Talk:Peking Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePeking Man has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
June 29, 2021Good article nomineeListed
June 7, 2022Peer reviewNot reviewed
Current status: Good article

In modern statistical genetics we don't accept the simple liear evolution; but it's the majority of what happened[edit]

We should compare the genomes of all Earthlings in order to statistically define other contributions of paleohuman subfamilies into our genome. Earthlings are alive, and statistics is possible.

Sometimes statistics "creates" ghost subspecies which never existed (a result of pseudo-randomness or randomness). That's why we need bone specimens.

I read somewhere that Peking Man was actually a type of ape unrelated to humans. The book says that when Peking Man was found, the scientists thought it was a missing link between apes and men because it was discovered with various tools and bones. But according to the book, it turned out that Peking Man was hunted down by a modern human, and the tools were used on them, not by them. Could someone link this to the article? Charizardmewtwo (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is creationist pseudoscience. Ultimately, this has its origin in a, now discarded, hypothesis by Marcellin Boule from 1937, as related in the text.--MWAK (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H.erectus yuanmouensis[edit]

Peking Man > Homo erectus yuanmouensis

--Shizhao 00:26, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dragon bones cave[edit]

several new excavation in or near the dragon bones caves site have yielded comparable fossils after ww2. i think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

merge Sinanthropus here discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


  • Nowimnthing 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Sinanthropus is a minor stub, should be no problem to merge.[reply]
  • UtherSRG (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's so small, there's no point maintaining it as a separate article when it'll be easier to take the text, slip it into Peking Man and have this one redirect.^v^ [[User:orngjce223|my home page[[Talk:orngjce223|my talk page]]]] 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


According to historian Tore Frängsmyr's book "Pekingmänniskan. En historia utan slut" ["Peking man. A never-ending history"] (Stockholm, 2006), Zdansky found one tooth on-site in 1921, recognized them as anthropoic, and took them with him along with the other stuff he'd excavated (which was in accordance with the agreement he had with Andersson, that he'd retain the right to work on what he'd excavated). Somtime between 1923-1926, working on the material he'd brought with him back to Uppsala, he discovered a second tooth. His findings, which did not include daring conclusions about what sort of human the teeth had belonged to, were published in 1926. Birger Bohlin was offered to head further excavations of the cave after the Rockefeller foundation had donated money for such work, and after Zdnasky had decline to take the job. In October 1927, Bohlin discovered a tooth from a hominid, and brought it with him to Davidson Black in Beijing, and Black concluded based on this tooth and Zdansky's two teeth that there really was a "Peking Man".

Being inexperienced in writing for Wikipedia, I didn't want to start messing with the text in the article, but I still wanted to offer these little factoids in the hope that they might be of use. (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why does the last paragraph in this article refer to "creationists"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:04, 2 December 2009

It is not the last paragraph of the article, but the last paragraph of the lead. However, as to why the mention is there, it was inserted by an anonymous editor operating on IP address It is open to debate whether it is notable enough to include: do you wish to argue for removal? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will argue for removal and remove it. anon user didn't just add that but in fact they cut and pasted and entire set of the current lead dealing with the specific skulls from another website. in fact if you google it you can see it here and if you go to it well predates the inclusion on wikipedia meaning it is the source of the wikipedia text and not visa versa

so the "creationist argument" hanging text is actually from a cut and paste text that included a hyperlink that was transferred and removed.User9933 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Article states: "... in recent years the view of Lubenow that they were humans has been gaining ground."

Who is Lubenow?

Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird recent edit[edit]

There is a weird recent edit calling for citations on the lead section note that additional Peking man material has been found since the pre war finds. In fact that is entirely supported by the subsequent section " Subsequent Research"User9933 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mgiganteus v. IP[edit]

Discuss here. Come to consensus. Enjoy. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This has been going on for almost two years now. See Tim Vickers's comments here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I suspected as much, which is one of the reasons I reverted to your version before protecting. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

peking man[edit]

Hey why didn't anyone put top of the skull found. As it shown in a BBC documentary, this anthropologist was aloud to look inside the collections and the chinese paleontologists showed her an actual remaining fossil of peking man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastronomer (talkcontribs) 03:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would prefer a site more immediate than a documentary. Kortoso (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Erectus Pekinensis evolved into the modern Han Chinese rather than from Homo Sapiens Sapiens[edit]

1.) New Scientist Chinese evolved separately from rest of humanity

2.) Chinese Hominid Challenges Out-of-Africa Origin of Modern Man

3.) Chinese challenge to out of Africa theory

4.) Ancient Human Fossils Found in China Challenge "Out of Africa" theory

5.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

6.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

7.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals Global Patterns of Human DNA Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1 by Ning Yu, Z. Zhao, Y.-X. Fu, N. Sambuughin, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, L. Patthy, L. B. Jorde, T. Kuromori and W.-H. Li

8.) BMC Biology Journal of Biology "Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations" by Shi H, Zhong H, Peng Y, Dong YL, Qi XB, Zhang F, Liu LF, Tan SJ, Ma RZ, Xiao CJ, Wells RS, Jin L, Su B.

9.) National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

10.) The Homo Sapiens Cave hominin site of Mulan Mountain, Jiangzhou District, Chongzuo, Guangxi, China with emphasis on its old age predating the arrival of African Homo Sapiens Sapiens — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11.) Modern human teeth from Late Pleistocene Luna Cave (Guangxi, China)

About these 11 links: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonob (talkcontribs) 19:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1-4) The discussed fossils are not Peking man, they are Sapiens. The articles and video do not mention that Peking man would be related to these fossils.
5-8) The papers do not mention Peking man.
9) This is about Peking man origin
10) Same fossils as 1-4, also no mention to Peking man.
11) Link appears to be broken, but it seems to be the same fossil as 1-4.
These links are not sorted exactly like the 10 references in the article supporting the claim that Peking man evolved into Han Chinese, but they appear to point to the same place or refer to the same fossils and papers.
I revert the changes adding this claim again. Bonob (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Percentages are important. 90%? 40%? 20%? separate evolution? We need statistical analysis and its possible because we can compare living non-Africans. Claiming that East-Asians never had sex with other groups is a lie. Lies cannot be hidden in statistics.
For example in Japan only 10% of their national genome is Jomon. Africa lowers the percentages of other evolutionary lines. And the Pekin man is extremely older than the Jomon. Science and nature repeats itself. It's impossible that the East-Asians are totally separate from other evolutionary lines. Impossible mathematically and wrong. A 2% contribution from the Pekin man is probable, but with the accumulation of genetic noise and adaptation. If we accept the Pekin man as our forefather we should also accept noise/randomness with some percentage of selection as our forefather. Mathematically that is correct. Not all of the genetic noise is evolutionary selected. Some noise is neutral or has a mild effect or didn't have time to change again.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peking Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in[edit]

I saw Dunkleosteus77's request for peer review, so I popped in and I think this is pretty good. I cleaned it up a bit.

(This is by no means a formal peer review, just a note)

I find it a little bit hard to read with such long paragraphs, but I didn't know where to split them/ if it was necessary.

Asparagusus (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]