Skllagyook (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
::::{{ping|User:Dalhoa}} I am not trying to create confusion. The current research supports an emergence of sapiens around 300kya (not only based one Irhoud, but also the recent research of Mounier and Lahr based on remains from East And South Africa, and the South African Florisbad Skull). It is no longer the consensus that H. sapiens only emerged around 200kya (consensus changes with new discoveries). I add it to certain pages that pertain to human origins because it is relevant on those pages. I do not see the problem with adding updated information regarding the origin of H. sapiens. You have made a distinction between early and modern sapiens (as you have done on the page), and I am not objecting. On other pages where I have added information on early sapiens (such as Irhoud or Florisbad) I have in fact generally described them as "early H. sapiens" ("stated everywhere" as you say). Also, the most recent edit to this page did/does state that the 300kya date is for early H. sapiens (and 200kya for "modern" sapiens" as per your addition), thus it does not seem that we have a disagreement regarding that issue on this page. [[User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] ([[User talk:Skllagyook|talk]]) 08:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|User:Dalhoa}} I am not trying to create confusion. The current research supports an emergence of sapiens around 300kya (not only based one Irhoud, but also the recent research of Mounier and Lahr based on remains from East And South Africa, and the South African Florisbad Skull). It is no longer the consensus that H. sapiens only emerged around 200kya (consensus changes with new discoveries). I add it to certain pages that pertain to human origins because it is relevant on those pages. I do not see the problem with adding updated information regarding the origin of H. sapiens. You have made a distinction between early and modern sapiens (as you have done on the page), and I am not objecting. On other pages where I have added information on early sapiens (such as Irhoud or Florisbad) I have in fact generally described them as "early H. sapiens" ("stated everywhere" as you say). Also, the most recent edit to this page did/does state that the 300kya date is for early H. sapiens (and 200kya for "modern" sapiens" as per your addition), thus it does not seem that we have a disagreement regarding that issue on this page. [[User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] ([[User talk:Skllagyook|talk]]) 08:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|User:Dalhoa}} Regarding your claim that I was [[WP:Stalking]], this is not the case and is an inflammatory, hostile and unjustified accusation. I have acted with civility toward you and I ask that you please show me the same, without hostility, accusations, and personal aspersions. This is one of the pages that I watch. I was not stalking you. My purpose was not to inhibit your edits (i.e. stalking [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding]]), but to correct what I saw as inaccuracies or misleading omissions. For example: the evidence that (early) H. sapiens arose in Africa ca 300kya should be mentioned in a section that goes on to discuss the evidence of early H. sapiens outside Africa ca 270 cya and in Greece ca. 215kya - otherwise the misleading impression is given that H. sapiens is older outside Africa than within it (the page does not only mention/address H. sapiens after 200kya). Neither that edit nor my others were an attempt to "stalk" you, and I explained my reasoning in the edit notes. Again, I am not attempting to inhibit your mentions of modern H. sapiens in 200kya if that is what the sources support (and I have not reverted those additions by you, and do not intend to). It is frustrating to be accused of bad intent ("ill-considered accusations of impropriety" [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Assume_good_faith]]) when I have explained the reasons for my edits (and I have accepted several of your revisions of those edits). But I do not see what dispute we still have here, since the 300kya date is attributed to early/archaic sapiens and the 200kya date to modern sapiens. As far as I can tell, we agree on that edit. [[User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] ([[User talk:Skllagyook|talk]]) 08:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|User:Dalhoa}} Regarding your claim that I was [[WP:Stalking]], this is not the case and is an inflammatory, hostile and unjustified accusation. I have acted with civility toward you and I ask that you please show me the same, without hostility, accusations, and personal aspersions. This is one of the pages that I watch. I was not stalking you. My purpose was not to inhibit your edits (i.e. stalking [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding]]), but to correct what I saw as inaccuracies or misleading omissions. For example: the evidence that (early) H. sapiens arose in Africa ca 300kya should be mentioned in a section that goes on to discuss the evidence of early H. sapiens outside Africa ca 270 cya and in Greece ca. 215kya - otherwise the misleading impression is given that H. sapiens is older outside Africa than within it (the page does not only mention/address H. sapiens after 200kya). Neither that edit nor my others were an attempt to "stalk" you, and I explained my reasoning in the edit notes. Again, I am not attempting to inhibit your mentions of modern H. sapiens in 200kya if that is what the sources support (and I have not reverted those additions by you, and do not intend to). It is frustrating to be accused of bad intent ("ill-considered accusations of impropriety" [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Assume_good_faith]]) when I have explained the reasons for my edits (and I have accepted several of your revisions of those edits). But I do not see what dispute we still have here, since the 300kya date is attributed to early/archaic sapiens and the 200kya date to modern sapiens. As far as I can tell, we agree on that edit. [[User:Skllagyook|Skllagyook]] ([[User talk:Skllagyook|talk]]) 08:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|User:Skllagyook}} None of these fossils you have mentioned has been classified as Anatomically Modern Humans, and there is contention as to them being even H.sapiens but you are acting as an authoritative entity and qualifying them as AMH and inserting them everywhere, and that is misleading. I have not seen you change any mention of ''H.sapiens'' with dates over 200ka to ''archaic/early H.sapiens'', in fact you were doing the opposite and deleting mention of Anatomically Modern H.sapiens. This Wiki as the title states was about the Recent origin of Modern Humans and the map clearly shows as per the many academic papers that it is 200ka but you have deliberately deleted the mention of Anatomically Modern Homo Sapiens link and replaced it with Homo Sapiens and inserted your Jebel Irhoud date of 300ka. I think you should not be biased and stick to the facts and dates and not spreading misleading information. I think your edits were clearing attempts to inhibit accurate information, and you were removing links for no reason. In any case, there is nothing erroneous about the 200ka timing, it is was every academic paper states when it comes to Modern Humans so you need to put some breaks on this Jebel Irhoud obession. [[User:Dalhoa|Dalhoa]] ([[User talk:Dalhoa|talk]]) 09:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:49, 3 January 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Genetics
|
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trejo.m (article contribs).
A Third Route Out Of Africa
Why isn't Morocco-Spain considered as a possibility for Out Of Africa migrations, just the Nile Valley and Horn of Africa? Spain is much closer to Europe than the Middle East. People were in Europe (45kya), much longer than the Caucasus and Anatolia (14kya). Why would they have to hve gotten to Europe through the Levant? It seems and obvious solution that is being ignored. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Recent Out Of Africa Theory And Archaic DNA From Africa
"In the 2010s, studies in population genetics uncovered evidence of interbreeding that occurred between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Eurasia and Oceania but not in Africa,[29] indicating that all non-African modern population groups, while mostly derived from early H. sapiens, are to a lesser extent also descended from regional variants of archaic humans." There is another theory that could explain archaic dna among the farthest populations from Africa - they arrived there first, with Archaic dna from Africa. If they interbred with archaic humans they could have just as easily done so in Africa - where the other races of Homo Erectus hail from - giving the oldest sapiens the most archaic dna, which they carried with them out of Africa. Following game theory, Sapiens in Africa would slowly get more Sapiens than archaic dna, while the first humans out of Africa and first to arrive in Scandinavia, Oceania, etc. would have the most archaic dna. This is a map of the prevalence of Neanderthal, Denisovan and unnamed archaic DNA. Now does that look like a map of people encountering Neanderthals and Denisovans in East Asia and maybe the Americas, or does it look like a map of who arrived in a place first? Lowest in Africa, higher in Europe, highest in East Asia, North and South America, and parts of Australia. Also notice the 'unnamed archaic' in central Africa, where the very old Mbuti pygmies live in relative isolation. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Article to state that this theory is now challenged (recent 2019)
Here are the newest developments on human origins https://nypost.com/2017/05/23/this-fossilized-tooth-might-prove-humans-came-from-europe-not-africa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.96.86 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- From that same source:
the findings in no way call into question that our species, Homo sapiens, first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago and later migrated to other parts of the world
. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Read the article : It states that the species originated in Africa but modern humans may have evolved in separate regions like Europe.
It also states:Homo sapiens is only the latest in a long evolutionary hominin line that began with overwhelmingly ape-like species, followed by a succession of species acquiring more and more human traits over time.
University of Toronto paleoanthropologist David Begun said the possibility that the evolutionary split occurred outside Africa is not incompatible with later ancestors arising there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.54.9 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- @190.98.96.86: and @190.98.54.9:
- The article linked above does not challenge the theory that modern humans (homo sapiens) evolved in Africa (as the user, Joe, correctly points out), nor does it challenge the theory that the genus homo originated from Africa. Nor does it propose anything like classic multiregionalism for homo sapiens (and the article/research is from 2017 rather than 2019). What the article is suggesting is that (8-9 million years ago) an early ape-like ancestor of the lineage that eventually led to hominids (before even australopithecus and sahelanthropus, and long before homo erectus), predating the evolution that led to the genus (homo) to which homo sapiens belongs, might have diverged in the Balkans/Eurasia (i.e. that the ape lineage that eventually led to humans may have originated in Eurasia before migrating to Africa about 7 million years ago, and then evolving into hominids/homo and later humans in Africa). It does not concern the evolution of "humans" in the sense of homo sapiens or even the homo genus/hominids, and the research it cites does not argue for that (the title, and those of some of the other popular articles is/are somewhat sensationalistic and misleading).
- If true (and even this has been questioned by other researchers, see below), that the ca. 8-9 million-year-old graecopithecus species mentioned in the article (which would be a very apelike pre-hominid rather than a hominid or a "human") is a direct ancestor of hominids, its descendants would have back migrated to Africa, and there evolved/given rise to the line of primates and hominids that eventually led to humans. The article (and the research it cites such as that by David Begun et al.) do not challenge the evidence that homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a line of species (from australopithecus or sahelanthropus through erectus, and possibly heidelbergensdis, to sapiens) that all lived/diverged in Africa.
- The research (of Begun et al.) suggests that graecopithecus would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago (after/following which the evolution from that ape-like species to humans would have occurred, also in Africa).
- As the article (at the link above) says:
- "Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago,"
- So it is not really about "humans" (let alone homo sapiens) whose origin is still believed to be in Africa (but about an ape lineage possibly coming from Eurasia and then migrating to Africa and evolving into humans there/in Africa).
- And other researchers have doubted/questioned the hypothesis the graecopithecus is a direct ancestor of the human line (that is, the line that eventually evolved into humans), with some considering it more likely that graeocithecus is a distant relative (rather than a direct ancestor) of the pre-hominid lineage, that died out, or an unrelated ape species that evolved similar features independently.
- As the above link/article also says:
- "Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins. Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence."
- So this possible discovery would not be relevant to the theory of African origin pertaining to homo sapiens (or, for instance, the genus to which it belongs).
- You wrote:
- "Read the article : It states that the species originated in Africa but modern humans may have evolved in separate regions like Europe."
- It does not state this; it doesn't say anything about modern humans evolving in Europe or outside Africa. Rather, the species that it proposes might have evolved in Europe is a much earlier species (greacopithecus).
- "University of Toronto paleoanthropologist David Begun said the possibility that the evolutionary split occurred outside Africa is not incompatible with later ancestors arising there."
- The evolutionary split referred to being (as the article says) the ca. 8-9 million year old one that led to greacopithecus, followed (according to this hypothesis) by its migration to Africa (ca. 7 million years ago) and the subsequent evolution of the human line (the "later ancestors") in Africa.
- Also see (other sources challenging/questioning the hypothesis that graecopithecus is a direct ancestor of hominids/homo):
- From Dr. Julian Benoit, below:
- https://theconversation.com/theres-not-enough-evidence-to-back-the-claim-that-humans-originated-in-europe-78280
- "For starters, the material isn’t well preserved. It consists mostly of a jaw with no complete teeth preserved. That’s a problem because the teeth’s anatomical characteristics are the most important element when classifying any primate, including humans.
- The authors claim that the jaw’s fourth premolar root is similar to that of a hominin’s. This is not a character that is conventionally used in palaeoanthropology, especially because not all hominins have similar tooth roots. This character is rather variable – and the authors go on to acknowledge this – so it’s unreliable for classification.
- They also argue that the small size of the incomplete canine tooth (as suggested by the size of its root) would put this fossil close to hominin ancestry. This is based on the assumption that hominins are the only apes with small canines. This, again, is not true. In Europe, where apes have a very rich fossil record..."
- "This is an example of independent, parallel evolution: when one species evolves similarities to another without being related to it."
- "And if their claim turns out to be true, would that mean we need to totally rewrite history?"
- "Since then, thousands of fossils have been found around Africa that strongly support the “African origins” hypothesis. Even if this new fossil actually turns out to be a hominin, it would only be an outlier – like a drop in the ocean. It would change very few things because much more and far better-preserved material would be necessary to totally disprove the African origin of humankind."
- And see (from John Hawks):
- http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html
- "We need to look with a more critical eye at the fossil evidence for the earliest hominins. They really share very few features with later hominins like Australopithecus. I think we should consider that they might instead be part of a diversity of apes that are continuous across parts of Africa and Europe. Our real ancestry during this earliest phase of our evolution may still be undiscovered."
- —Skllagyook (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The Out Of Africa theory has indeed been proven wrong, hence why it is still classified as a (theory), and not factual.
However, as we are all living in liberal ran nations, the idea we all came from Africa will always be taught as the only history.
They said, there is not enough evidence to prove humanity came from Europe, well it does not matter about quantity, we have evidence our oldest ancestors came from Greece.
In the UK, one of the leading scientists who studied the remains of the cheddar man stated he was not black, and there was no way to prove it, a computer estimate and chances were he had tanned skin and came from eastern Europe such as Greece.
However, the other scientist and the media reported he was black-skinned, it went global and was on every news host, they said this was a fact however there remains no evidence to prove such a claim.
We have not just one, but multiple pieces of evidence that halt the out of Africa theory in its tracks, as long as this article retains the (theory) then it's down to the individual beliefs of the readers.
Funding however for European archaeological reasons is slim.
- Cheddar man (and his skin color) is completely irrelevant to the OOA theory. He was a European hunter-gatherer (from ca. 7,000 years ago). He was not from the population ancestral to all modern humans (which formed in Africa ca. 300-200 or 350-260,000 years ago, and a branch of which left Africa ca. 50-60,000 years ago becoming ancestral to modern non-African humans and spreading accross Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas). At the time of Cheddar man, humans had been living in Europe for tens of thousands of years, and had adapted (it is not unlikely that their skin had lightened somewhat). The species from Greece is not Homo sapiens, nor does it belong to our Genus (Homo). Thus even if it is/were ancestral to our genus (which is in doubt), it is also not at all relevant to the origin of modern humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) for the reasons explained above. Skllagyook (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Two Routes
The article talks about a northern route and a southern route, but the text of both sections appears to be devoted to the southern route. AFAIK, the northern route is via Egypt & the Levant, the southern via Somalia, Yemen and the Gulf. Any inputs, folks? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
recent changes
Noticed an edit war were the nytimes and the Guardian were used as sources...then noticed a flurry of edits also using subpar sources. Going to ask for a review of recent changes.--Moxy 🍁 06:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Moxy: Most recently, the sources I added were regarding the emergence of Homo sapiens. It seemed relevant to mention the date of the emergence of the species H. sapiens (which has been in recent years dated to earlier than 200,000 years ago - early sapiens now being dated to ca. 300,00 years ago). Several of the sources I added were (peer-reviewed) academic sources. The two others (the two you mention) were journalistic sources reporting on the findings of the academic sources I added (including quotes from the researchers involved). I have since removed the non-Academic sources from the section. The other editor (Dalhoa) did not seem to object to my adition, but they made their own addition regarding the emergence of what some researchers term "modern" or "derived" H. sapiens in 200kya (as opposed to more "early" or "archaic" homo sapiens which emerged earlier), and I did not oppose/objevt to their addition - thus to my perspective it does not seem really to have been much of an edit war (The other changes by Dalhoa, to another section of the article, I have also not objected to nor reverted since they were last made and do not intend to do so). Regarding the journalistic sources used, I was under the impression that they were allowed as refs in a scientific context as long as they were not used as sole sources but rather were included as a supplement along with the peer-reviewed source/sources they are reporting (which is the way I used them on this page - I did not use the news sources as sole sources, but rather cited them along with the scholarly research they were reporting). That seems to be what the page on reliable sources is stating here (e.g.: "A news article should...not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure...One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press Is this (my interpretation) correct? Your help/clarification here is appreciated. Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- (ec*5}WP:Wall of text to reply to will take time...WP:SCHOLARSHIP good read in the mean time .--Moxy 🍁 07:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Moxy: I apologize for the length of my reply above. Essentially: I mentioned that I did not oppose Dalhoa's recent edits (we seemed, to me, to be engaged in a process of compromise more so than edit warring). I also mentioned that the page on reliable scientific sources seemed to say that popular journalistic sources could be used if in combination with the academic research they were reporting (which is how I used them). Skllagyook (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Skllagyook, I think it is disingenuous to say some researchers when it has been the consensus throughout the scientific community that Homo Sapiens emerged around 200ka, it is only in 2017 that this 300ka has been set because of Jebel Irhoud and you are trying to insert that date in every Wiki page which is creating confusion, distortion and is misleading when the widely accepted date is 200ka for the origin of modern humans. I think you were also engaged in edit war, I was not, you were also WP:Stalking. I think you should properly state everywhere that 300ka is mentioned in Wikipedia that it relates to archaic/early H.sapiens otherwise you are deliberately spreading misinformation which you shouldn't be doing especially on a Wiki page about the recent origin of modern humans. Dalhoa (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dalhoa: I am not trying to create confusion. The current research supports an emergence of sapiens around 300kya (not only based one Irhoud, but also the recent research of Mounier and Lahr based on remains from East And South Africa, and the South African Florisbad Skull). It is no longer the consensus that H. sapiens only emerged around 200kya (consensus changes with new discoveries). I add it to certain pages that pertain to human origins because it is relevant on those pages. I do not see the problem with adding updated information regarding the origin of H. sapiens. You have made a distinction between early and modern sapiens (as you have done on the page), and I am not objecting. On other pages where I have added information on early sapiens (such as Irhoud or Florisbad) I have in fact generally described them as "early H. sapiens" ("stated everywhere" as you say). Also, the most recent edit to this page did/does state that the 300kya date is for early H. sapiens (and 200kya for "modern" sapiens" as per your addition), thus it does not seem that we have a disagreement regarding that issue on this page. Skllagyook (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Dalhoa: Regarding your claim that I was WP:Stalking, this is not the case and is an inflammatory, hostile and unjustified accusation. I have acted with civility toward you and I ask that you please show me the same, without hostility, accusations, and personal aspersions. This is one of the pages that I watch. I was not stalking you. My purpose was not to inhibit your edits (i.e. stalking [[1]]), but to correct what I saw as inaccuracies or misleading omissions. For example: the evidence that (early) H. sapiens arose in Africa ca 300kya should be mentioned in a section that goes on to discuss the evidence of early H. sapiens outside Africa ca 270 cya and in Greece ca. 215kya - otherwise the misleading impression is given that H. sapiens is older outside Africa than within it (the page does not only mention/address H. sapiens after 200kya). Neither that edit nor my others were an attempt to "stalk" you, and I explained my reasoning in the edit notes. Again, I am not attempting to inhibit your mentions of modern H. sapiens in 200kya if that is what the sources support (and I have not reverted those additions by you, and do not intend to). It is frustrating to be accused of bad intent ("ill-considered accusations of impropriety" [[2]]) when I have explained the reasons for my edits (and I have accepted several of your revisions of those edits). But I do not see what dispute we still have here, since the 300kya date is attributed to early/archaic sapiens and the 200kya date to modern sapiens. As far as I can tell, we agree on that edit. Skllagyook (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- (ec*5}WP:Wall of text to reply to will take time...WP:SCHOLARSHIP good read in the mean time .--Moxy 🍁 07:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Moxy: Most recently, the sources I added were regarding the emergence of Homo sapiens. It seemed relevant to mention the date of the emergence of the species H. sapiens (which has been in recent years dated to earlier than 200,000 years ago - early sapiens now being dated to ca. 300,00 years ago). Several of the sources I added were (peer-reviewed) academic sources. The two others (the two you mention) were journalistic sources reporting on the findings of the academic sources I added (including quotes from the researchers involved). I have since removed the non-Academic sources from the section. The other editor (Dalhoa) did not seem to object to my adition, but they made their own addition regarding the emergence of what some researchers term "modern" or "derived" H. sapiens in 200kya (as opposed to more "early" or "archaic" homo sapiens which emerged earlier), and I did not oppose/objevt to their addition - thus to my perspective it does not seem really to have been much of an edit war (The other changes by Dalhoa, to another section of the article, I have also not objected to nor reverted since they were last made and do not intend to do so). Regarding the journalistic sources used, I was under the impression that they were allowed as refs in a scientific context as long as they were not used as sole sources but rather were included as a supplement along with the peer-reviewed source/sources they are reporting (which is the way I used them on this page - I did not use the news sources as sole sources, but rather cited them along with the scholarly research they were reporting). That seems to be what the page on reliable sources is stating here (e.g.: "A news article should...not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure...One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)#Popular_press Is this (my interpretation) correct? Your help/clarification here is appreciated. Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Skllagyook: None of these fossils you have mentioned has been classified as Anatomically Modern Humans, and there is contention as to them being even H.sapiens but you are acting as an authoritative entity and qualifying them as AMH and inserting them everywhere, and that is misleading. I have not seen you change any mention of H.sapiens with dates over 200ka to archaic/early H.sapiens, in fact you were doing the opposite and deleting mention of Anatomically Modern H.sapiens. This Wiki as the title states was about the Recent origin of Modern Humans and the map clearly shows as per the many academic papers that it is 200ka but you have deliberately deleted the mention of Anatomically Modern Homo Sapiens link and replaced it with Homo Sapiens and inserted your Jebel Irhoud date of 300ka. I think you should not be biased and stick to the facts and dates and not spreading misleading information. I think your edits were clearing attempts to inhibit accurate information, and you were removing links for no reason. In any case, there is nothing erroneous about the 200ka timing, it is was every academic paper states when it comes to Modern Humans so you need to put some breaks on this Jebel Irhoud obession. Dalhoa (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)