This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human genetic variation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Human genetic variation was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
ALWAYS Amending in the name of PC/DISHONESTLY article previously read/Opened - - """Human genetic variation - Wikipedia Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. There may be multiple variants of any given gene in the human population (genes), leading to polymorphism. Many genes are not polymorphic, meaning that only a single allele is present in the population: the gene is then said to be fixed.[1] On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.[2][3].."""
Numbers now buried/blurred further down. You are worse than PC, you are Truth Destroyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4300:1F60:E543:B97E:8575:A7F ( talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
N.B. This section was originally an RfC started by a banned disruptive user. Considering there had been no proper discussion of this subject prior to starting the RfC I have removed the comments of the banned user and changed it to a normal section for the talk page. The RfC appears to have been a way to circumvent proper talk page discussion, RfCs are a proper part of dispute resolution, but are certainly not a first resort. Let's have proper debate folks, cheers. Alun ( talk) 08:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've given it a quick look, but have not actually read it. I definitely think that the introduction is too long (and also, the references need formatting). The article as a whole does seem long, although I don't think that's automatically a bad thing. Please let me suggest that it would be helpful if you could list specific things that might be cut, and seek comment on those. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
MG, my version of your layout:
Maybe my emphasis is a little different, but the general layout and themes are the same. Alun ( talk) 06:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, should we have a brief mention of the variability observed between different somatic cell types? For example the recombination that goes on in order to generate diversity in immunoglobulins? Or the fact that red blood cells don't contain any DNA at all? As I remember it there may be large diversity of genomes within the cells of each of us, as cells chop up the DNA of the genome to tailor it to the specialist needs of the differentiated cell. That applies to copy number as well, isn't copy number increased for some cistrons in some cell types in order to boost dosage of the gene product? Do we discuss the difference between variability of the genomes of different cell types that is deliberate (e.g. diversity of immunoglobulins) vs. variability that is due to mutation, e.g. mutations in transcriptional regulation of somatic cells leading to cancer? I'm worried that if we concentrate on the generation of diversity during normal/abnormal development/survival, then the article becomes about the "variability of the genome" (or as one of my lecturers used to call it "genomic plasticity") rather than "variation between and within populations". How much of the CNV diversity observed is generated during development and how much is inherited? I know that CNV is observed between identical twins (though presumably SNP differences occur between identical twins, they are just much more difficult to find). Well the above layout probably provides a framework for a good balance. We can work out the details as we go along.
Alun (
talk)
07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, popping in as an administrator here. I have no opinion on the article content, but I'm sorry that this article seems to be being targeted by a user with a string of sockpuppets. If it helps though, since the sockmaster is site banned, that means that any posts or edits from the new sockpuppets can be reverted on sight. This would refer to posts by Oost, Wet dog fur, etc. I'll leave it up to the other editors here to decide which posts to delete or not: It's your call on whether they're helpful or whether you want to keep them around simply to avoid having a "hole" in the discussion. If other socks show up, please alert an administrator, and then as soon as the latest sockpuppet is confirmed/blocked, the new sockpuppet posts can be deleted as well. Hopefully this will help reduce any confusion. Good luck, -- El on ka 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has an excessive number of quotations for an encyclopedia article. Please begin the process of removing most of the quotations.
I propose that sections named "Variation within native groups" and "Variation between native groups" be added to the article. --
Saul Greenberg (
talk)
04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This article used to have a long and interesting section "How much are genes shared? Clustering analyses and what they tell us". It was about use of cluster analysis on data about alleles in different people, to examine the concept of human "populations".
But the section has been confusingly renamed "Gene cluster analysis", and moved to the article gene cluster. The gene cluster article however is (or was, before the move) on a completely different topic: the way genes with related functions cluster on the chromosomes. As the gene cluster article begins, "A gene cluster is a set of two or more genes that serve to encode for the same or similar products."
Creating a new article about the application of cluster analysis to allelic differences is fair enough. But subverting the gene cluster article to be about a different topic from its creator's intention is a mistake, particularly as the phrase "gene cluster" is generally used in the old sense of that article. Maproom ( talk) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The text in some sections of this article was copied verbatim from the article " The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research", which is not cited. It states, "This article is in the public domain, and no copyright is claimed." -- Saul Greenberg ( talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed this section because it was off topic and already included in the Human Evolution article. -- Saul Greenberg ( talk) 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think measures of genetic variation would in genetic distance, fixation index, cladograms. Genetic markers would include SNP, microsatellites, HLA, NRY and mtDNA. SNPs and CNVs in the current version are considered measures, when in fact there are markers not the actual measurement.
The current version states:
There are at least two reasons why genetic variation exists between populations. Natural selection may confer an adaptive advantage to individuals in a specific environment if an allele provides a competitive advantage. Alleles under selection are likely to occur only in those geographic regions where they confer an advantage. The second main cause of genetic variation is due to the high degree of neutrality of most mutations
I would suggest that causes of genetic variation include, new mutations, natural selection, founder effects, genetic drift, sexual selection and gene flow. Neutral variation is a "type" of variation not a cause of variation.
Wapondaponda ( talk) 19:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Alu sequence is something to consider discussing in the article. Alu insertions have been implicated in several inherited human diseases and in various forms of cancer. The study of Alu sequences has also been important in elucidating human population genetics and the evolution of primates, including the evolution of humans. -- Millstoner ( talk) 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Biologists had estimated that two individuals would be identical in 99.9 percent of their DNA, but the true figure now emerges as much less, around 99.5 percent, Dr. Scherer said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.248.34 ( talk) 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It appeared difficult to find modern data concerning average heterozygosity of protein-coding genes or so-called exoms either for individual humans or for human populations. May be it will be rather good to add such data if possible. -- Glagolev ( talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Maunus, I have reported you to AE for these deletions as well. There is an argument regarding race in the article so removing the most important and sourced views arguing for biological race is a gross violation of NPOV. Miradre ( talk) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the Lewontin's Fallacy section was removed, a paragraph should be added to explain the argument that because most genetic variation is within-group versus between group, classification of humans into races is not possible, and the rebuttals to that argument. -- Maklinovich ( talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I added a section on the effect of human genetic variation on intelligence. An editor later came and removed it because they claimed in was race related. I put the section back in because among other things, it is not race related. -- Crystal labyrinth ( talk) 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it is time to read some books on the subject, books that aren't outdated and completely fallacious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:9B80:297:4CD2:9148:9D5:3052 ( talk) 00:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few problems with the article: 1, the map of Africa is IMPOSSIBLE to place, where is that? Why is half the map blanked out? Some sort of reference on a world map would be in order. 2, picture of human faces as representing variation - is this for Martians that might be reading? Is there someone out there who hasn't noticed that humans look different from one another? It struck me as incredibly childish. And finally, this sentence: "Studies on identical twins and adopted children suggest that there is a substantial genetic contribution to intelligence." NO?!? You mean we are more intelligent than mice because of our GENES? 212.93.105.10 ( talk) 20:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that images be added to the Phenotypic Variation section of this article to illustrate the concept. The images of moths are used in the Phenotype article but we should use human images here. How about this image? -- Crystal labyrinth ( talk) 11:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The BBC News now claims there were a total of 107bn 600mio people (H. S. S.) who ever lived since 50k BC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579
However, the genetical variance of Homo Sapiens Sap. race is only enough for 70bn different gene sequences according to Wikipedia, therefore some humans must have lived twice already! (and thus James Bond was right?) That's because at least a total 100 bn people have lived since 8k BC - 1 AD (very different estimates), by which time human genetical evolution was already over, with various colour races already developed and bearded sumers topping clay brick towers already back in 4-6k BC. 82.131.133.7 ( talk) 10:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:RaceMugshots.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:RaceMugshots.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
Inviting editors to participate in RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin. BlackHades ( talk) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph opens with: The distribution of genetic variants within and among human populations are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a "population,".
And in Edwards is saying: "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data." These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied..
These appear to be in direct conflict as one source is saying it's hard to define a population and the other is saying you study enough loci and you reach near 100% ability to define a population. So I'm supported some sentence clarifying the difference in viewpoints. Alatari ( talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Human Biology and Anthropology Sources, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I have been revising this source list from time to time since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and hope to continue to update and expand it for years to come. To answer a frequently asked question, I maintain the citations list in my Wikipedia user space to make clear that I am responsible for what sources are listed and for ensuring that the bibliographic information is correct. I have learned about these sources from my own reading on this topic since 1969, from the citations in dozens of different Wikipedia articles I've read since 2010, and from browsing in academic research library systems and huge public library systems (all blessed with computerized catalogs during the last twenty years), and from using the Wikipedia Library to update Wikipedia articles. But this source list is always incomplete, as new research reviews and textbooks and handbooks about this broad topic are published every month, and I have hundreds of sources still to review and check to add to the source list. You are welcome to use these sources for your own research (on-wiki or off-wiki, of course). You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments I welcome through the source list talk page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as statements about preliminary genetic studies in the popular press often run far ahead of the verified scientific evidence. Enjoy your reading; see you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
HBD is much more than Genetic variation, we all know there is also a fringe science field that deals with both the soft & hard science of Human differences, much of which is taboo. It consists of discussion, analysis & theories and due to the taboo nature of this topic in society, it tends to allow much more diverse and controversial viewpoints. Example... www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com Quisp65 ( talk) 03:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I flagged the text that claims there are 10 to 30 million SNPs in the human genome as needing a citation. The sources I can find claim 10 or 15 million, but these sources are somewhat old (from 2010 or so). It is possible the 30 million number is based on newer research. Is anyone aware of a source for the 30 million figure? Paulish ( talk) 15:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human genetic variation. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
In 2004, it was estimated that the range of differences is between about 3 and 13 million (0.1% to 0.4% of 3.2G base pairs). In 2017, the number of known differences was doubled to "from 154 to 324 million" [6]. It stands to reason that the "3 to 13 million" range is now outdated. While it cannot be expected that the total number of 324 differences can be found between any two individuals [possibly this counts individual variants, so should be divided by 4 for a minimum of 80 million sites with differences], one would assume that the range estimated today will be of the order of 6 to 26 million. Clearly, this cannot be second-guessed, but this is plausible grounds for assuming the 2004 citations are outdated and some more recent reference should be looked for. -- dab (𒁳) 19:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ AllNicksBusy: The material you proposed appears to say that because a disorder can be caused by a small genetic mutation, like in the case of microcephaly, that this justifies major intelligence difference between populations. People with microcephaly are however unlikely to reproduce and support their offspring until their own reproduction time to reliably transmit the mutation (assuming it was also reliably retained). The sources also appear suboptimal, cherry-picked, to form a synthesis, something which should be done for us by a reliable, modern secondary or tertiary source. What is called "significant difference between human races" is also not so significant. I agree with Skllagyook's revert. — Paleo Neonate – 05:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@ PaleoNeonate: Actually I said something different, microsephaly is an illness and it was only listed as an example. Please take a look at the scientific study from Bruce Lahn I've posted which shows that a new allele of ASPM has been developed about 6000 years ago which significantly changed the brain of the majority of europeans and in smaller ratios of other races. The findings are well done, no review disputed them and published on AAAS ScienceMag. A tiny mutation in comparison to the huge number of total basepairs caused one of the fundaments of the modern eurasian brain, increased it's volume significantly. That's what I mentioned, microcephaly isn't an advantage in natural selection, it's the opposite. To discuss the human genetic variation by looking at the quantity of changed BP instead of a functional analysis is a fallacy and makes the whole information useless. I believe the whole idea of this sort of approach comes from trying to destroy the discussion about human differences but that's unscientific. You can't treat tiny genetic changes that have significant effects with large genetic changes of dead or non important genes. You said I am cherry picking, that's right. Because we only have cherries at this point in science. I was showing an example of a tiny evolutionary mutation with a large effect to show the fallacy of to treating all human genes the same. AllNicksBusy ( talk) 17:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Human biodiversity currently redirects here, yet the page doesn’t mention it. This gives the false impression that “human biodiversity” is (more or less) synonymous with the study of human genetic variation, when in reality it’s a racist pseudo-scientific fringe theory. This crucial distinction is currently entirely lost. klmr ( talk) 10:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The eighth item is what you're going by? So to summarize, the overwhelming majority of search results are related to scientific racism, specifically Steve Sailer's coinage of the term. The only use of "human biodiversity" in this article is in the reference section, and the term is not explained in the article at all. The sole usage is as the title of a reference work by Jonathan M. Marks, who has specifically and directly said that "racists stole it" from him. If this is really the best you've got, we will have to start and RFC or rake it to a noticeboard. Grayfell ( talk) 21:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised to see this article didn't have a section on the role of genetic variation with respect to behavior or cognition. I noticed there was some discussion back in 2011 about including a section on intelligence, but nothing ever came of it. Is there any objection to a brief section summarizing research in this area? It seems like an important topic worthy of inclusion, though of course it will need to be handled fairly and objectively as it can be quite controversial at times. Stonkaments ( talk) 04:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above.Any use of "genetic variation" as a proxy for "race" will not be accepted. Most sources which discuss "behavior" or "cognition" specifically as a product of "genetic variation" is going to be fraught with problems. It is not merely controversial, it is closely tied to pseudoscience and scientific racism.
Recently disputed content summarizing this paper was added in
this mobilediff (sorry ☹️). Regarding claim (c) ("pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population"), the study finds that To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.
The article cannot be then used in support of a claim like If you select two humans at random from two different populations, it is likely that they will share more genetic information between them than a pair of individuals randomly selected from a single population.
, even though they later say that even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.
, because what they are saying here is that, if your study is sufficiently antiquated and crappy, you will get shit results if you try to put people into groups using such a study. The claim that This is because there is more genetic variation within populations than between them
is however supported by the source, which states that The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them.
Incidentally, the sources used in this article are out of date and out of step with more recent genetics research.
Tewdar
20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
If you select two humans at random from two different populations, it is likely that they will share more genetic information between them than a pair of individuals randomly selected from a single population.because it is not supported by the source, and keeping
...there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, but with a caveat from a more modern source that, despite this,
modern genetic studies have found substantial average genetic differences across human populations in traits such as skin colour, bodily dimensions, lactose and starch digestion, high altitude adaptions, and predisposition to developing particular diseasesor something like that. Tewdar 07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate about a possible biological basis for categorization of humans into races(emphasis added) - oh dear! How did this slip through the net? Tewdar 08:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
For the great majority of traits, there is, as Lewontin said, much more variation within populations than across populationsand
We cannot deny the existence of substantial average genetic differences across populations, not just in traits such as skin color, but also in bodily dimensions, the ability to efficiently digest starch or milk sugar, the ability to breathe easily at high altitudes, and susceptibility to particular diseases.Someone please block this clown if they keep edit warring, please... Tewdar 08:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population...becomes zerowith sufficient resolution (number of loci) when "geographically distinct populations" are studied. Now, whether you think this should be in the lede or not is another matter (I think the current summary is nice and non-technical for general readers), but this is what the study says...ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself? Tewdar 08:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human genetic variation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Human genetic variation was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
ALWAYS Amending in the name of PC/DISHONESTLY article previously read/Opened - - """Human genetic variation - Wikipedia Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. There may be multiple variants of any given gene in the human population (genes), leading to polymorphism. Many genes are not polymorphic, meaning that only a single allele is present in the population: the gene is then said to be fixed.[1] On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.[2][3].."""
Numbers now buried/blurred further down. You are worse than PC, you are Truth Destroyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4300:1F60:E543:B97E:8575:A7F ( talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
N.B. This section was originally an RfC started by a banned disruptive user. Considering there had been no proper discussion of this subject prior to starting the RfC I have removed the comments of the banned user and changed it to a normal section for the talk page. The RfC appears to have been a way to circumvent proper talk page discussion, RfCs are a proper part of dispute resolution, but are certainly not a first resort. Let's have proper debate folks, cheers. Alun ( talk) 08:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've given it a quick look, but have not actually read it. I definitely think that the introduction is too long (and also, the references need formatting). The article as a whole does seem long, although I don't think that's automatically a bad thing. Please let me suggest that it would be helpful if you could list specific things that might be cut, and seek comment on those. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
MG, my version of your layout:
Maybe my emphasis is a little different, but the general layout and themes are the same. Alun ( talk) 06:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, should we have a brief mention of the variability observed between different somatic cell types? For example the recombination that goes on in order to generate diversity in immunoglobulins? Or the fact that red blood cells don't contain any DNA at all? As I remember it there may be large diversity of genomes within the cells of each of us, as cells chop up the DNA of the genome to tailor it to the specialist needs of the differentiated cell. That applies to copy number as well, isn't copy number increased for some cistrons in some cell types in order to boost dosage of the gene product? Do we discuss the difference between variability of the genomes of different cell types that is deliberate (e.g. diversity of immunoglobulins) vs. variability that is due to mutation, e.g. mutations in transcriptional regulation of somatic cells leading to cancer? I'm worried that if we concentrate on the generation of diversity during normal/abnormal development/survival, then the article becomes about the "variability of the genome" (or as one of my lecturers used to call it "genomic plasticity") rather than "variation between and within populations". How much of the CNV diversity observed is generated during development and how much is inherited? I know that CNV is observed between identical twins (though presumably SNP differences occur between identical twins, they are just much more difficult to find). Well the above layout probably provides a framework for a good balance. We can work out the details as we go along.
Alun (
talk)
07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, popping in as an administrator here. I have no opinion on the article content, but I'm sorry that this article seems to be being targeted by a user with a string of sockpuppets. If it helps though, since the sockmaster is site banned, that means that any posts or edits from the new sockpuppets can be reverted on sight. This would refer to posts by Oost, Wet dog fur, etc. I'll leave it up to the other editors here to decide which posts to delete or not: It's your call on whether they're helpful or whether you want to keep them around simply to avoid having a "hole" in the discussion. If other socks show up, please alert an administrator, and then as soon as the latest sockpuppet is confirmed/blocked, the new sockpuppet posts can be deleted as well. Hopefully this will help reduce any confusion. Good luck, -- El on ka 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This article has an excessive number of quotations for an encyclopedia article. Please begin the process of removing most of the quotations.
I propose that sections named "Variation within native groups" and "Variation between native groups" be added to the article. --
Saul Greenberg (
talk)
04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This article used to have a long and interesting section "How much are genes shared? Clustering analyses and what they tell us". It was about use of cluster analysis on data about alleles in different people, to examine the concept of human "populations".
But the section has been confusingly renamed "Gene cluster analysis", and moved to the article gene cluster. The gene cluster article however is (or was, before the move) on a completely different topic: the way genes with related functions cluster on the chromosomes. As the gene cluster article begins, "A gene cluster is a set of two or more genes that serve to encode for the same or similar products."
Creating a new article about the application of cluster analysis to allelic differences is fair enough. But subverting the gene cluster article to be about a different topic from its creator's intention is a mistake, particularly as the phrase "gene cluster" is generally used in the old sense of that article. Maproom ( talk) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The text in some sections of this article was copied verbatim from the article " The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research", which is not cited. It states, "This article is in the public domain, and no copyright is claimed." -- Saul Greenberg ( talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed this section because it was off topic and already included in the Human Evolution article. -- Saul Greenberg ( talk) 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think measures of genetic variation would in genetic distance, fixation index, cladograms. Genetic markers would include SNP, microsatellites, HLA, NRY and mtDNA. SNPs and CNVs in the current version are considered measures, when in fact there are markers not the actual measurement.
The current version states:
There are at least two reasons why genetic variation exists between populations. Natural selection may confer an adaptive advantage to individuals in a specific environment if an allele provides a competitive advantage. Alleles under selection are likely to occur only in those geographic regions where they confer an advantage. The second main cause of genetic variation is due to the high degree of neutrality of most mutations
I would suggest that causes of genetic variation include, new mutations, natural selection, founder effects, genetic drift, sexual selection and gene flow. Neutral variation is a "type" of variation not a cause of variation.
Wapondaponda ( talk) 19:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Alu sequence is something to consider discussing in the article. Alu insertions have been implicated in several inherited human diseases and in various forms of cancer. The study of Alu sequences has also been important in elucidating human population genetics and the evolution of primates, including the evolution of humans. -- Millstoner ( talk) 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Biologists had estimated that two individuals would be identical in 99.9 percent of their DNA, but the true figure now emerges as much less, around 99.5 percent, Dr. Scherer said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.248.34 ( talk) 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It appeared difficult to find modern data concerning average heterozygosity of protein-coding genes or so-called exoms either for individual humans or for human populations. May be it will be rather good to add such data if possible. -- Glagolev ( talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Maunus, I have reported you to AE for these deletions as well. There is an argument regarding race in the article so removing the most important and sourced views arguing for biological race is a gross violation of NPOV. Miradre ( talk) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the Lewontin's Fallacy section was removed, a paragraph should be added to explain the argument that because most genetic variation is within-group versus between group, classification of humans into races is not possible, and the rebuttals to that argument. -- Maklinovich ( talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I added a section on the effect of human genetic variation on intelligence. An editor later came and removed it because they claimed in was race related. I put the section back in because among other things, it is not race related. -- Crystal labyrinth ( talk) 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it is time to read some books on the subject, books that aren't outdated and completely fallacious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:9B80:297:4CD2:9148:9D5:3052 ( talk) 00:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few problems with the article: 1, the map of Africa is IMPOSSIBLE to place, where is that? Why is half the map blanked out? Some sort of reference on a world map would be in order. 2, picture of human faces as representing variation - is this for Martians that might be reading? Is there someone out there who hasn't noticed that humans look different from one another? It struck me as incredibly childish. And finally, this sentence: "Studies on identical twins and adopted children suggest that there is a substantial genetic contribution to intelligence." NO?!? You mean we are more intelligent than mice because of our GENES? 212.93.105.10 ( talk) 20:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that images be added to the Phenotypic Variation section of this article to illustrate the concept. The images of moths are used in the Phenotype article but we should use human images here. How about this image? -- Crystal labyrinth ( talk) 11:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The BBC News now claims there were a total of 107bn 600mio people (H. S. S.) who ever lived since 50k BC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579
However, the genetical variance of Homo Sapiens Sap. race is only enough for 70bn different gene sequences according to Wikipedia, therefore some humans must have lived twice already! (and thus James Bond was right?) That's because at least a total 100 bn people have lived since 8k BC - 1 AD (very different estimates), by which time human genetical evolution was already over, with various colour races already developed and bearded sumers topping clay brick towers already back in 4-6k BC. 82.131.133.7 ( talk) 10:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:RaceMugshots.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:RaceMugshots.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
Inviting editors to participate in RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin. BlackHades ( talk) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph opens with: The distribution of genetic variants within and among human populations are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a "population,".
And in Edwards is saying: "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data." These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied..
These appear to be in direct conflict as one source is saying it's hard to define a population and the other is saying you study enough loci and you reach near 100% ability to define a population. So I'm supported some sentence clarifying the difference in viewpoints. Alatari ( talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Human Biology and Anthropology Sources, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I have been revising this source list from time to time since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and hope to continue to update and expand it for years to come. To answer a frequently asked question, I maintain the citations list in my Wikipedia user space to make clear that I am responsible for what sources are listed and for ensuring that the bibliographic information is correct. I have learned about these sources from my own reading on this topic since 1969, from the citations in dozens of different Wikipedia articles I've read since 2010, and from browsing in academic research library systems and huge public library systems (all blessed with computerized catalogs during the last twenty years), and from using the Wikipedia Library to update Wikipedia articles. But this source list is always incomplete, as new research reviews and textbooks and handbooks about this broad topic are published every month, and I have hundreds of sources still to review and check to add to the source list. You are welcome to use these sources for your own research (on-wiki or off-wiki, of course). You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments I welcome through the source list talk page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as statements about preliminary genetic studies in the popular press often run far ahead of the verified scientific evidence. Enjoy your reading; see you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
HBD is much more than Genetic variation, we all know there is also a fringe science field that deals with both the soft & hard science of Human differences, much of which is taboo. It consists of discussion, analysis & theories and due to the taboo nature of this topic in society, it tends to allow much more diverse and controversial viewpoints. Example... www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com Quisp65 ( talk) 03:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I flagged the text that claims there are 10 to 30 million SNPs in the human genome as needing a citation. The sources I can find claim 10 or 15 million, but these sources are somewhat old (from 2010 or so). It is possible the 30 million number is based on newer research. Is anyone aware of a source for the 30 million figure? Paulish ( talk) 15:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human genetic variation. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
In 2004, it was estimated that the range of differences is between about 3 and 13 million (0.1% to 0.4% of 3.2G base pairs). In 2017, the number of known differences was doubled to "from 154 to 324 million" [6]. It stands to reason that the "3 to 13 million" range is now outdated. While it cannot be expected that the total number of 324 differences can be found between any two individuals [possibly this counts individual variants, so should be divided by 4 for a minimum of 80 million sites with differences], one would assume that the range estimated today will be of the order of 6 to 26 million. Clearly, this cannot be second-guessed, but this is plausible grounds for assuming the 2004 citations are outdated and some more recent reference should be looked for. -- dab (𒁳) 19:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@ AllNicksBusy: The material you proposed appears to say that because a disorder can be caused by a small genetic mutation, like in the case of microcephaly, that this justifies major intelligence difference between populations. People with microcephaly are however unlikely to reproduce and support their offspring until their own reproduction time to reliably transmit the mutation (assuming it was also reliably retained). The sources also appear suboptimal, cherry-picked, to form a synthesis, something which should be done for us by a reliable, modern secondary or tertiary source. What is called "significant difference between human races" is also not so significant. I agree with Skllagyook's revert. — Paleo Neonate – 05:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@ PaleoNeonate: Actually I said something different, microsephaly is an illness and it was only listed as an example. Please take a look at the scientific study from Bruce Lahn I've posted which shows that a new allele of ASPM has been developed about 6000 years ago which significantly changed the brain of the majority of europeans and in smaller ratios of other races. The findings are well done, no review disputed them and published on AAAS ScienceMag. A tiny mutation in comparison to the huge number of total basepairs caused one of the fundaments of the modern eurasian brain, increased it's volume significantly. That's what I mentioned, microcephaly isn't an advantage in natural selection, it's the opposite. To discuss the human genetic variation by looking at the quantity of changed BP instead of a functional analysis is a fallacy and makes the whole information useless. I believe the whole idea of this sort of approach comes from trying to destroy the discussion about human differences but that's unscientific. You can't treat tiny genetic changes that have significant effects with large genetic changes of dead or non important genes. You said I am cherry picking, that's right. Because we only have cherries at this point in science. I was showing an example of a tiny evolutionary mutation with a large effect to show the fallacy of to treating all human genes the same. AllNicksBusy ( talk) 17:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Human biodiversity currently redirects here, yet the page doesn’t mention it. This gives the false impression that “human biodiversity” is (more or less) synonymous with the study of human genetic variation, when in reality it’s a racist pseudo-scientific fringe theory. This crucial distinction is currently entirely lost. klmr ( talk) 10:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The eighth item is what you're going by? So to summarize, the overwhelming majority of search results are related to scientific racism, specifically Steve Sailer's coinage of the term. The only use of "human biodiversity" in this article is in the reference section, and the term is not explained in the article at all. The sole usage is as the title of a reference work by Jonathan M. Marks, who has specifically and directly said that "racists stole it" from him. If this is really the best you've got, we will have to start and RFC or rake it to a noticeboard. Grayfell ( talk) 21:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I was surprised to see this article didn't have a section on the role of genetic variation with respect to behavior or cognition. I noticed there was some discussion back in 2011 about including a section on intelligence, but nothing ever came of it. Is there any objection to a brief section summarizing research in this area? It seems like an important topic worthy of inclusion, though of course it will need to be handled fairly and objectively as it can be quite controversial at times. Stonkaments ( talk) 04:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above.Any use of "genetic variation" as a proxy for "race" will not be accepted. Most sources which discuss "behavior" or "cognition" specifically as a product of "genetic variation" is going to be fraught with problems. It is not merely controversial, it is closely tied to pseudoscience and scientific racism.
Recently disputed content summarizing this paper was added in
this mobilediff (sorry ☹️). Regarding claim (c) ("pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population"), the study finds that To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.
The article cannot be then used in support of a claim like If you select two humans at random from two different populations, it is likely that they will share more genetic information between them than a pair of individuals randomly selected from a single population.
, even though they later say that even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.
, because what they are saying here is that, if your study is sufficiently antiquated and crappy, you will get shit results if you try to put people into groups using such a study. The claim that This is because there is more genetic variation within populations than between them
is however supported by the source, which states that The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them.
Incidentally, the sources used in this article are out of date and out of step with more recent genetics research.
Tewdar
20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
If you select two humans at random from two different populations, it is likely that they will share more genetic information between them than a pair of individuals randomly selected from a single population.because it is not supported by the source, and keeping
...there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, but with a caveat from a more modern source that, despite this,
modern genetic studies have found substantial average genetic differences across human populations in traits such as skin colour, bodily dimensions, lactose and starch digestion, high altitude adaptions, and predisposition to developing particular diseasesor something like that. Tewdar 07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate about a possible biological basis for categorization of humans into races(emphasis added) - oh dear! How did this slip through the net? Tewdar 08:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
For the great majority of traits, there is, as Lewontin said, much more variation within populations than across populationsand
We cannot deny the existence of substantial average genetic differences across populations, not just in traits such as skin color, but also in bodily dimensions, the ability to efficiently digest starch or milk sugar, the ability to breathe easily at high altitudes, and susceptibility to particular diseases.Someone please block this clown if they keep edit warring, please... Tewdar 08:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population...becomes zerowith sufficient resolution (number of loci) when "geographically distinct populations" are studied. Now, whether you think this should be in the lede or not is another matter (I think the current summary is nice and non-technical for general readers), but this is what the study says...ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself? Tewdar 08:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)