Talk:Qesem cave

Dubious
"major re-assessment that modern man originated in what is now Israel rather than Africa" It simply does not follow that if you find an old 'Homo sapiens' in Israel that it means that humans originated there -- even if the fossil is the oldest known. Israel is very small, so it is certainly possible humans lived elsewhere at the same time. What next, declare the humans originated at the very site being excavated? What is more Israel is right next door to Africa. People need to be more skeptical of hyperbole coming from press releases and self-serving researchers who almost invariably declare that the find that they find is the ancestor of all humans.68.97.5.247 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Theory evolution dead?
It certainly kills the geographical part of human evolution about how both apes and humans originated in Africa. Someone65 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How? Even it turns out to be the oldest Homo sapiens known, the odds that oldest example found being the actual oldest are infinitesimal. Nor does it mean that these fossils are actually are ancestors. It would be nice if people learn the theory of evolution before calling it dead.  Indeed any declaring x fossil to be our ancestor is problematic that any serious student of evolution should know better than by now.  Meanwhile the DNA evidence is still very much around: trees from mitochondrial DNA, y-chromosome DNA, other human DNA, DNA from our parasites, etc. continue to support an African origin of our species.  68.97.5.247 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

problem with this article
The sentence "The site has recently become quite important in anthropology because Israeli archaeologists reported on December 27, 2010 that they may have found the earliest evidence yet for the existence of modern man." is cited to the scientific paper of Hershkovitz et al. However, as pointed out in other places, such as here, the paper does not make this claim. Actually the sentence appears to be derived from the press coverage of the paper rather than the paper itself. The paper is much more guarded and suggests multiple possibilities. Anthropology is not my forte, I hope someone more familiar with it can fix this error. Astarabadi (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote section
This article has a quote section which is a violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. 68.97.5.247 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)