Besides that, I see no indication of 'the purpose of this article.' So, I have to say the purpose is human evolution.While the page should be about the theories relating to the observed evolution of humans, there might be a place to link to theories that relate to either ongoing processes of evolution although it is a sensitive and generally poorly researched area.The purpose of this article is to summarise the present state of scientific knowledge about our evolutionary past. A scientist publishing future of human evolution materials leads me to think it is science.Macdonald-ross (talk) , 31 December 2010 (UTC) There is an link to a publication about the future of women's evolution inside the national geographic article I linked to. As for the purpose of this article, the title is human evolution.Rivertorch (talk) , 28 April 2011 (UTC) The "Hobbit" of Flores is not included in the phylogenic tree. The chart is a graphic and so is changed less often.
It may hepl if you just quote, since is dificult to gues 1 what you reding, 2 how you interpret what you reading.I propose to cut it down as per rule: if it's not about biological evolution of humans, out it goes.Macdonald-ross (talk) , 21 March 2011 (UTC) The discussion here may be of interest to those who watch this page. Croft (talk) , 30 April 2011 (UTC) Homo floriensis is listed in the excellent "Comparative table of Homo species".Moxy (talk) So you agree that even the book about Neanderthal discoveries says - the higly undeserved - support and Widely accepted view - thus meaning they agree its the main view even thought they disagree with it as you have pointed out.Do you have any references that describe the two theories with equal weight or that MRE has surpassed Out of Africa?And understaning its as it is the anwer is NO 'its or it is' are false beter use word 'WAS'.