Talk:Human genetic variation

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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, --Elonka 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Elonka, that's good to know. I wasn't sure about deleting his posts here. That might help the conversation as long as no one has replied to him. Alun (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments re sockpuppetry

message: 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)
replies: text: Here is a discussion of gene variation within and among populations. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations in article 

message: 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)
replies: text: What do suggest the new article be named? --Saul Greenberg (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard. The best I can suggest is "Application of cluster analysis to human genotypes". This isn't good, I hope someone else can do better. But I think the phrase "gene cluster" is best avoided, as it suggests "cluster of genes", which is not what is meant. Maproom (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Human genetic clustering"? --Saul Greenberg (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's good. Somehow it doesn't have (for me) the quite different connotations that "gene clustering" has. Maproom (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: Human genetic clustering. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gene Cluster"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Text in this article was copied 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genetics and human evolution section 

message: ===Measures of genetic variation===
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. 
===Causes of variation===
The current version states:
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)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: The current version states:
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)
thread_title: Causes of variation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alu sequences 

message: 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)
replies: text: The problem here is standardizing how to count that. A search for well edited secondary sources that lay out the methodology for estimating similarity between individuals would be important for improving the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans are now 99.5% identical not 99.9% - links need to be changed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Average heterozygosity

message: 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)
replies: text: Furthermore, is your statements are simply false. Race is discussed in the overall section. It starts with "New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race". Your other edit comment and removal is equally bad: . Lewontin argument is one of the most important criticisms against biological race.Miradre (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted. You can report as much as you like - I think you will find the clean hands principle to apply. Lewontin's argument is not the most important argument against biological race, and nobody doubts that Edwards is right in assuring that genetic traits cluster geographically well enough to make it possible to predict an individuals geographic ancestry. Also nobody argues that it is impossible to predict with a large chance of being right which race Americans will consider a person to belong to based on information about his geographic ancestry and genotype. You are wrong when you state that e.g. Templeton commit this mistake. Also nobody denies that within group variance accounts for the vast majority of genetic variance worldwide - not even Edwards. A section called "Lewontin's fallacy" that gives the impression that Lewontins argument about in group variance being greater than between group variance has been refuted is a huge breach of NPOV. Lewontin was wrong in not recognizing that variation does give clues about geographic ancestry. This does however not necessarily imply that it is a good idea to use race as a proxy for geographic ancestry or that continental races are a valid taxonomic construct. Also you reverted the edits to the section of forensic anthropology which misstated the way in which Forensic Anthropologists actually identify skeletal remains and classify them according to race. They may think they find race, but as Brace and many others have shown they find only geographic ancestry and then make an educated guess about race.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section called "Distribution of variation" where Lewontin's argument is stated. Now you want to remove the opposing view... If the title is wrong change just that... Are you a forensic professor with more prestige than Gill? Otherwise please do not say he is wrong... Miradre (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to be a forensic professor to say that Gill is wrong, I can simply rely on the other Forensic professors who say he is wrong. In fact Gill himself has since stated that it is probably better to talk about ancestry than race. (and then he admittedly went back to do it again anyway as habit won out against his own better judgment).·Maunus·ƛ· 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That there is a critical view is not cause for removing a view from the article. Sources for all your claims regarding Gill. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, you did not reply to me regarding Lewontin.Miradre (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He simply ran out of rational arguments to back up his particular ideology. ThVa (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: It would make a lot of sense to describe the subject of in/between group variation and how it relates to the problem of classifying populations into genetic groups. As I've said Lewontin's argument isn't basically used to reject the concept of biological classifications of human populations - it is used to show that racial groups are neither homogeneous or have any specific biological essence. And Edwards agrees that this is the case, he just also states that geographic ancestry can be quite accurately determined, with which also noone disagrees.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "biological essence" is the very correlation of multiple variations! As you very well know, many aspects of biology don't reduce to a singular measure. Consider the whole field of taxonomy, for crying out loud. ThVa (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what "biological essence" usually means, no. The concept of "Race" has never been used to classify people into fuzzy categories based only on a statistical correlation between a couple of hundred genetic variables. That is what populations are. In any case the place where you reinserted Edwards was not a place where Edwards argument has any relevance. Edwards is arguing against Lewontin's claim that racial groupings cannot possibly be taxonomically significant because their internal variation is greater than the between group variance. Edwards shows that that conclusion is incorrect, but he does not question the fact that in group variation is greater than that between groups. Edwards' argument is specifically about whether the structure human genetic diversity permits the possibility of discerning taxonomical groups and should only be discussed in regards to that question. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human phenotypic variation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  And James Bond was right: some only live twice? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 
;What should I do?
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.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:RaceMugshots.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Inviting editors to participate in RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin. BlackHades (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Dawkins' position on Lewontin in&nbsp;[[Race and genetics]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: HBD is not something that exists in the literature on human genetic diversity. It is more of a political blogosphere movement. It doesnt belong in this article at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Upon studying Wiki policy, I tend to believe a new page in this would fall under "Non-notable topics."  It is the nature of the beast that taboo topics have a tendency to stay taboo on Wikipedia.  If someone thinks it might survive, I might consider creating it.  Quisp65 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would nominate it for deletion if you did. Then the AfD outcome would decide.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible separate section for Human Biodiversity (HBD) the taboo fringe science field? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I updated the numbers, with citations.--Carwil (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need citation for 10-30 million SNPs in human population 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051022081358/http://www.xmission.com/~wooding/pdfs/bamshad_race04.zip to http://www.xmission.com/~wooding/pdfs/bamshad_race04.zip
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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". 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)
replies: text: never mind, I just saw there already was a 2015 estimate in the article, it was just the lead that was outdated, and quite as I have guessed, the average difference between genomes (based on 26 individuals from "diverse populations") is of the order of 20 million base pairs, that's 0.6%. --dab (𒁳) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Range of nucleotide differences

message: 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.  —PaleoNeonate – 05:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is the 2005/2006 Lahn paper proposing that a certain Microcephalin variant(s)/ASPM in Eurasians gave them cognitive/brain size advantages. There (in response to the claim/proposal) are more recent studies finding this to not be the case — i.e. that the Microcephalin variant/ASPM was not associated with cognitive ability or brain size. Again, see (the papers I linked in my edit note): https://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5841/1036.1  and :https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/16/6/600/610971 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2104484/   (Also, the analysis and conclusions you add are not explicit in the source and thus are synthesis and original research, which Wikipedia policy does not allow. Skllagyook (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposed material 

message: 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  The article cannot be then used in support of a claim like , even though they later say that , 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  is however supported by the source, which states that  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)
replies: text: So, I see there was more shenanigans last night... I recommend removing this statement:  because it is not supported by the source, and keeping , but with a caveat from a more modern source that, despite this,  or something like that.  Tewdar  07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, a quick scan of the article gives me "information" (!) like  (emphasis added) - oh dear! How did this slip through the net?  Tewdar  08:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations (Witherspoon et al. 2007)