Talk:Human evolutionary genetics

message: Your entry is now Obsolete/Wrong.
-
""1. Genetic distance. Given below the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%,[3] or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans.""
Human Genetic distance WAS previously estimated at 99.9% similar or only .1% variant. 20x the 2% in Chimps.
However, Venter and the genom project now have found it's 7x as variant and Ventner sys more like "99%"
So Some human groups would be at least a third, perhaps Half Way to Chimps.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070904_human-variation.htm
I don't expect you PC lackey's to post the truth, even Though it is FIVE Years old now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.2.130 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 comment

message: Removed from article:
:Please note that this chapter will not deal with the question of identifying the genetic changes that made us human.
Does this indicate a cut -n- paste job or what? Vsmith 01:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a bit suspicious, esp considering the size and complexity of the firt edit of this page, but obviously a lot of work has gone into it, I don't think the graphs are copied. I don't know enough about the genetics to work on rewording much though. Nowimnthing 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note removed 

message: Quoted from article: "The complete mapping of the chimp genome in the summer of 2005 showed the genetic difference with humans to be 1.23% (ie 87.77% similarity)."
1.23% + 87.77% = 89.00%  So what happened to the remaining 11% ?  Or was 87.77 a calculation error for 98.77 ?  Greensburger 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, more detective work from us Wikipedians leads to the conclusion that the text was scanned, and either includes typos from the original, or maybe OCR errors. Conclusion: there is probably excellent verification for the article, perhaps too excellent. We should check the sources cited. Anyone near a biological library on a regular basis? Alastair Haines 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Divergence times: "The authors consider ...". Sounds like a textbook to me. Learning a lot though! Alastair Haines 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence divergence between humans and apes 

message: This would be because mutations occur at a roughly constant rate, so mutations in the chimp branch and mutations in the human branch should contribute roughly the same amount to the overall difference, hence "roughly one half".
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but if the above is correct, it seems easy to find a clearer expression and also kind of remove the need for citation (as I see it, this should be biology textbook stuff). I'll try myself on a clearer expression. Revert if due :) 84.115.170.59 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roughly one half of these changes occurred in the human lineage."[clarification needed][citation needed] 

message: :the effective population of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was estimated to be ~52 000 to 96 000. This value is not as high as that from the first study (Takahata), but still much higher than present day effective population size of humans.
Surely effective population size of humans is far higher than that. Was the sentence meant to be "much higher than present day effective population size of chimpanzees" ? Taw (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective population size 

message: In the map of human migration "Coloured rings indicate years before present" humans reached northern Alberta in the blue-ring period 9-7 years ago.  Should this be thousands? millions?  I think thousands, but I don't actually know. Mwilson-to (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thousands. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A matter of units 

message: The first paragraph of #Sequence_divergence_between_humans_and_apes is too easily quote mined, considering that the first sentence of the next paragraph calls into question the primary assertion of the first paragraph.  Please consider rephrasing it.  I don't edit articles myself because I'd rather not get involved in the politics of wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.174.191 (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too easily quote-mined 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that 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 it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source list of possible use for editing this article 

message: *
* 
*
*
*
Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some specific sources for improving this article and related articles 

message: Hi, everyone, 
I've just visited Wikimedia Commons to check the sourcing of the graphics images found in this article. In the typical case, the graphic was made years ago, says "own work," and cites no source. I've seen what I think are more up-to-date and data-based graphics in some of the current reliable sources on human evolutionary genetics. Do any of you have sources at hand for checking whether the graphics match the best current understanding of research on the topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for graphics placed in this article? 

message: Any reference to the paper "Humans and Chimpanzees Display Opposite Patterns of Diversity in Arylamine N-Acetyltransferase Genes" of 2019? 89.180.35.58 (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://www.g3journal.org/content/9/7/2199 (paper of 2019)