Talk:Human evolutionary genetics

2012 comment
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)

Why a new article?
The article on human evolution is focused on the fossil record. This is fine. However, considering the vast amount of molecular data on the human evolution today (e.g. comparative genomics, genetics of great apes, mitochondrial Eve, selection of particular loci, etc.) it is time to start a site dedicated on looking at human evolution from the molecular perspective.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Molgen (talk • contribs) 08:47, 26 August 2006

Genetic diversity

 * Genetic diversity in humans great apes.
 * Genetic diversity in different humans populations.
 * mtDNA
 * Y chromosome
 * X chromosome
 * autosomes
 * Traces of migration

Mechanism of molecular evolution

 * Protein evolution
 * Gene expression
 * Less-is-more hypothesis
 * RNA evolution

Selection in human evolution

 * FOXP2
 * Gene loss of CCR5
 * Gene loss of Caspase12
 * Skin color determining loci
 * Blood groups
 * Prion protein
 * MHC genes

Improving current chapters

 * more data on karyotype
 * more detailed phylogeny

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Molgen (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 August 2006

Note removed
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)


 * 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)

Sequence divergence between humans and apes
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)


 * 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)


 * Under Divergence times: "The authors consider ...". Sounds like a textbook to me. Learning a lot though! Alastair Haines 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was just reading wikipedia for some background info on a genetics assignment, and noticed the section mentioning the "as low as 70%" similarity between humans and chimps. So googled this and found a website linking that statistic with *one* 'scientist' (a creationist), Richard Buggs. This is the site: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/discoveroids-no-facts-please-were-creationists/ Can anyone shed some light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.108.129 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the "as low as 70%" similarity came from, but it's not remotely supported by the chimpanzee genome paper that was cited (of which I was an author). That text did look like it was contributed by a creationist, or at least someone who did not understand much about comparative genomics. I have tried to repair the damage to make it say something at least sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glipsnort (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Chimpanzee terminology
I am partially re-reverting the last edit so that the term "chimpanzee" is used to include both bonobos and chimpanzees. It may be that in some places the word "chimpanzee" is used to refer to common chimps, but an encyclopedia should not encourage incorrect terminology. The chimpanzee article is very clear that the term refers to the genus, and the word "Common Chimpanzee" is not difficult to understand. — Epastore (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the genus pan is not incorrect terminology. See the bonobo page for the confusion the term chimpanzee can cause. With pan there is no confusion. Yes we know that pan=chimpanzee, but why the fight against pan when it is more clear to the layman? Again it is not incorrect terminology to use pan. Nowimnthing (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article works quite well the way it is. Instead of accommodating ignorance, it works to correct ignorance by making clear the distinction between chimpanzee and common chimpanzee. Also, it is consistent not only with the rest of Wikipedia, but also with itself. Otherwise, it would refer to orangutans as "two species of genus Pongo." — Epastore (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Humans have been classified by biologists as great apes and are one of the species in the family Hominidae along with only a few other species. The Hominidae include two distinct species of chimpanzee: Pan paniscus (bonobos) and Pan troglodytes (common chimpanzees), two species of gorillas (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla graueri), and two species of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii). 


 * I still don't think it is accomodating ignorance to emphasize the differences between bonobo and common chimpanzees, but I won't argue anymore on it if no one else has any objections. To me both ways it was written were technically right, it is just a debate on which is clearer per Guide_to_writing_better_articles. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Roughly one half of these changes occurred in the human lineage."[clarification needed][citation needed]
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)

Effective population size

 * 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)

@Taw: No, all data points that it is not higher. It is likely far lower, instead. I think you are using the logic that the census size of humans is far larger (8 billion), so it must be that the effective size is higher, but this is flawed. Selection, bottlenecks, and inbreeding, for example, can cause the various estimates of effective size to be FAR lower than census size. Anonymous 18:20, 11 August 2019.

A matter of units
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)


 * Thousands. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hours, as in there were no humans in Alberta until yesterday evening. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Too easily quote-mined
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)

Source list of possible use for editing this article
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)

Some specific sources for improving this article and related articles










Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources for graphics placed in this article?
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)

https://www.g3journal.org/content/9/7/2199 (paper of 2019)
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)