Talk:Population genetics

message: I just rewrote the mutation section to improve the balance, add structure, and remove some annoying non sequiturs. I welcome comments.  It is maybe 20 to 40 % too long relative to other topics. Even though I wrote this, I feel like there is too much focus on mutation qua deleterious pressure vs. mutation qua source of novelty, but that kinda reflects the field of pop gen.  Anyway, the way to make this better, I think, is to shorten it and link out as informatively as possible to mutation-related topics. Dabs (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutation 

message: Given that all (well, most) modern population genetics revolves around coalesence theory (The Coalescent), there really ought to be a page....There is (for example) already a page on Ewens's sampling formula --DJO 22:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the word the should probably not be included in the article title, and if it's included, coalescent should probably have a lower-case initial c. Michael Hardy 22:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken - I think that since people usually refer to The Coalescent, it should probably be The coalescent in Wikipedia, or even better Coalescence theory--DJO 08:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer coalescence (genetics). - Samsara 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Coalescent

message: : No! Quantitative genetics is a study of the genetic basis of complex (i.e. multi-gene) traits. This may be evolutionary, but more often that not is in terms of artificial breeding/selection. Population genetics is a study of the causes and effects of genetic variation within (and between) populations.--DJO 21:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this article get merged with [[quantitative genetics]] ???

message: It'd be nice if the "dysgenics" article could have a better explanation of it's status in current population genetics. I've looked up some stuff at a library, but didn't find anything much :-P I can't tell if it's an avoided subject, something disproved ages ago, or just something nobody cares much about. Flammifer
:I've made it a genetics stub. - Samsara 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dysgenics 

message: Dear All,
I've done a considerable amount of work on the epistasis article today (compared to what was there previously). I am hopeful that we can let it stand as a proper article rather than a stub if one more person who knows anything about it puts in an equivalent amount of work. I'll try and find a few published references for it. Please edit away, and make suggestions on the talk page as to what else might be included. Genetic interactions (where some of the original material contributed to epistasis has found a new home) could perhaps be improved at the same time. Thanks. - Samsara 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Epistasis - nearly non-stub

message: Overpopulation Inbreeding is a fifth aspect of population genetics which is missing from all the models described so far in the article.  It was developed by Wade Gielzecki.
Illustration of the population genetics:
Take a population of couples that have a random number of children.  There are no restraints on growth to the population.  The average number of children per generation the couples have is 2, the maximum is 4 which say is had by one couple only.
In the second generation the children in the 4 child family mate with children from 2 child families and these new couples produce 3 children each, whereas the rest of the population again has an average of 2 children.
In the third generation, the 12 children in this largest family line are under evolutionary pressure to inbreed, because if they do they will have 3.5 children on average, whereas otherwise they will have only 2.5 children on average.
The more generations pass, the more often inbreeding accelerates the growth of the largest family.  Natural defenses to inbreeding built up in circumstances of restricted growth are lost to the inbred line.  A syndrome develops where the inbred line rejects non-relatives as mates.
The largest line overwhelms the rest of the population until the population is far more homozygous (inbred) than it was at the start.
In n generations a subset of the population having c children has offspring on the order of c to the n th power.  The subset with the most children outnumbers the rest of the population in not many generations, making the population completely inbred.
This inclusion to population genetics is backed up:  1) Human first cousin marriages indeed produce more children than average.  2) Studies of human genetic variation find no subheterogeniety within races.  3) Aboriginals are relatively outbred.  4) Other primates than man are far more outbred.  (eg. Chimpanzees have 10 times the heterozygosity of man.)  5) Dysgenia studies find human dysgenia has consistently been the case for the last century except for the World War II years when the population grew explosively in the last century.
This genetics model predicts declines and long periods of stability whereas natural selection does not.  It is an additional factor to existing models postulating genes for the number of offspring humans and other animals have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.217.177 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overpopulation Inbreeding 

message: I believe the probability of a new beneficial allele going to fixation is 2s, and edited the article to say so, with a cite to J.A. Orr; nevertheless, anyone disagree? Evercat (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  s or 2s 

message: Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in human molecular genetics that helps trace the lineage of people living in various places on the earth. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate  to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The  Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources. 
The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." 
The guidelines, consistent with the  general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." 
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. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New review articles on human population genetics based on studies of ancient DNA 

message: Remove this section? The evolutionary forces determining mutation rates are far from settled within the literature, with my favorite being drift. While the section could be re-written to give a more nuanced view of how mutation rates evolve, the whole section seems tangential to the main article on population genetics. LarryBoy79 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove evolution of mutation rate

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion