Has any other evolutionist/darwinist ever heared of these supposedly infuential papers Mammuthus referenced? No? Would anyone offer the same papers as influential as Mammuthus did? No?
Of course I've heard of them -- anyone who does any work on recent human evolution knows about them. I just cited one of them in a review paper, in fact. And yes, I'd include both of them in a list of influential papers about human evolution, at least.
A paper dealing with a single species, human beings, would not likely be regarded as influential IMO, unless it dealt with the one species as an example of how all or many species evolve. For instance one might regard the paper on white/black moths as influential, but then I don't think that paper (or was it published as a novella?) is regarded that way much anymore.
A paper on a single species has the potential to be considered influential if it is one of the handful of species whose evolution has been studied intensively, or if it is about a species we happen to be particularly interested in. Papers about humans qualify on both counts.
I think this would be different when I asked the same sort of questions on a chemics or physics forum.
I can't think of any physics papers in the last 50 years that would be on every physicist's list of influential papers -- what's important varies too much by discipline. Physics is more specialized than biology, by a fair bit. But I'm not sure what you meant by that remark -- what did you mean, anyway?