinese geneticist Jin Li showed that the genetic diversity of modern Chinese people is well within the whole world population. This shows that there could not have been any inter-breeding between modern human immigrants to East Asia and Homo erectus, such as Peking Man, and affirms that the Chinese are descended from Africa, like all other modern humans, in accordance with the Recent single-origin hypothesis.[8][9][10] However, some paleontologists still see continuity in skeletal remains.[11]
I'll slap a dubious tag on for now. Readin ( talk) 04:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Therapyisgood ( talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments