Talk:Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy

message: Edwards made some predictions, based on a mathematical model rather than empirical data, in his commentary on Lewontin's article. A lot of science has happened meanwhile. 
Two review articles in prominent journals about human population genetics are bringing together analysis of the many recent studies of human DNA, including DNA from ancient individuals. 
*
*
Earlier studies of this issue were based on more limited samples (fewer genes, and fewer human individuals from fewer regions and only recent times). As more samples of more genes from more individuals from more places and times are gathered, the molecular evidence is making it increasingly clear that human beings have been moving back and forth across the Earth's surface and mixing genes over long distances ever since their earliest ancestors moved out of the human homeland in Africa. The picture that emerges backs up the raw data that Edwards found in his field studies, but is also supportive of the overall conclusion reached by Lewontin. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source which explicitly links these studies with the Lewontin/Edwards controversy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think some of the sources cited above in an earlier section on this talk page (found by bibliographic work looking for sources that specifically mentioned both Edwards and Lewontin) are more directly on point for editing this particular article, and I urge any interested person to consult them for that purpose. The Hawks review article is interesting to me because many people think that Hawks has a different point of view from the view he expresses in that article. The Pickrell Reich review article (it is a secondary source itself, as the Hawks review article is, ready to use for editing Wikipedia articles) is very newly published (just this week). It may be helpful to editors to show how further research has put both Edwards's ideas and Lewontin's to the test of more deeply looking at the data. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That would constitute original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually agree with you, as a matter of directly inserting references from these two new articles into the Wikipedia article text of the article here, but that kind of close reading of the WP:OR content guideline suggests just what kind of edits I would like to see less of on the article SAT (for example), which has a lot of edits not drawn from on-point reliable, secondary sources. That's the main reason these two articles are mentioned on the talk page here (and not in the article text): I mention these articles here precisely because some editors of this Wikipedia article have wondered what the scientific consensus is about the latest molecular genetic evidence, and I think the two review articles show, by what they jointly agree about, what that consensus is, and reduce arguments about direct edits to this Wikipedia article from the most on-point sources. Those directly on-point reliable secondary sources, cited above in a previous talk page section, are not ideological, but just aware of the newest developments in the research on the molecular genetics of humankind. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are intended solely for discussions of direct relevance to article content - they are not a forum for general discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Victor, the first study you kindly cite actually mentions a data-based counterexample to Edwards's predicted model: "RISCH et al. (2002) and EDWARDS (2003) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by POWELL and TAYLOR 1978). Accordingly, RISCH et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that 'two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.' However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (BAMSHAD et al. 2004; population definitions and data from ROSENBERG et al. 2002)." Tal's paper is about a mathematical model rather than about empirical data (as is the commentary by Edwards that this article is about, for that matter). I'll depart from this section of the talk page to go back to the section of the talk page that is specifically about follow-up secondary sources to call for more of those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the Witherspoon study. It shows that studies finding that members of different races are sometimes more similar to each other than to members of their own groups suffer from poor resolution. If thousands (rather than dozens or hundreds) of genetic markers are used, there is no such overlap between geographically separated populations. In fact, Tal shows that if enough markers are used, there is no overlap between geographically close populations, either.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New review articles on human population genetics based on studies of ancient DNA 

message: The text says "Philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population." Lewontin's original argument was that lower variation between groups meant race was of no taxonomic significance. This argument is indeed completely invalidated, and any other point is a different argument. Zhang500 (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have Lewontin's paper at hand as you bring this up? What was Lewontin's statement then, in his own words? Have you checked the more recent paper by Lewontin and Marcus Feldman (I've seen it as a book chapter, cited on this talk page, as I recall) in which Lewontin updates his comments on the issue? What did he say in that year? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is. He relies entirely on a single broad measure of diversity across the whole human subspecies, and since the between race component is "small", he claims race is of no taxonomic significance. That's his argument - there is nothing about any more complex structuring such as "subsets" or the like. Can you link to the Feldman paper? Also do you have access to Kaplan and Winther? How do they define "basic biological division"? Zhang500 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The burden is really on you, Zhang500, to explain why you think the reliably sourced material you are deleting from the stable version of the article is "demonstrably false". In other words, I think the edit by ArtifexMayhem reflects the best current, published, reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

text: What, exactly, is demonstrably false in said material?  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewontin offers no argument for the taxonomic insignificance of races other than low Fst. Since low Fst is shown to not in itself invalidate a taxonomy, Lewontin is incorrect in his argument. Therefore it is impossible that "while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument" or that "Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct". This was explained in the section OP. Zhang500 (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your line of reasoning is not supported by the sources cited for the material you removed. Please support your suggested edit with reliable sources.  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course it isn't. That's because the sources are transparently false. How can they then be "reliable sources"? Zhang500 00:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without, reliable sources there is nothing to discuss.  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources which are transparently false are clearly not reliable sources. Zhang500 03:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who has decided that the sources are 'transparently false'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you see that they are false? Zhang500 08:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in text

message: From User:ArtifexMayhem's talk page.
{start copy}
Talk:Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy
Could you explain why you re-inserted demonstrably false material? Reverts must be supported with reasoning. Zhang500 (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden is really on you, Zhang500, to explain why you think the reliably sourced material you are deleting from the stable version of the article is "demonstrably false". In other words, I think the edit by ArtifexMayhem reflects the best current, published, reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

text: What, exactly, is demonstrably false in said material?  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewontin offers no argument for the taxonomic insignificance of races other than low Fst. Since low Fst is shown to not in itself invalidate a taxonomy, Lewontin is incorrect in his argument. Therefore it is impossible that "while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument" or that "Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct". This was explained in the section OP. Zhang500 (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your line of reasoning is not supported by the sources cited for the material you removed. Please support your suggested edit with reliable sources.  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course it isn't. That's because the sources are transparently false. How can they then be "reliable sources"? Zhang500 00:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without, reliable sources there is nothing to discuss.  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources which are transparently false are clearly not reliable sources. Zhang500 03:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who has decided that the sources are 'transparently false'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you see that they are false? Zhang500 08:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Copying discussion from user talk page

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy. 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/20131203115416/http://gutengroup.mcb.arizona.edu/Publications/Ramachandran2010.pdf to http://gutengroup.mcb.arizona.edu/Publications/Ramachandran2010.pdf
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) 12:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article gives undeserved weight to critics who aren't even biologists, let alone experts in the field.Jwray (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would make sense to me considering that this is strictly a biological concept. Take for example species classification; sure there are arbitrary definitions of species. The difference between a wolf and a coyote is arbitrary. But this is not how one makes an argument, you see? One does not attack the definition and how it is arbitrary, otherwise words will lose all meaning. To bring my point home further, the FST (fixation index) between a European and sub-Saharan African are the exact same (1.53) 2600:4040:5584:1A00:49CE:2B4B:810E:EAB7 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-biologist critics 

message: There's nothing massively wrong with this edit, but I do think it's a bit of a WP:COATRACK (introducing content not directly pertinent to the present article). It's also just less clear for the reader than the previous summary was. Wikipedia is meant to be primarily composed of WP:SUMMARY of the relevant literature. I urge IP 2001:861:4B40:C8F0... to engage here rather than reverting to restore their preferred content. Generalrelative (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed edit