Jump to content

Talk:Molecular anthropology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evolution and evolvability (talk | contribs) at 11:17, 13 January 2017 (ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProject Genetics

WikiProject iconHuman Genetic History (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Changes

I have added a history section to the article, removed the stub. I have added several images in support of the history section. Added 25 references supporting the history although there is a review of anthropology history written I drafted this history before it was published, and I am familiar with the papers... so. I think many of these papers are good reads. The history section is missing the exact reference to molecular anthropology, I believed it was coined at a conference in 1962 but cannot find the reference. A little trivia. My spelling is bad and grammar sometimes as well. I generally correct things a week after the fact so . . . . .PB666 yap 03:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I recommend are sections.

The lead on the page is very weak and the reference is not in wikireference style nor was it placed. I can rewrite the lead if that is desired. PB666 yap 03:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Changes

I've added a sentence or two to the introduction explaining certain modifications that have been made subsequent to the studies which have stated a 98% commonality between the human and chimp genomes. Let me know if any editors feel what I have added is contentious. -Ano-User (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

>>>The process of recombination, if frequent enough, corrupts the ability to create parsimonious trees because stretches of amino acid subsititions (SNPs)


I think "because" is a typo..  "between" makes sense  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.184.24 (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]