Talk:Human genetic variation

Untitled
ALWAYS Amending in the name of PC/DISHONESTLY article previously read/Opened - - """Human genetic variation - Wikipedia Human genetic variation is the genetic differences both within and among populations. There may be multiple variants of any given gene in the human population (genes), leading to polymorphism. Many genes are not polymorphic, meaning that only a single allele is present in the population: the gene is then said to be fixed.[1] On average, in terms of DNA sequence all humans are 99.5% similar to any other humans.[2][3]..​"""

Numbers now buried/blurred further down. You are worse than PC, you are Truth Destroyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:4300:1F60:E543:B97E:8575:A7F (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Article length and style
N.B. This section was originally an RfC started by a banned disruptive user. Considering there had been no proper discussion of this subject prior to starting the RfC I have removed the comments of the banned user and changed it to a normal section for the talk page. The RfC appears to have been a way to circumvent proper talk page discussion, RfCs are a proper part of dispute resolution, but are certainly not a first resort. Let's have proper debate folks, cheers. Alun (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given it a quick look, but have not actually read it. I definitely think that the introduction is too long (and also, the references need formatting). The article as a whole does seem long, although I don't think that's automatically a bad thing. Please let me suggest that it would be helpful if you could list specific things that might be cut, and seek comment on those. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article doesn't seem too long, but does have issues with its level of detail.


 * Human genetic variation is a topic of considerable interest and scope (consider the International HapMap Project and other large-scale scientific efforts), so the current ~66 KB length is not too long in itself per WP:LENGTH. I agree that the lead is too long.  It should be reduced to three or four paragraphs per WP:LEAD; the bulleted list (if it is kept) should also be converted to paragraph form.  If Harvard style is being used in a WP article, it should be reserved for articles in the social sciences.  While human genetic variation may well be of interest to the social sciences, this article approaches the topic much more from the perspective of biological sciences.  Thus the current Harvard style referencing should be converted to inline numbered citations (i.e. the cite template).


 * With regard to meticulousness, less focus should be given to whichever researcher and paper made which claim. Instead, attention should be focused more narrowly on what the claims actually are.  The coverage of those claims seems to be at a suitable level of detail.  Refocusing shouldn't require much in the way of structural changes, but should be something like changing the article to read from an appropriate perspective.  As a related point, far fewer 3+ line block quotes should be used throughout the article.  If quotations are being used in science-related articles they are typically quite short, and even these are used sparingly. Emw2012 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mostly I agree with Emw2012, the article length is not really an issue, I think we should concentrate on explaining the consensus opinions of the academic community. So we should present the conclusions of the academics. In that regard we should concentrate on the distribution of variation and what that tells us about human evolution and dispersal. For example most biologists think that the high diversity within Africa supports the RAO model etc. Does need a rewrite, but mostly to change the perspective, as Emw2012 points out. Alun (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, the article is similar to race and genetics. Changes made here may be applicable to the race and genetics article as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I had a go at improving the intro. I removed the bullet points, removed some of what I thought were redundant statements and combined two of the paragraphs. Now we have a three paragraph introduction. The other thing I did was change the link to genetic variability to genetic diversity because that is the correct article to link to. Comments? Alun (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only skimmed through the new lead, but it looks much improved. The second paragraph should probably be split or tightened.  A paragraph measuring in at eight relatively dense sentences is too long. And while some background information is certainly called for, I think the lead goes too far in providing context in genetics, and ultimately comes at the expense of summarizing important points in the article.  For example, central elements of the first section ('Extent of human variation') seem to be missing from the lead; a summary style for this section seems like it would at least give passing (but specific) mention to SNPs and copy number variation. Despite these issues, the newly revised lead seems like a promising start. Emw2012 (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is too much basic info in the introduction. There's always a balance between wanting to engage someone who comes for basic information, and not wanting to bore someone who already has a basic grasp of the subject. Your probably right that it's too basic though. I'll have a think about it. Other suggestions:
 * "Causes" as the first section. Here we can have a basic discussion of how polymorphisms arise, and why there are different polymorphisms in different populations, it should include a deeper discussion of neutral vs. selective traits.
 * "Extent" section should discuss how much variation there is in humans and whether this is considered to be a great deal or not very much. It should address the theory that our relative homogeneity is due to a recent African origin, but also that gene flow may have always been high between human groups, further reducing differences between populations.
 * The "Distribution" section should discuss how this variation is geographically spread and the evolutionary forces that determine this. For example when there is selection, the distribution of a trait is determined by environmental factors, because of this they can be shared by human populations that are, relatively speaking, not necessarily genetically close. Then it should discuss how neutral variation is distributed, that it is greatest in Africa, probably indicating our species origin there, and that it gets diluted as we move further from Africa, probably due to a series of bottlenecks and founder effects as smallish populations continually founded new populations. Mention that the normal processes of gene flow have been at work, and may have reduced differences between populations.
 * "Quantification." Then there are numerous ways to measure variation, probably far too many to cover here. We should probably discuss within to between group variation, as per Lewontin, and include Long and Kittles (2003) refinement of Lewontin's FST calculations. It is probably a good idea to discuss clustering analyses, and say what they mean, and then include Witherspoon's analysis regarding interindividual differences between people. Discuss what these tell us about group vs individual differences. That's reasonable because it addresses the issue of classification, and whether the information that we have about human genetic variation has any utility regarding classification. This also incorporates the issue of biomedical research mentioned in the introduction. I'm not sure about the epigenetics section, that's not about genetic variation, it's about how genes are expressed.
 * Alun (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment.  I agree with others that it the article as a whole is too long.  Actually, as I read through it there seemed to be areas that could have been written as an essay in which the author is doing a little too much synthesis (WP:NOR) for an encyclopedia entry.  This could partly be stylistic, or just due to some very detailed summarization of primary research.  IMHO, issues related to the existence of genetic variation between humans, definition of the types of variations, and their extent between individuals or distribution in populations are perfectly valid and should be the main focus of the article.  Although the hypotheses raised by the patterns of diversity observed in present-day humans are fascinating, they are not necessarily "fact" and should be not be treated as such.  There could be a section at the end that discusses "implications" including: 1) the impact of genetic variation on research into the causes of human disease (i.e. SNP-based association studies), 2) hypotheses regarding the origin of humans in Africa and subsequent colonization of the Earth, 3) comparison to inter-individual variation among primates.  With some reorganization and shortening, this could be a very good article. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Medical Geneticist, firstly only one editor here has claimed that the article is too long. That editor is User:Wet dog fur, a now blocked sockpuppet of puppetmaster User:Jagz, an inveterate racialist pov pusher. So actually now you are the only one claiming the article is too long. Secondly, please be specific. It's not good enough to claim there are areas that appear to be a synthesis. State specifically what you believe to be a synthesis, state what is said in the article, and how it differs from the original sources. A synthesis remember must be something that no source states explicitly, but which may be the conclusion of an editor here from linking different sources together. It's quite possible there is some synthesis, the article uses text from many different people, using very different research papers. Some editors may have used primary sources and made mistakes while writing. But we need specifics. It's impossible to rectify any concerns you may have when you are so vague. On the other hand you could simply make the changes to the article yourself. I agree with you about the main focus of the article, I don't quite understand your point though, what you say should be the main focus of the article " actually is the main focus of the article as it currently stands. If you think the article diverges from this, then say how you think it does. As for what you call "hypothesese". One of the main stated aims of research into human variation is to gain an understanding of human evolution and dispersal, as such any hypothesis that is not fringe deserves to be an integral part of the article. I'm not sure I understand when you claim that hypothesese are "not necessarily "fact" and should be not be treated as such", you seem to be implying that some hypotheses are currently treated as "fact" in the article. Do you believe this? Can you be specific? Which ones are treated like this? Where does it specifically claim that these are "facts"? You should remove such claims, or at least flag them in the article as dubious. It is correct that the article repeats what experts say, if a reliable source claims that an observation supports, say, the RAO theory, then it is correct that we say that the source makes that claim. Saying an observation supports a theory is not the same as claiming the theory is a "fact". Alun (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alun, I responded in good faith to a request posted at WP:Genetics and I have no interest in getting involved in an edit war or a conflict over sock-puppetry. I didn't come here to hurt anyone's feelings by criticizing their writing or to intrude on someone's territory.   That being said, here are some specific points:
 * In reading the above responses, I see comments such as "the article as a whole does seem long" (Tryptofish), and "issues with its level of detail" (Emw2012). But if you say I'm the only one other than some sockpuppet who thinks the article needs to be shortened, that's fine with me.  I still say it needs major revisions, which includes shortening some sections in the interest of balance.
 * With regard to synthesis: it looks like the section on "Distribution of variation" and specifically the passage dealing with "Clustering analyses and what they tell us" is a synthesis of work from several different primary sources. This is the passage that I meant when I said that it sounded like someone's essay.  The use of quotations and counterposition between the findings of different research groups, suggests that someone has put a great deal of thought into trying to put together a coherent argument.  In my mind, that's synthesis.  Even if I'm wrong, and there hasn't been any synthesis, the passage is still too long and needs far fewer block quotations.
 * With regard to the focus of the article: in my opinion, the article should be primarily about Genetics and not Anthropology.  Sure, my expertise is in Genetics, so perhaps I'm biased.  The way to do this would be to present a more detailed discussion of human genetics and the types of variation we're talking about.  SNPs are described in a very short passage, and CNVs are almost an afterthought (and by the way, CNVs were first reported several years before the Watson and Venter genomes).  Alleles are mentioned in the first paragraph but not touched on in the main body.  The first paragraph also seems to imply that genetic variation is limited to the genes themselves, whereas a huge amount of genetic variation (most?) occurs in non-genic regions.  There is very little comment on other major types of genetic variation such as repeats (see VNTR as an example) which have been used in research for many years.  Discussion of the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA would fit better under this heading.  Any implications of this information in terms of Anthropological inferences could be handled in a later section.  The section on "Distribution of variation" could be shortened as indicated in #2.
 * With regard to "hypotheses": don't get me wrong here -- my point isn't to belittle the importance of information about human genetic variation when attempting to understand human evolution and dispersal. I happen to agree with the theory that modern humans emerged from common ancestors in Africa.  There's just a difference between the observation of the genetic differences between people and the inferences we draw from that observation.  What I am suggesting is to state the observations as facts, disentangled from any evolutionary or anthropological inferences that people want to argue about.  The point you make -- that data on genetic variation supports the RAO theory -- is perfectly valid and should be stated in its own section under the heading "Implications of research into human genetic diversity".  I agree with your previous comment to Oost that "the article is not about disease and drug research, it is about human genetic variation".  By the same token, "the article is not about theories of human dispersal, it is about human genetic variation."  As an aside, you mention that "one of the main stated aims of research into human variation is to gain an understanding of human evolution and dispersal" but I would argue that the taxpayers who fund basic science research such as the HapMap project are on the whole much more interested in understanding disease and disease treatments -- which justifies the inclusion of the medical implications of human genetic variation as a major section under the sub-heading "Implications of research into human genetic diversity".
 * Does that help? --- Medical geneticist (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the amount of detail is bit too much for the casual reader. If the same information could be simplified, it would be a lot easier to read. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks Medical Geneticist. I think what you have said makes a great deal of sense. I don't agree that the article should be primarily about genetics and not anthropology. Indeed I don't see any clear distinction here. After all we are talking about where population genetics, molecular anthropology, traditional anthropology, taxonomy and medical genetics meet. I don't see how population genetics is not a field of genetics. I agree that we could discuss different types of variation, but how this variation arises, is distributed and what that tells us about human evolution and dispersal is equally important to any essay about human variation as the various types of variation we observe, as is a discussion of how variation is distributed amongst human populations/groups. If I understand what you are saying, it is that we should only discuss interindividual differences in variation and ignore population differences. I don't see any dichotomy here. BTW I am also a geneticist, but we cannot pretend, in an article like this, that human variation exists in a vacuum and has no implications for medicine or human demographic history. Otherwise we might as well have an article List of genetic mutations or some such thing. On the other hand I'm pleased that you have pointed out specifically where you think the synthesis lies. I'll go back over it and check what the sources say. I'll also have a go at removing the quotations and cutting the section down somewhat. If we can precis the sections about population genetics, that would leave more space for the discussion aboout individual level variation that you'd like to include. How does that sound? Alun (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that population genetics shouldn't be part of this article or that the data(facts) should be presented in a vacuum... discussion of the implications absolutely needs to be there to make sense of the information. Just not intertwined with the data.  The problem is that the implications of the data are what raises controversy (maybe not amongst scientific circles but among certain segments of the public).  There should be no argument about the existence of genetic variation, which has been clearly demonstrated via HapMap and a variety of other studies.  Here is how I would outline things:
 * I. Types of genetic variability/variation
 * A. SNPs (detailed)
 * B. CNVs (detailed)
 * C. Y chromosome (detailed)
 * D. mtDNA (detailed)
 * E. Other variable elements (brief)
 * II. Distribution of genetic variation (focus on the data, not the interpretation)
 * A. HapMap project
 * B. Other studies (sorry, not my area of expertise)
 * III. Implications of observed genetic variation
 * A. Population genetics (expert consensus re: observed data)
 * B. Theories of human origins and dispersal (again, expert consensus)
 * C. Medical genetics (GWAS studies, differences in risk between populations)
 * D. Race (? maybe not)
 * Thanks for your comments. I think we probably agree on more than we disagree, it's just a matter of how to present the material for the uninitiated reader. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds like a good plan. Alun (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An additional point I made on MG's talk page that I think bears repeating here. We need to distinguish between genetic variation and genetic variability. "Variation means a change within population", Variability means "the state or characteristic of being variable". The tendency of some genetic elements to vary (i.e. their variability) is what generates variation. This article is primarily about that variation, i.e. the total amount of variation that is observable and measurable. Whereas I agree that we do need some discussion regarding the types of elements that vary, and the variability of those elements (i.e. that some have a greater propensity to vary than others), the article is not about variability within the human genome, it's about the variation produced by those elements in the human species, i.e. amongst and within populations. I think that should be clear. Otherwise we end up with a simple list of variable elements, and that's not what this article is about. Alun (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. Perhaps it would be useful to distinguish the types of genetic elements that are "variable" and those that show "variation" as a way to clarify this issue for the general reader.  Not in the sense of a comprehensive list, but as part of the discussion of types of genetic variability/variation. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly worth discussing that studies of variation usually analyse only a single type of variable genetic element. For example Rosenberg et al. (2002) are interested in what microsatellites tell us about variation, but a bit later they use microsatelites and insertion/deletions (indels) for their 2006 study of genetic variation in the Indian subcontinent. Then again Witherspoon et al. (2006) are interested in L1 and Alu mobile genetic elements. Other studies look at the variation in SNPs between and within certain populations. That links in with the observation that studying variation, i.e. measuring the total observable genetic traits within a population is highly dependent on our knowledge of how variation arises. We are discovering new variable elements all the time, and these add to the total variation that can be measured. Obviously many of these new variable elements will tell us nothing new about human demographic history. No studies of variation ever attempt to incorporate all types of variable elements, that would be extremely difficult. So usually they stick to a certain type of element to measure. I'll see what review papers I can find, there are quite a few from 2003/2004, but none I think from more recently. Alun (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MG, my version of your layout:
 * I. Types of genetic variability/variation
 * A. SNPs (summary style)
 * B. VNTRs (summary style)
 * (1) microsatellites (summary style)
 * C. CNVs (short summary style)
 * D. Other variable elements (brief)
 * II. Distribution of genetic variation (focus on the distribution, not the interpretation)
 * A. mtDNA studies (overview)
 * B. Y chromosome studies (overview)
 * C. Autosomal studies (overview)
 * D. HapMap project (summary style)
 * III. Implications of observed genetic variation
 * A. Population genetics (expert consensus re: observed data)
 * B. Theories of human origins and dispersal (again, expert consensus)
 * C. Medical genetics (GWAS studies, differences in risk between populations)

Maybe my emphasis is a little different, but the general layout and themes are the same. Alun (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, should we have a brief mention of the variability observed between different somatic cell types? For example the recombination that goes on in order to generate diversity in immunoglobulins? Or the fact that red blood cells don't contain any DNA at all? As I remember it there may be large diversity of genomes within the cells of each of us, as cells chop up the DNA of the genome to tailor it to the specialist needs of the differentiated cell. That applies to copy number as well, isn't copy number increased for some cistrons in some cell types in order to boost dosage of the gene product? Do we discuss the difference between variability of the genomes of different cell types that is deliberate (e.g. diversity of immunoglobulins) vs. variability that is due to mutation, e.g. mutations in transcriptional regulation of somatic cells leading to cancer? I'm worried that if we concentrate on the generation of diversity during normal/abnormal development/survival, then the article becomes about the "variability of the genome" (or as one of my lecturers used to call it "genomic plasticity") rather than "variation between and within populations". How much of the CNV diversity observed is generated during development and how much is inherited? I know that CNV is observed between identical twins (though presumably SNP differences occur between identical twins, they are just much more difficult to find). Well the above layout probably provides a framework for a good balance. We can work out the details as we go along. Alun (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "should we have a brief mention of the variability observed between different somatic cell types?" IMHO we might mention it briefly, just to say that this is not what the article is about. It should be about genetic variation among or between groups of humans; not within one human. If my white blood cells are genetically different from yours (either congenitally, or because of their different development), that is relevant to the article. If my white blood cells differ from my red blood cells, or from one another, that is not relevant to this article. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The current article is a collection of run-on sentences. Commas should not be used in the place of periods. Pooua (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments re sockpuppetry
Hi, popping in as an administrator here. I have no opinion on the article content, but I'm sorry that this article seems to be being targeted by a user with a string of sockpuppets. If it helps though, since the sockmaster is site banned, that means that any posts or edits from the new sockpuppets can be reverted on sight. This would refer to posts by Oost, Wet dog fur, etc. I'll leave it up to the other editors here to decide which posts to delete or not: It's your call on whether they're helpful or whether you want to keep them around simply to avoid having a "hole" in the discussion. If other socks show up, please alert an administrator, and then as soon as the latest sockpuppet is confirmed/blocked, the new sockpuppet posts can be deleted as well. Hopefully this will help reduce any confusion. Good luck, --Elonka 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elonka, that's good to know. I wasn't sure about deleting his posts here. That might help the conversation as long as no one has replied to him. Alun (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotations in article
This article has an excessive number of quotations for an encyclopedia article. Please begin the process of removing most of the quotations.

I propose that sections named "Variation within native groups" and "Variation between native groups" be added to the article. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a discussion of gene variation within and among populations. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Gene Cluster"
This article used to have a long and interesting section "How much are genes shared? Clustering analyses and what they tell us". It was about use of cluster analysis on data about alleles in different people, to examine the concept of human "populations".

But the section has been confusingly renamed "Gene cluster analysis", and moved to the article gene cluster. The gene cluster article however is (or was, before the move) on a completely different topic: the way genes with related functions cluster on the chromosomes. As the gene cluster article begins, "A gene cluster is a set of two or more genes that serve to encode for the same or similar products."

Creating a new article about the application of cluster analysis to allelic differences is fair enough. But subverting the gene cluster article to be about a different topic from its creator's intention is a mistake, particularly as the phrase "gene cluster" is generally used in the old sense of that article. Maproom (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do suggest the new article be named? --Saul Greenberg (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard. The best I can suggest is "Application of cluster analysis to human genotypes". This isn't good, I hope someone else can do better. But I think the phrase "gene cluster" is best avoided, as it suggests "cluster of genes", which is not what is meant. Maproom (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "Human genetic clustering"? --Saul Greenberg (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's good. Somehow it doesn't have (for me) the quite different connotations that "gene clustering" has. Maproom (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done: Human genetic clustering. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Text in this article was copied
The text in some sections of this article was copied verbatim from the article "The Use of Racial, Ethnic, and Ancestral Categories in Human Genetics Research", which is not cited. It states, "This article is in the public domain, and no copyright is claimed." --Saul Greenberg (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetics and human evolution section
I removed this section because it was off topic and already included in the Human Evolution article. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Measures of genetic variation
I think measures of genetic variation would in genetic distance, fixation index, cladograms. Genetic markers would include SNP, microsatellites, HLA, NRY and mtDNA. SNPs and CNVs in the current version are considered measures, when in fact there are markers not the actual measurement.

Causes of variation
The current version states:

I would suggest that causes of genetic variation include, new mutations, natural selection, founder effects, genetic drift, sexual selection and gene flow. Neutral variation is a "type" of variation not a cause of variation.

Wapondaponda (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alu sequences
Alu sequence is something to consider discussing in the article. Alu insertions have been implicated in several inherited human diseases and in various forms of cancer. The study of Alu sequences has also been important in elucidating human population genetics and the evolution of primates, including the evolution of humans. --Millstoner (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Humans are now 99.5% identical not 99.9% - links need to be changed
Biologists had estimated that two individuals would be identical in 99.9 percent of their DNA, but the true figure now emerges as much less, around 99.5 percent, Dr. Scherer said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.248.34 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem here is standardizing how to count that. A search for well edited secondary sources that lay out the methodology for estimating similarity between individuals would be important for improving the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Average heterozygosity
It appeared difficult to find modern data concerning average heterozygosity of protein-coding genes or so-called exoms either for individual humans or for human populations. May be it will be rather good to add such data if possible. --Glagolev (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletions
Maunus, I have reported you to AE for these deletions as well. There is an argument regarding race in the article so removing the most important and sourced views arguing for biological race is a gross violation of NPOV.Miradre (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, is your statements are simply false. Race is discussed in the overall section. It starts with "New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race". Your other edit comment and removal is equally bad: . Lewontin argument is one of the most important criticisms against biological race.Miradre (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted. You can report as much as you like - I think you will find the clean hands principle to apply. Lewontin's argument is not the most important argument against biological race, and nobody doubts that Edwards is right in assuring that genetic traits cluster geographically well enough to make it possible to predict an individuals geographic ancestry. Also nobody argues that it is impossible to predict with a large chance of being right which race Americans will consider a person to belong to based on information about his geographic ancestry and genotype. You are wrong when you state that e.g. Templeton commit this mistake. Also nobody denies that within group variance accounts for the vast majority of genetic variance worldwide - not even Edwards. A section called "Lewontin's fallacy" that gives the impression that Lewontins argument about in group variance being greater than between group variance has been refuted is a huge breach of NPOV. Lewontin was wrong in not recognizing that variation does give clues about geographic ancestry. This does however not necessarily imply that it is a good idea to use race as a proxy for geographic ancestry or that continental races are a valid taxonomic construct. Also you reverted the edits to the section of forensic anthropology which misstated the way in which Forensic Anthropologists actually identify skeletal remains and classify them according to race. They may think they find race, but as Brace and many others have shown they find only geographic ancestry and then make an educated guess about race.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a section called "Distribution of variation" where Lewontin's argument is stated. Now you want to remove the opposing view... If the title is wrong change just that... Are you a forensic professor with more prestige than Gill? Otherwise please do not say he is wrong... Miradre (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be a forensic professor to say that Gill is wrong, I can simply rely on the other Forensic professors who say he is wrong. In fact Gill himself has since stated that it is probably better to talk about ancestry than race. (and then he admittedly went back to do it again anyway as habit won out against his own better judgment).·Maunus· ƛ · 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That there is a critical view is not cause for removing a view from the article. Sources for all your claims regarding Gill. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you did not reply to me regarding Lewontin.Miradre (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He simply ran out of rational arguments to back up his particular ideology. ThVa (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the Lewontin's Fallacy section was removed, a paragraph should be added to explain the argument that because most genetic variation is within-group versus between group, classification of humans into races is not possible, and the rebuttals to that argument. --Maklinovich (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would make a lot of sense to describe the subject of in/between group variation and how it relates to the problem of classifying populations into genetic groups. As I've said Lewontin's argument isn't basically used to reject the concept of biological classifications of human populations - it is used to show that racial groups are neither homogeneous or have any specific biological essence. And Edwards agrees that this is the case, he just also states that geographic ancestry can be quite accurately determined, with which also noone disagrees.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "biological essence" is the very correlation of multiple variations! As you very well know, many aspects of biology don't reduce to a singular measure. Consider the whole field of taxonomy, for crying out loud. ThVa (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not what "biological essence" usually means, no. The concept of "Race" has never been used to classify people into fuzzy categories based only on a statistical correlation between a couple of hundred genetic variables. That is what populations are. In any case the place where you reinserted Edwards was not a place where Edwards argument has any relevance. Edwards is arguing against Lewontin's claim that racial groupings cannot possibly be taxonomically significant because their internal variation is greater than the between group variance. Edwards shows that that conclusion is incorrect, but he does not question the fact that in group variation is greater than that between groups. Edwards' argument is specifically about whether the structure human genetic diversity permits the possibility of discerning taxonomical groups and should only be discussed in regards to that question. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence section
I added a section on the effect of human genetic variation on intelligence. An editor later came and removed it because they claimed in was race related. I put the section back in because among other things, it is not race related. --Crystal labyrinth (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As you are a new editor, you may not be aware that there have been many attempts to unduly promote the view that race and intelligence are linked, and many tiresome arguments on that subject are ongoing. Your first edit was a minor change in a heading at Race and health . Your second edit was here, to add a section on intelligence . Of course many genes influence intelligence, and I suppose that a mention of that fact may be appropriate here. However I do not think the section should be developed with material seeking to introduce the race and intelligence issue into this article. I may have become a bit sensitive to the disruption caused by the R&I battles; if so, please accept my apology. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Political correctness does not stand, because the notion that race and intelligence are linked is numerically proven fact. Full 2/3rd of all Nobels so far went to pure-blood jews (even more, 3/4rd if one also counts the "halakhially valid" jews, who are only maternally jewish descended, but "goy" on the paternal thread). Yet, there never has been more than 27m jews living in the world at the same time. Regrettably, there are very few things of progress in human history that didn't came from the jews (and scottish, german mech engineers to a smaller extent). We, goyim are just dirt of the soil compared to the chosen nation of jews and we must accept that decision of the Lord with humility.


 * It is dishonest to present these hard-stated facts as disrespect for other races and colors! People respect the industrious japanese and koreans, even though asians are proven unable to innovate - which does not limit their exceptional usefulness for the entire human cause as perfect imitators and refiners of inventions. The negro received excellent phyisique and manly prowess to compensate for their lesser IQ, because the Lord is just. Do not be jealous of the chosen nation of jewish brains, because the Lord decides souvereignly what graces to various races he gives. Jews and aglo-saxons are apparently the dearest human races to Him. 82.131.133.7 (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Time to read some books on the topic .Moxy (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't help but laugh at this foolish kid above me. First of all, Nobel prizes have only been around for a hundred or so years, secondly, you won't see all those jewish innovations in ancient history, so if we were to assume at all that the jews were inherently more "intelligent" than any other race, then why do we not see their impact on civilization and technology within ancient culture?  Why do we primarily see non-jewish, hellenistic and roman innovation in Western culture rather than jewish?  Aristotle, Archimedes, Socrates, Plato, and dozens of others, all non-jewish geniuses of their time and considered to be some of the most profound human beings in history.  What about in more modern contexts?  If we are to assume that the jews are more intelligent, than why do we see all the major discoveries and innovations in science, mathematics, and biology happen at the hands of Caucasians and Asians?  Because of four reasons, the first being that the jews are not inherently smarter than anyone else, the second being that intelligence is not associated with race, thirdly because jews are not a race, and lastly, because Nobel prizes aren't always awarded for new/original scientific/technological creation.  Also, Let me just shoot down your little "2/3rds" claim real quick; there have been only 850 individuals awarded the Nobel prize, only 20% of them have been jewish, meaning that only 1/5th of them make up the actual Nobel Laureate's.

I agree, it is time to read some books on the subject, books that aren't outdated and completely fallacious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:9B80:297:4CD2:9148:9D5:3052 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Some quality concerns
Here are a few problems with the article: 1, the map of Africa is IMPOSSIBLE to place, where is that? Why is half the map blanked out? Some sort of reference on a world map would be in order. 2, picture of human faces as representing variation - is this for Martians that might be reading? Is there someone out there who hasn't noticed that humans look different from one another? It struck me as incredibly childish. And finally, this sentence: "Studies on identical twins and adopted children suggest that there is a substantial genetic contribution to intelligence." NO?!? You mean we are more intelligent than mice because of our GENES? 212.93.105.10 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no map of Africa in the article. Maybe what you are looking at is a map of the world, on an unusual projection (somewhat resembling a chicken)?
 * 2) The pictures of faces are really bad. Many of the differences between them are anyway due to different lighting, backgrounds, etc., not to genetic variation. I shall delete them myself unless someone convinces me that they serve a purpose.
 * 3) If you replace "intelligence" by "variation in intelligence among humans", the sentence becomes more sensible. Maproom (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the chicken map was the one I meant. The one that has the explanation of what it is one mouse scroll down :) But the intelligence sentence even with your caveat still sounds like a big duh to me - who would assume that our most complex organ, unlike our ears or genitals, would be exempt from genetic influence? But I guess some scientists did when they made a study of that (I guess another one of those "identical twins separated at birth" - is there really such a large number of them to make up a statistically significant sample?)212.93.105.10 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the mugshots.
 * "Who would assume that our most complex organ ... would be exempt from genetic influence?" Yes, indeed. But if a professional geneticist asserts that intelligence is influenced by genes, or worse, describes aspects of this influence, it is likely to be a career-damaging move. Safer to say nothing, or just make vague statements like the one in the article. Also, see Intelligence section above. Maproom (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to delete the photos of human faces, you should also delete images of wheat. There is no justification for removing the faces and leaving the wheat image. This article is about humans and not wheat. Apparently we cannot have photos of human faces in an article about humans. --Crystal labyrinth (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point - wheat now gone. Of course, you can have photos of human faces - but preferably, in a way contributes more to the article. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maproom: Please post some photos of humans in the article that illustrate phenotypic variation. --Crystal labyrinth (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Human phenotypic variation
I suggest that images be added to the Phenotypic Variation section of this article to illustrate the concept. The images of moths are used in the Phenotype article but we should use human images here. How about this image? --Crystal labyrinth (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)



And James Bond was right: some only live twice?
The BBC News now claims there were a total of 107bn 600mio people (H. S. S.) who ever lived since 50k BC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16870579

However, the genetical variance of Homo Sapiens Sap. race is only enough for 70bn different gene sequences according to Wikipedia, therefore some humans must have lived twice already! (and thus James Bond was right?) That's because at least a total 100 bn people have lived since 8k BC - 1 AD (very different estimates), by which time human genetical evolution was already over, with various colour races already developed and bearded sumers topping clay brick towers already back in 4-6k BC. 82.131.133.7 (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Dawkins' position on Lewontin in Race and genetics
Inviting editors to participate in RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin. BlackHades (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Lewontin's Fallacy reverts
The paragraph opens with: The distribution of genetic variants within and among human populations are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a "population,".

And in Edwards is saying: ''"most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data." These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.''.

These appear to be in direct conflict as one source is saying it's hard to define a population and the other is saying you study enough loci and you reach near 100% ability to define a population. So I'm supported some sentence clarifying the difference in viewpoints.Alatari (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article about Edwards's claims needs some more work and updating to current sources, but there doesn't seem to be a big problem here, based on what current sources on human genetics in general show. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's just an edit war going on now and no discussion of it on the talk page. I wanted to get a discussion started her to resolve the differing edits. Alatari (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont see any contradiction between the two statements. Edwards is not talking about defining a population, but about whether genetic loci cluster in a way that may make it possible to discern a taxonomic stucture if enough loci are studied. The problems of defining a population are well descried in the literature and do not dissappear because of Edwards argument. In fact they are only complicated furthe because the outcome of Edwards argument is that very low level populations can be discerned as genetically distinct populations such as regions of countries or even towns or neighborhoods. If enough loci are studied. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The restored (diff) sentence, "However, the statistical argument of Lewontin ignores the significant correlation between allele variations and other types of variations, which, as A.F. Edwards pointed out in the paper Lewontin's Fallacy, results in a high level of clustering of genotypes of different groups.", has several issues;
 * If Edwards finds "nothing wrong with Lewontin's statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification", what is the "the statistical argument of Lewontin" our article appears to rebut?
 * What are the "significant correlation between allele variations and other types of variations" that it is claimed "Lewontin ignores"? And what source makes said claim?
 * Where does Edwards report finding "a high level of clustering of genotypes of different groups"?
 * The well known fact that "~90% of total genetic variation [i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals], would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ~10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans." is not the fallacy of Edwards' essay. The unsourced claims are of primary concern. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's important to distinguish what has scientific consensus and what doesn't here. Lewontin's point that within group differences is larger than between group differences and his FST estimates does have scientific consensus. Edwards' point that if enough loci is sampled, a person's geographical ancestry can be pinpointed with near 100% accuracy also has scientific consensus. The scientific conflict here is what all this means in regards to the subject of biological human races. Meaning, there is full agreement in the scientific fields as far as the objective data goes, it is the interpretation of the data that is in dispute.


 * Lewontin's content that currently exists under "Distribution of variation" is the non-controversial aspect and does have scientific consensus. I agree with the point Maunus made in his edit summary that it's not necessary to include Edwards when the controversial aspect of Lewontin's argument is not mentioned. So I don't believe a direct response by Edwards to Lewontin is necessary in the section "Distribution of variation".


 * However, Edwards' point that if enough loci is sampled, a person's geographical ancestry can be pinpointed with near 100% accuracy, would be relevant to the article and this point does have scientific consensus and so should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Most likely somewhere under the section "Categorization of the world population". It looks like text similar to Edwards' point roughly already exists in this section so giving Edwards' a little weight in this specific section shouldn't be a big deal. But it should be included independently and not directly in response to Lewontin because this specific scientific argument by Edwards is not meant to be a refutation of Lewontin's FST estimates of within and between groups mentioned earlier. BlackHades (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou both for your input. I understand there is a controversy over races but pinpointing ancestry also includes ethnic groups down to tribal and family lines.  I like BlackHades last suggestion.  Alatari (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Human Biology and Anthropology Sources, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I have been revising this source list from time to time since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and hope to continue to update and expand it for years to come. To answer a frequently asked question, I maintain the citations list in my Wikipedia user space to make clear that I am responsible for what sources are listed and for ensuring that the bibliographic information is correct. I have learned about these sources from my own reading on this topic since 1969, from the citations in dozens of different Wikipedia articles I've read since 2010, and from browsing in academic research library systems and huge public library systems (all blessed with computerized catalogs during the last twenty years), and from using the Wikipedia Library to update Wikipedia articles. But this source list is always incomplete, as new research reviews and textbooks and handbooks about this broad topic are published every month, and I have hundreds of sources still to review and check to add to the source list. You are welcome to use these sources for your own research (on-wiki or off-wiki, of course). You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments I welcome through the source list talk 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 statements about preliminary genetic studies in the popular press often run far ahead of the verified scientific evidence. Enjoy your reading; see you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible separate section for Human Biodiversity (HBD) the taboo fringe science field?
HBD is much more than Genetic variation, we all know there is also a fringe science field that deals with both the soft & hard science of Human differences, much of which is taboo. It consists of discussion, analysis & theories and due to the taboo nature of this topic in society, it tends to allow much more diverse and controversial viewpoints. Example... www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com Quisp65 (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * HBD is not something that exists in the literature on human genetic diversity. It is more of a political blogosphere movement. It doesnt belong in this article at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Upon studying Wiki policy, I tend to believe a new page in this would fall under "Non-notable topics." It is the nature of the beast that taboo topics have a tendency to stay taboo on Wikipedia.  If someone thinks it might survive, I might consider creating it.  Quisp65 (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would nominate it for deletion if you did. Then the AfD outcome would decide.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Need citation for 10-30 million SNPs in human population
I flagged the text that claims there are 10 to 30 million SNPs in the human genome as needing a citation. The sources I can find claim 10 or 15 million, but these sources are somewhat old (from 2010 or so). It is possible the 30 million number is based on newer research. Is anyone aware of a source for the 30 million figure? Paulish (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I updated the numbers, with citations.--Carwil (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human genetic variation. 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/20051022081358/http://www.xmission.com/~wooding/pdfs/bamshad_race04.zip to http://www.xmission.com/~wooding/pdfs/bamshad_race04.zip

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) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Range of nucleotide differences
In 2004, it was estimated that the range of differences is between about 3 and 13 million (0.1% to 0.4% of 3.2G base pairs). In 2017, the number of known differences was doubled to "from 154 to 324 million". It stands to reason that the "3 to 13 million" range is now outdated. While it cannot be expected that the total number of 324 differences can be found between any two individuals [possibly this counts individual variants, so should be divided by 4 for a minimum of 80 million sites with differences], one would assume that the range estimated today will be of the order of 6 to 26 million. Clearly, this cannot be second-guessed, but this is plausible grounds for assuming the 2004 citations are outdated and some more recent reference should be looked for. --dab (𒁳) 19:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * never mind, I just saw there already was a 2015 estimate in the article, it was just the lead that was outdated, and quite as I have guessed, the average difference between genomes (based on 26 individuals from "diverse populations") is of the order of 20 million base pairs, that's 0.6%. --dab (𒁳) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

New proposed material
The material you proposed appears to say that because a disorder can be caused by a small genetic mutation, like in the case of microcephaly, that this justifies major intelligence difference between populations. People with microcephaly are however unlikely to reproduce and support their offspring until their own reproduction time to reliably transmit the mutation (assuming it was also reliably retained). The sources also appear suboptimal, cherry-picked, to form a synthesis, something which should be done for us by a reliable, modern secondary or tertiary source. What is called "significant difference between human races" is also not so significant. I agree with Skllagyook's revert. — Paleo Neonate  – 05:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually I said something different, microsephaly is an illness and it was only listed as an example. Please take a look at the scientific study from Bruce Lahn I've posted which shows that a new allele of ASPM has been developed about 6000 years ago which significantly changed the brain of the majority of europeans and in smaller ratios of other races. The findings are well done, no review disputed them and published on AAAS ScienceMag. A tiny mutation in comparison to the huge number of total basepairs caused one of the fundaments of the modern eurasian brain, increased it's volume significantly. That's what I mentioned, microcephaly isn't an advantage in natural selection, it's the opposite. To discuss the human genetic variation by looking at the quantity of changed BP instead of a functional analysis is a fallacy and makes the whole information useless. I believe the whole idea of this sort of approach comes from trying to destroy the discussion about human differences but that's unscientific. You can't treat tiny genetic changes that have significant effects with large genetic changes of dead or non important genes. You said I am cherry picking, that's right. Because we only have cherries at this point in science. I was showing an example of a tiny evolutionary mutation with a large effect to show the fallacy of to treating all human genes the same. AllNicksBusy (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your source is the 2005/2006 Lahn paper proposing that a certain Microcephalin variant(s)/ASPM in Eurasians gave them cognitive/brain size advantages. There (in response to the claim/proposal) are more recent studies finding this to not be the case — i.e. that the Microcephalin variant/ASPM was not associated with cognitive ability or brain size. Again, see (the papers I linked in my edit note): https://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5841/1036.1 and :https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/16/6/600/610971 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2104484/   (Also, the analysis and conclusions you add are not explicit in the source and thus are synthesis and original research, which Wikipedia policy does not allow. Skllagyook (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove “human biodiversity” redirect
Human biodiversity currently redirects here, yet the page doesn’t mention it. This gives the false impression that “human biodiversity” is (more or less) synonymous with the study of human genetic variation, when in reality it’s a racist pseudo-scientific fringe theory. This crucial distinction is currently entirely lost. klmr (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In fact, I’ve now restored the previous redirect of Human biodiversity, which was to Scientific racism and was changed without sufficient justification in 2018. Unfortunately that article also doesn’t mention the term “human biodiversity”, which makes this potentially still confusing. klmr (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted your change here, directing Human biodiversity back to Human genetic variation, as, most importantly, "biodiversity" is more or less a synonym for "genetic variation". There wasn't sufficient justification for User:Reason is Immortal to make that change in 2018 or your change in 2019. Since User:Dbachmann created the redirect in 2015, it has directed to Human genetic variation for all but less than six months, so that seems to be more the stable version. Note there's a 1995 book entitled Human Biodiversity by a notable anthropologist, Jonathan M. Marks. It's also worth noting that Human biodiversity, as an article, was successfully nominated for deletion in 2009: see Articles for deletion/Human biodiversity. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * “"biodiversity" is more or less a synonym for "genetic variation"” — In the context of human genetics, this is false. “Human biodiversity” is not used as a synonym for human genetic variation by mainstream biologists. Instead, it is used as dogwhistle by pseudoscientific racists. Since you link to the deletion discussion of the so-named Wikipedia article, I urge you to actually read that discussion, which makes the same point: the reason for the deletion was not that it was redundant with this article, but rather that it wasn’t sufficiently encyclopaedic. Marks’ book, which you refer to, notably is a book about racism, but at any rate it predates the modern appropriation of the term by racists, and as a single data point it wouldn’t establish the term’s meaning anyway. In the author’s own words: “I coined the phrase “Human Biodiversity”. Racists stole it.” — I need to insist on removing the redirect as long as this article does not explain this distinction carefully. Otherwise uninformed readers (e.g. you?) get the wrong impression that “human biodiversity” is a bona fide research topic rather than a code name for a racist endeavour.


 * It is inappropriate to redirect a neutral phrase like "human biodiversity" to a politically loaded article like scientific racism, especially when that article never mentions the phrase. I understand the term "human biodiversity" has become politically loaded in some circles, but I do find instances of it being used neutrally by mainstream scientists and academics, e.g Brian Boutwell . Yes, there are right-wing racists that manipulate scientific concepts for their malevolent ends. That are also many left-wingers (mainstream and not) that engage in blank-slate science denialism and recoil irrationally in horror from any discussion of human genetics, particularly about differences that might emerge between politically meaningful groups. We should keep things neutral and simple with respect to this redirect. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jweiss11. Human Biodiversity is a scientific, academic concept. You can see here for the ~1,700 studies on it, coming from all angles: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22human+biodiversity%22&btnG= . It would be POV to call all of it scientific racism via redirect. MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not neutral to pretend that a pseudoscientific term (politically loaded or not) is equivalent to a mainstream scientific concept. That claim is at least as much POV (but less accurate) than the redirect to scientific racism. The link you provide as evidence is not mainstream genetics, and the author is not a geneticist. Furthermore, skimming the scholarly articles found by MaximumIdeas shows that most of them are not concerned with human genetics either (which is no surprise to anybody in the field!), and many don’t actually use the term “human biodiversity” but rather juxtapose the two words in other contexts (e.g. human impact on (animal or plant) biodiversity). — How to proceed? At the very least this article should explain the meaning of the term “human biodiversity”, as the current redirect remains grossly misleading. Ideally it would redirect back to scientific racism, since that’s what the term refers to, and an explanation of the term would be added there. The current situation is untenable since it presents a patent falsehood and gives scientific racism a veneer of respectability. klmr (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * How about redirecting the term to Steve Sailer instead? That article already contains a (brief) discussion of the term and its origin and should thus be informative and respect WP:NPOV. klmr (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * klmr -- some are about humans and nature, but a large number are about human genetics, including the first link (to a book by an academic expert on the subject published by one of the most reputable publishers), the 3rd (to a peer-reviewed academic study on it), and so on. This is clearly an academic field; to redirect it to an obscure blogger (Sailer) would be the height of absurdity. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m having a hard time following your reasoning here. As mentioned, the book author himself acknowledges that the term now pretty much exclusively refers to racist pseudoscience. The “obscure blogger” is the one who coined the modern usage of the term (as noted on his Wikipedia page). You maintain the claim that “this is clearly an academic field”, yet I’ve repeatedly given evidence that the field is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. In fact, on the whole first page of scholarly references from your link, only one (the one you cherry-picked) refers to an actual study in the field of human genetics. Everything else is either discussing human impact on biodiversity, or diversity in a non-genetic context (the remainder is a paper by Marks about the same subject as his book, from before the term got misappropriated by racists). That in itself should show you that the term clearly doesn’t refer to human genetics in mainstream use, otherwise we’d expect most search hits to be about that. — Anyway, this debate is rather academic. At the moment, the redirect is actively misleading, and lends credibility to racist pseudoscience which, I hope, I don’t need to convince you is not an acceptable state of affairs. Hence my question, explicitly to you as well: How do you propose mending this situation?


 * klmr, I follow MaximumIdeas's reasoning and it seems sound to me. Take the eighth item in the Google Scholar search results, "Biodiversity of Human Populations in Mountain Environments" by Cynthia Beall (2002) regarding high-altitude adaptation in humans. This doesn't strike me a racist pseudoscience, but legit academic study. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The eighth item is what you're going by? So to summarize, the overwhelming majority of search results are related to scientific racism, specifically Steve Sailer's coinage of the term. The only use of "human biodiversity" in this article is in the reference section, and the term is not explained in the article at all. The sole usage is as the title of a reference work by Jonathan M. Marks, who has specifically and directly said that "racists stole it" from him. If this is really the best you've got, we will have to start and RFC or rake it to a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not as if all seven search results before it support the opposite conclusion. All either support the same conclusion, that "human biodiversity" is merely an synonym for "human genetic variation" (e.g. #3, #4, chapter 6, #5), are ambiguous at best (the Marks items), or are irrelevant in that they are about human interaction with non-human biodiversity (e.g. #2, #6). Jweiss11 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Since this was not the ideal venue to discuss this in the first place, and the WP:FRINGE issues are hopefully obvious, I have brought this up at WP:RFD. This discussion is here: Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 22. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Behavior/cognition
I was surprised to see this article didn't have a section on the role of genetic variation with respect to behavior or cognition. I noticed there was some discussion back in 2011 about including a section on intelligence, but nothing ever came of it. Is there any objection to a brief section summarizing research in this area? It seems like an important topic worthy of inclusion, though of course it will need to be handled fairly and objectively as it can be quite controversial at times. Stonkaments (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Be aware that per Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 70: There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above. Any use of "genetic variation" as a proxy for "race" will not be accepted. Most sources which discuss "behavior" or "cognition" specifically as a product of "genetic variation" is going to be fraught with problems. It is not merely controversial, it is closely tied to pseudoscience and scientific racism.
 * For this and other reasons, it would be best to discuss sources here first, before expanding the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations (Witherspoon et al. 2007)
Recently disputed content summarizing this paper was added in this mobilediff (sorry ☹️). Regarding claim (c) ("pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population"), the study finds that To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. The article cannot be then used in support of a claim like If you select two humans at random from two different populations, it is likely that they will share more genetic information between them than a pair of individuals randomly selected from a single population., even though they later say that even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population., because what they are saying here is that, if your study is sufficiently antiquated and crappy, you will get shit results if you try to put people into groups using such a study. The claim that This is because there is more genetic variation within populations than between them is however supported by the source, which states that The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. Incidentally, the sources used in this article are out of date and out of step with more recent genetics research.  Tewdar  20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * So, I see there was more shenanigans last night... I recommend removing this statement: If you select two humans at random from two different populations, it is likely that they will share more genetic information between them than a pair of individuals randomly selected from a single population. because it is not supported by the source, and keeping ...there is more genetic variation within populations than between them, but with a caveat from a more modern source that, despite this, modern genetic studies have found substantial average genetic differences across human populations in traits such as skin colour, bodily dimensions, lactose and starch digestion, high altitude adaptions, and predisposition to developing particular diseases or something like that.  Tewdar   07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, a quick scan of the article gives me "information" (!) like New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate about a possible biological basis for categorization of humans into races (emphasis added) - oh dear! How did this slip through the net?  Tewdar   08:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * To ip from Basingstoke: David Reich, Who we are and how we got here, p 255, says For the great majority of traits, there is, as Lewontin said, much more variation within populations than across populations and We cannot deny the existence of substantial average genetic differences across populations, not just in traits such as skin color, but also in bodily dimensions, the ability to efficiently digest starch or milk sugar, the ability to breathe easily at high altitudes, and susceptibility to particular diseases. Someone please block this clown if they keep edit warring, please...  Tewdar   08:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sigh once again, the Witherspoon et al. study clearly states that the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population...becomes zero with sufficient resolution (number of loci) when "geographically distinct populations" are studied. Now, whether you think this should be in the lede or not is another matter (I think the current summary is nice and non-technical for general readers), but this is what the study says...ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself?  Tewdar   08:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)