Talk:Human accelerated regions

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge or not to merge[edit]

Seeing as how we can expect that there will be many more HAR genes, I'd vote not to merge. In the end, these genes will most likely have a lot more to be said about them! InvictaHOG 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there are 202 HARs now instead of 49[edit]

From the latest publishings by Pollard et.al. --CopperKettle 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) I need to know what human and physical regions are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.150.68 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution?[edit]

This makes no sense from the article standpoint because it is implying darwin's theory of evolution is fact via usage of the word "evolution"...evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's not the end all be all, and this article, of all, should portray such an element as separate. Why not state there would have to have been 18 out of 83 gene mutations, instead of saying that we magically evolved in 6 million years from stuff that didn't evolve for 300 million years. I am definitely not a scientist, but you can't post facts without putting it into perspective of all potential theories or none at all. We don't have enough facts to turn evolution into a law. I pose a request for people to stop using it (and other theories) as a law to describe other things which are facts. Theories can never be used to define laws or truths (ok, maybe this might work somewhere, but definitely not here). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.108.3.103 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of question has been dealt with in detail many times elsewhere, eg. here. --Paul (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]