Talk:Theories of the origin of humans

I think this should be moved to origin of humanity. As it is now, it lists more mainstream views than alternative ones, plus that would make it in line with origin of life. Tuf-Kat


 * "mankind" is generally considered sexist and "humanity" preffered these days. As for the "alternative views on", I guess it depends on which way the entry heads. Tannin


 * To me, "humanity" implies a cultural context while "mankind" is synonymous with "the human race". "Origin of humanity" could be understood as answering "What makes humans human?" rather than "Where did human beings come from?" - no?
 * As for "alternative views on", I have no objections to removing it as long as it remains clear that all views deserve to be represented, not just the most popular one. Mkweise 23:41 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I propose a move to Theories of the origin of humans. WDYT? Of course it will include all the proposed theories, and not discriminate against unpopular theories. It also clears up the mankind/humanity problem. We could be more specific still and call it Theories of the origin of homo sapiens, but people will probably object that it is biased towards the evolutionary explanation. --snoyes 19:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"intelligent design" was moved to controversial scientific theories, though it is normally considered evidence for god. it could be evidence for aliens creating life, etc., too though. creationists believe creationism to be scientific, too. so which category should these belong in? - Omegatron


 * I changed it so it is organized by controversy rather than "scientificness", since that is pretty indisputable. - Omegatron 16:27, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the proponents of intelligent design have actually made any claims about human origins. They do claim that evolution can't produce everything, but AFAIK their "proofs" are limited to things like the bacterial flagellum, certain metabolic pathways, and various non-biological examples. &mdash; B.Bryant 15:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I gotta wonder if it's not a pretty American slant to consider Creationism a valid (if controversial) theory (and for that matter intelligent design), outside of the United States I am not aware of any serious consideration of those "theories" -- at least no more so than flat earth or moon landing conspiracy... I'm not going to edit, but I have to ask why they're not listed under a seperate category, they're certainly less mainstream than Aquatic Ape and Panspermia from where I sit. - Gabriel 22:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but there are a lot of americans who believe christian creationism and would fight for it to the death with seemingly scientific arguments. And how does it compare to the amount of proponents of Lamarckianism?  And what about other religious theories?  i think it is pretty controversial overall - Omegatron


 * I don't wholly disagree with you in the sense that it's the "easy way out" but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable source that would place either of them in the same realm as Lamarckianism. Lamarckianism is an outdated theory based on what was at the time a working understanding of how the world worked and a flawed application of scientific rigor.  I don't really think the same can be said of the pseudo-scientific stuff that is spewed from a marginal group of Christians (albeit a powerful group within the American polity).  Even the Pope doesn't put much heed in Creationism as it is presented these days and his endorsement of Intelligent Design is very liberal...  I guess my point is that this is a fringe withing a fringe.  The question becomes is it a fight worth fighting and given that I am certain that there are a healthy number of editors here who subscribe to these "theories" it's probably not worth causing a stink over it for fear of an edit war, but it might be nice if someone elaborated on the various theories a bit so as to make it clear that there is an incredibly divergent degree of support between the various options presented (even within the "controversial theories").  I'm a big supporter of the idea of a neutral point of view, but I cringe at the thought that this is a cop out to allow bullshit (pardon my French) to creep closer to the mainstream. (For the record I'm a spiritual person -- though not Christian -- I'm no atheist God hater.) - Gabriel 03:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. Maybe. Maybe it should be put back under "Controversial religious theories" after the controversial theories section.  For the record, I'm an ex-creationist myself, now effectively atheist and certainly not "spiritual" (what does that mean, anyway? :-) ), but I know that the only way anyone is going to change their mind from one to the other (like I did), is if the material is presented in a completely unbiased way without one dogmatic side screaming "my way is right!" and the other equally dogmatic side screaming "your way is bullshit!" and neither of them ever considering the other side for its merits. - Omegatron 13:15, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)