Talk:Microcephalin

message: Some sources say MCHP1 is in 70% of Europeans and East Asians. Other sources say 70% worldwide. Anyone know which one it is for sure? Jonathan Tweet 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think enough sampling has been done. With the margins of error, you could probably claim either, although in Sub-Saharan Africa it's well bellow 50%. Bendž|Ť 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably not a lot of difference between 70% of (ethnic) Europeans and East Asians and 70% of the world.--Michael C. Price talk 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The samples that have been studied are small, and non-random. Metzenberg (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The original paper said 70% have the derived form worldwide, based on 89 individuals.  This is consistent with an 84% occurrence cited in a later paper covering over 6000 white individuals in the UK - since it's lower in subsaharan Africa, it has to be higher outside of subsaharan Africa.  Warren Dew (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  70% of who? 

message: According to certain studies these genes may not be directly related to brain size development. Only their mutations cause microcephaly. The study states that the microcephalins have no known contribution to brain size variability, or to intelligence. therefore it may be incorrect to say that these genes are associated with brain development when infact it is only their mutated variants that cause abnormality.
*Normal variants of Microcephalin and ASPM do not account for brain size variability
Furthermore these studies have been criticized for assuming that these genes had anything to do with the upper paleolithic or tonal languages because the scientists did undertake any direct experimentation to test their hypothesis. Therefore it is just pure speculation by Lahn and co that these genes coincide with the upper paleolithic. And with an error of 23000 years means they could have occurred as early as 60000 years ago by which all humans may have still been in Africa or as late as 14000 years ago, long after the the upper paleolithic transitions. 
.
*The ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM and Microcephalin is not explained by increased intelligence
I am therefore proposing to rewrite its definition as a brain size gene.Muntuwandi 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good research. I only reverted your initial edit as it was unsourced. And be careful of editing referenced statements (e.g. first sentence of the article) such that they no longer concur with the source. I've now integrated it all more concisely. Bendž|Ť 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Jrickmyre, a lot of time was spent too on the original information by myself and other editors such as Bendzh. I appreciate your effort in cleaning up the terminology, however I believe you have inserted some information that may not be entirely accurate. You mention that microcephaly is characterised by  mental retardation when the article on Microcephaly indicates "Hyperactivity and mental retardation are common occurrences, although the degree of each varies". Finally your statements are very supportive of the view that microcephalin genes have been strongly selected whereas there is an equal body of evidence indicating otherwise. Muntuwandi 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Premature and misleading claims

message: This article was pretty thin when I first started editing it. It's gotten a lot better. Good work. Jonathan Tweet 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a lot better 

message: I just changed the first paragraph to remove the incorrect term "microcephalins" and to describe the disease in more detail while very briefly hitting on the science of the MCPH genes.  I googled "microcephalins" and found a NY Times article that used this term, so I'm guessing that's where it came from?  At the time MCPH1 was cloned, Jackson et al. 2002 gave it the name Microcephalin.  So, Microcephalin is only used as a name for MCPH1 not as the full name for MCPH (MCPH is the abbreviated form for Autosomal Recessive Primary Microcephaly).  The other MCPH genes have (or will have) their own gene names.  Is there any way to change the title of the article?  Based on the other information in this article, I assume that the topic is supposed to be MCPH genes. 
I also switched some of the gene symbols and alt symbols around to specify the correct gene names (e.g. ASPM is the actual name of MCPH5, so MCPH5 should be listed as the alt). Jrickmyre 08:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The genes that were listed in the boxes to the right were all of the genes linked specifically to Autosomal Recessive Primary Microcephaly (MCPH), and no other types of microcephaly genes were listed (there are several others).  Therefore, I made the assumption that this article was indeed meant to encompass the genes that cause MCPH.  The drastic changes were necessary to match the introduction to those specific genes.  Please see my reply to Muntuwandi above.Jrickmyre 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "microcephalins" 

message: Biol. Lett. (2007) 3, 157–160
doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0586
Turns out the entire brouhaha was bogus. The function of these genes seems in effect purely morphological, not mental. Of course brain anatomy affetcs the mind somehow as can be seen in disruptive alleles e.g. causing microcephaly. But whatever the connection between MCPH1 and ASPM and mental functions may be, it is drowned in random noise and stochasticity.
If your argument was driven by science and not intellectual short-sightedness, you should have expected this already. If it were that linear, we would have long "decoded" the mind instead of having shite. Dysmorodrepanis 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you addressing and what are you trying to say? The refuted brouhaha is entirely at the expense of racists, and has nought to do with linguistics. It simply concurs with previous research while confirming the limitations of previous findings. Bendž|Ť 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: :A derived form of MCPH1 called haplogroup D
Is that correct? I highly suspect that it was intended to mean a gene associated with the haplogroup D, not that it is called haplogroup D. --Extremophile (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this gene "a haplogroup"? 

message: That's a pretty rough transition into this section:
:"The research results began to attract considerable controversy in the science world."
Could someone write a smoother reference to the controversial parts?  I assume (but only from reading a couple of the linked articles) that these are:
:"this rapid spread suggests a selective sweep."
::As in, it is good for something, and if you don't have it you're somehow lessened...?
:"throughout the world except Sub-Saharan Africa; ..."
::Thus, these poor people have missed out... ?
Shenme (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Microcephalin#Controversy]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microcephalin. 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/20060628223706/http://harvester.embl.de/harvester/Q6RA/Q6RA50.htm to http://harvester.embl.de/harvester/Q6RA/Q6RA50.htm
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) 07:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)