Talk:Homo rudolfensis

Year of ref. 16 correct?
Please verify if pub year of ref. 16 (Tattersall, I. (2019). “Classification and phylogeny in human evolution”. Ludus Vitalis. 9 (15): 139–140.) is correct. The referred article seems to be from 2001, not 2019. My apologies if this is not the proper way to suggest a possible improvement: I'm very new to editing in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.maryniak (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You were right, it was supposed to be 2001. In the future, I'd recommend being bold and fixing errors when you see them  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright?
The first two paragraphs of this entry are identical with the first two paragraphs on Homo rudolfensis on this another site: something to do with the Smithsonian, perhaps. .

Does this constitute a breach of copyright? I don't know the author, perhaps they are one and the same.

Philip Lawton

p.d.lawton@dur.ac.uk
 * Yes, the first two paragraphs are nearly literal copies of other sources. The only thing that stops me from placing a copivio notice on the article is that it's not clear who owns the copyright (if any) on the original. Here is another source that has the same paragraphs:
 * http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1470.htm
 * Google gives about 90 hits for pages with nearly identical wording
 * Gene s 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Soft Tissue issues...
The article mentions a sophisticated sweating system, hair length, and noticeable whites of the eyes as characteristics not present in Homo rudolfensis. While it is perhaps unlikely that H. Rudolfensis would have exhibited these characteristics, is it not impossible to make such a determination given that the only existing evidence from this time consists of skeletal remains, as well as stone tools and a few footprints?

Charles Burgess

cb834214@albany.edu


 * There really is no scientific evidence to suggest any of this. In fact, we don't have the means to determine this at this point in time. Seems fabricated to me.Drur93 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Skull 1470
I think that both of these articles will always be rather small and, since one is talking about a specific find regarding the other, should be merged together here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I belevie that this [Skull 1470] article is warranted. I think there is more to say about KNM–ER 1470 that will not (and probably shouldnt) fit in Homo rudolfensis - Por exemplo - how, when and by whom it was discovered; and considering that wikipedia has no size limits, there should be space for this scientifically important particularity. I hold no strong convictions on this issue, but considering that this is a subject that (I believe) is neglected on wikipedia, shouldnt we make some wriggle-space for extra article? --Ezeu 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC) minor edit by UtherSRG (talk)
 * Certainly wiki has no size limits, but that doesn't mean we can't put two things side-by-side and see if they should be combined or not and use potential growth as an issue. Look at Meganthropus and the recent expansion its gone through. This article would easily be a section in Homo rudolfensis. I'd rather have one nice-sized article that covers several aspects (findings, evolution, interpretation, etc.) than several small articles that I'd have to use to piece together the larger picture. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, if the "nice-sized article" covers the subject, and the issues in the "small article" are not neglected (which often is the case) &mdash; cool. Unforunately "nice-sized articles" usually ignore the nitty-gritty, leaving the seemingly unimportant details to stubs. I'd rather have several good stubs than none. --Ezeu 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited out the whites of the eyes, sophisticated sweating system, and naked apperance comments, as they are speculative, and there is no evidence to support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafe Kelley (talk • contribs).
 * There was no need. The statement was already tagged as unsourced. Meanwhile, we continue to search for a citation for the information. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The role of Skull 1470 in evolution-creation controversy
This skull has been haunting me for a while. Its name keeps popping up on creationst websites. Many of them claim scientists deliberately changed the dates from the originally estimated age of 3 million years simply to make it fit the evolution theory better. The fact that it was discovered under "impossibly" old vulcanic ashes is also brought up often. One instance of such incident can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (scroll down to the segment titled "Bad dates", paragraph 3)

I have been wondering what is the scientific response to these creationist accusations. In what way are the later estimations more accurate than the 3 million years, and how are the "old" ashes explained?

And most importantly, should there be a segment in this article regarding this controversy, similar to the Nylon-eating bacteria? Or does this debate perhaps belong in the Creation-evolution controversy article?

- Henry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.214.9.63 (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC). {{subst:image source|Image:1470f.jpg)) Betacommand {{sup|(talk • contribs • Bot)}} 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:1470f.jpg


 * Creationists don't take science seriously. It's quite possible that the skull was mis-dated initially.  Sorry to say, while the Leakeys have built up quite a reputation and catalog of fossil finds, they don't have serious training as hard core scientists, other than their field experience.  So yeah, initially mis-identifying the date is par for the course for the Leakeys.  But sooner or later, real geologists get to look at their findings, fix their errors and we get a correct characterization of their finds.  Creationists just cherry pick all this nonsense and make up stories that are convenient to their anti-reality agenda.  Try not to pay too much attention to them.  The date is 1.9 ma old.  The new bones are 1.78 - 1.95 ma old.  So its a contemporary with habilis and early ergaster/erectus.  The creationists just have propaganda.


 * I have very harshly debunked the website you link to here: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pnmxr/eli5_carbon_dating/c3r9tww Qed (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. I was curious, Qed, what information has led you to believe Creationists "just cherry pick" all of their information? Did you read the information in the article Betacommand linked to?


 * It went into a very detailed analysis of the use of Carbon Dating. For example: based on the assumptions evolutionists have, carbon dating could not be accurate above 80,000 years, yet evolutionist scientist use this technique to chart the age of artifacts they believe to be millions of years old?


 * Also:


 * "Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed [the ratio of 14C to 12C] to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution...". Reasoning, based on... a theory?


 * Some very large and complex books have been written by creationist scientists. Such as the "Exploring Creation With" series, including Astronomy, Geology, Biology, etc. (i have Exploring Creating with Physical Science, and it has 500 pages filled with complex scientific material.)


 * Please do not think i am trying to start a riot, or turn this page into a forum, but I respectfully remind you the evolution theory was conceived of by a single man who had an idea. While creationists base their science on a basis that has been steady for thousands of years, evolutionists assume an idea conceived of only 2 centuries ago to be fact. I believe that is an error on the evolutionists part. Toanicky —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Creationists base their 'science' on a fairy tale. Their misguided ramblings have no place in this article. End of. 86.134.119.225 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, don't just end this conversation, just listen to what i have to say.


 * I just want too see some hard, PURE, and ACCURATELY LABELED scientific PROOF that creation is a fairy tale.


 * I have seen lots of scientific evidence against evolution, but all i have heard from the evolutionists again creation, is ranting! "Their misguided ramblings" and "cherry pick all this nonsense" and the like, but on the creation side, i have seen that based on THE EVOLUTIONISTS OWN IDEAS, carbon dating couldn't be for inorganic matter, and INACCURATE past 80,000 years. How do YOU explain that?


 * What was taught in schools 100 years before Darwin? Creation. What about 1,000 years? Creation. What about 5,000 years ago? Creation. How could one man's theory change that?


 * Note, I am not harshly bashing evolution, but you evolutionists aggressively condemn creation. Why? Why are you guys so afraid of the idea? Toanicky —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no one else is biting, I'll just leave these: Radiometric dating and Stratigraphy_(archaeology). C14 is only good for 50-60,000 years, but it's not the only radioactive element. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Truth can be unwelcome here, unless it's been properly sourced and cited.  Encyclopedias are funny, that way.--Robert Keiden (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to write something, but then I remembered that the point of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. There has been no reliable attention paid to the creationist-manufactured "controversy", so there is nothing to go into the article. End of conversation. GDallimore (Talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Fair use rationale for Image:1470f.jpg
Image:1470f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

add some useful information in external links
added external links71.232.93.212 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KNM-ER 1802
At the end of the 2012 fossil find section there is a mention to KNM-ER 1802, but there is no explanation in the article about that fossil.--Cattus talk 20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I've added something.--Cattus talk 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Article was hit by a vandal, which got (partially) reverted.  I've restored the original content.--Robert Keiden (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

KNM-ER 1470 - Cranial size statements not consistent?
and the cranial capacity based on the new construction was reported to be downsized from 752 cm³ to about 526 cm³, although this seemed to be a matter of some controversy.[4] Bromage said his team's reconstruction included biological knowledge not known at the time of the skull's discovery, of the precise relationship between the sizes of eyes, ears, and mouth in mammals.[4] A newer publication by Bromage has since further downsized the cranial capacity estimate from 752 cm³ to 700 cm³.[5] Jhall251 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Kenyanthropus?
Not one word about the fact that some have referred this species to Kenyanthropus? I don't have time to elaborate on this myself, but it should definitely be mentioned. There are 64 hits for "kenyanthropus rudolfensis" (with the quotation marks) on Google Scholar. David Marjanović (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)