Last modified on February 10, 2010, at 19:53

Talk:Homo sapiens

Return to "Homo sapiens" page.

Creationist View?

Can we add the creationist view on "Homo Sapiens?"

Yes, but keep it neutral.--Elamdri 19:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


There are permanent bases on Antarctica. Wouldn't that mean we inhabit all seven continents? --Dave3172 10:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Not really according to most geographers I have talked to. Usually inhabiting means having people living there all thi time in the form of family units, towns, cities and the like. -Gasmonkey

Well according to this site [1] at least one baby was conceived and born there. Sulgran 04:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Two Homo sapiens articles

There are two separate articles on this subject, Homo Sapiens and Homo sapiens. The lower case sapiens is the correct form, so we should merge the other one here.--Conservateur 01:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not a mammal?

"(I personally dispute this classification - revert me if you must)"

Are humans not vertebrates that produce milk for their young with hair, specialized teeth, three bones in the ear, warm blooded, and have a placenta when developing? This is what defines a mammal. If any of those are wrong, then we are not mammals. Being a mammal is a scientific definition and classification - not an idealogical one. --Mtur 22:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Britinme's edits

I've changed Britinme's edits, and I'm here explaining why.

  • I've removed the bit about the human brain being larger than the chimpanzee's, because it has what relevance? His text seemed to imply that's why it has extra capabilities, but elephant and whale brains are bigger, so it the point is lost. The text already said that humans had the capability of language, so even that bit wasn't needed.
  • I've change the bit about the larynx, as it assumed evolution to be true. I've used the word "design", but even evolutionists such as Dawkins have used that word, so it doesn't necessarily imply a designer.
  • Other bits I've deleted because they duplicated material already there, or I've explained in edit comments.

Philip J. Rayment 10:09, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

CP's Manual of Style overrides correct scientific classification?

That's... eyebrow raising, to say the least. Kazumaru 00:48, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Does "correct scientific classification" say that it can never ever be done in any other way? What if, for example, there was some text written in all capitals. Would Homo sapiens even then have to be written in lower case (apart from the "H")? Occasionally text on posters or signs is written in all lower case, proper nouns included. Would binomial names be the exception that requires a capital letter even in such cases? The point is, a policy of headings having capital first letters (which is not my preference, incidentally) is not really "incorrect" just because scientific names are not customarily written that way. Philip J. Rayment 11:17, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Haha... what?

Alright, rather than getting into an edit war: Why is the O uncapitalized? Barikada 16:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)

As far as I know, we have no policy on the capitalisation of section headings. Some use title case, but others, including myself, use lower case (first letter and proper nouns excepted). I don't know why Dan reverted (perhaps account the edit comment?), but I will agree with your edit insofar as it at least provided consistency with the other headings with similar wording. Philip J. Rayment 19:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)
There is no edit comment... Now it just looks stupid :/ Barikada 16:51, 28 January 2008 (EST)
I was referring to your edit comment when you made the change. It didn't make a lot of sense, and perhaps Dan took it as having a go at someone, although I now see that it was addressed to the capital letter "O", not to some other editor. If Dan doesn't respond here within, say, another day, you have my permission to make the change again. Philip J. Rayment 20:57, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Oh. Yeah. Any of my even vaguely amusing edit comments seem to get reverted. Thank you, though. Barikada 23:22, 28 January 2008 (EST)


Surely we can examine human beings from the purely biological perspective, but Biology is not the only member of the Life Sciences. There is sociology, economics, psychology, etc.

Very few scientists can say with confidence that men are nothing more than "molecules in motion", even if modern biologists have tended to blur the distinctions between people and animals. --Ed Poor Talk 12:26, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

We are animals in our own way. We have animal senses, for instance, in this world it is the survival of the fittest. If you, let's say, in buisness, create a product that nobody wants, then you are simply done, and the company with the thing that people do wants pwns your company. We also get very territorial. For instance, how many times have you heard about this, there is a robber sneeking into a man's house. So, the man kills the robber. This is not only a method of pretection but is also, a territorial thing because we are scared of having a strange person, in this case, roaming our property.
However, as you did say, there are some distinctions between people and animals. For instance, as far as we know, humans are the only animals that are capable of loveing another human being. Also, humans are the most intellegent life force on the planet (hey, we can make borders, grow plants, domesticate animals, et cetera). Ferthermore, we are also the only animal that kills for fun. --Rocky
PS. The Amused To Death page is now finished. Tell me what you think of it, Ed.

Humans are animals

Human beings are animals. We just simply are the dominant species, however, that does not make us animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocky (talk)


Would we not better serve our readers if we used a newer picture of a standing human being, so we can see the whole body? As much as I like Rev. Sunday, I think a new picture would be better. --DReynolds 20:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I think a new pic would be better...much better! :) Karajou 20:11, 28 January 2009 (EST)
First of all - I apologize for opening an old discussion. Secondly - I agree. The image should, in my opinion, show more than the head, torso and arms of the creature created in God's image. Perhaps a picture showing a man and a woman, both standing? Just showing a man would, yet again in my opinion, imply that it's how all humans look. JonB 14:17, 10 February 2010 (EST)
Yes, Jon, I'm sure all our readers will be very confused and begin to think all homo sapiens are men. In suits. Without legs. JacobB 14:44, 10 February 2010 (EST)
Sorry, not the way I meant it. Think from a theoretical non-human perspective. Until I was around 10 I thought all lions had manes. And yes, I do know I sound very stupid. I'm sadly missing a sense of logic. JonB 14:53, 10 February 2010 (EST)