DNA repair, educate me, beneficial mutations

[Ask Jappleack]

Are beneficial mutations shown to be repaired less or the same? This is all I need to know, and how you know it is what I need to know.

And I doubt this informaiton is available yet, but do people who are anti-social end up making more transcription errors in dna? I wonder about a variation of this question too, because it could mean a choice to speciate. But I didn't ask the question correctly for lack of better word than anti-social. HM, but this wouldn't work out well because alot of humans live with other humans like and dislike them it'd be too hard to measure, unless we took a chinese person's mutation rate or something, then moved them with the same diet and after jet-lag is over with then the person has his dna checked again after some time of living as a minority, and not getting along with others (antisocial) is the key part, such as choosing a somewhat different lifestyle. And the group he is with should have solidarity, so he seems the outcast. But this could cause depression anxiety etc, which might end up causign dna damage, so I can't test it that way. Either way it would result in epigenetic changes from the environment.

So, I just need to study more into epigenetics, but the science doesn't explain everything with 100% accuracy yet. I want to know if epigenetics can cause a gene to mutate more. Directly or indirectly, doesn't matter for evolution.

So if belief is strong enough to change an epigenetic marker, and then in the future, a hudnred generations later, otherwise identical populations, how would they end up being different? Like two giraffes, one believes its better to eat from taller trees, another from shorter bushes. Then they evolved based around eating differently, int he same environment where they could mate, they won't because, 'he's one of them bush eaters' lol they would seperate from each other, and mate seperately, and their success will be measured based upon the type of food they chose, how well they eat it. And their epigenetics will change, so even if they have the same genes for now, some will have significantly shorter necks and coloration patterns. They have the same amounts of bones but they are smaller or something.

Like what darwin noticed from the galapagos bird species, I think it was galapagos. The birds all chose different food types, and evolved differently. Initially they could mate with each other, they are ******** birds trust me its the same environment they are in, they can fly. So, simply the ones born with slightly mutated beaks were ostricized by family, and joined the groups they fit in with.

But, epigenetics is based upon not dna change but environmental. The epigenetics, if based upon belief, such as two twin birds, identical initially, including epigenetics, the parents of them had a divorce, so now the twin birds had to move away, lol, and if those birds started eating different foods early on, they would have more epigenetic changes early on to suit the environment, so they end up mathcing, with ones that are biologically different somewhat. And they reproduce more with those ones, So then they have more babies, and now what, the two groups ARE seperate. Will their random mutation cause ostricization? Yes, it still will we have seen rascism in animals before. The loner gets ostricized.

But he would get ostricized for epigenetic changes as well, even if he is identical. But idk, I guess Im wishful thinking initially, but trying to approach my idea objectively, and this is as close as I can get. Because we don't know all about all aspects of dna, not even the brain do we know it all yet, and dna gave rise to the brain.

SO its still worth questioning. If dna mutations are random. Such as transcription errors. Or, such as if mutations that are beneficial are not repaired. IT would be determined by epigenetics, if anything. A mutation for a giraffe to get a longer neck, he says 'sign me up!' lol If the mutation ends up getting improved based on the epigenetic markers, which for all we know are influenced upon environmental decision making, such as choosing which berry to eat more, when they are both equally appealing in all ways but have their own uniquenesses such as shape difference, and they know they are identical except shape, but they are identically easy to grasp for all species. Then a choice here, if deemed important, would we get a marker here?

And I forget the word, when i say marker, sorry about that, but I want to get my idea down before I forget it, not google the correct term right now.

THough now I have time lol, they jsut call them epigenetic markers, okay then lol.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22359284 this is interesting, so what if epigenetic markers are markers for what we want to get a mutational change, would our bodies be like, don't repair here? It might be experimental lol, idk Im just theorizing possibilities, I may overlook a thing or two that I have or have not heard of yet, to come to a better understanding.

Now Im thinking of self-programming robots. What if the robot is a robot the using radiowaves controls other robots, and those other robots have sensors only in relation to their position, and are small and bug-like? They would swarm a room to find out the shape of the room, and it would recognize itself as its room somewhat. This is the robots understanding of its limitations, based on its shape, but it has an ever changing shape, which means its limited to its environment. The human mind is similar. Except these swarms are 'feelings' and experiences of apst swarms. And possibly instincts, are long proven swarm types. Like how a baby crawls, it doesnt learn that from a human. Figures it out itself. The same each time. SO its similar to the brain, imo. But this is at a genetic level. Perhaps thats the subconcious lol.

And dna in general is the collective concious.

But anyways lol. What would viruses be then? lol

Yeah im not crazy I just like daydreaming lol.

[Phenylketonuriak]

Your ideas are not far-off, and some of them are, in a sense, correct. However, there are some fundamental mistakes. The most important one is that it is impossible for an organism to determine whether a mutation is beneficial or not a-priori. The mutant protein needs to be expressed and whether it propagates or not will depend on the survival of the cell(s) containing it.

Through epigenetic modifications one can regulate whether a gene is expressed or not. Genes that are being expressed will become subject to transcription-assisted mutagenesis (TAM) because the single stranded exposed DNA is more likely to mutate than the tightly packed double stranded form. The expression profile of our metabolic proteins tends to change depending on the contents of diet and gut flora. If two individuals (lets call them X and Y) of the same species choose to eat different foods over prolonged periods, the proteins expressed by X to digest its food will have a higher mutation rate, and the same is true for Y. This basically COULD mean that "if you are using it, you are more likely to evolve it".[1][2] HOWEVER - while extensive research has been done on TAM, it is unclear (to me, at least) whether these mutations will be propagated in the germ line. If the expression is increased only in the cells lining the stomach, intestine, and tongue, then the sperm cells and ovaries will not change at all and TAM would be irrelevant for the evolution of sexually reproducing species. Whether particular mutations will affect the germ line or not is a very important thing to consider when thinking about evolution.

Your best bet for understanding what you want to understand would be to look up papers on how different psychological stresses will affect the expression profile (also, how will it affect the DNA repair machinery), and what stress anti-socials go through. I have tried looking it up and did not find many good papers, so I can just leave you with "I don't really know." Good luck.

[baby bijou]

Well it's been shown recently that humans experience genetic change on the small-scale level with every social interaction, so while it is accurate to say that anti-social people have minuscule differences in their epigenetic makeup (and without quoting said article, I believe the genes which changed their expressions were mainly to do with the immune system - a bypass of sexual engineering), it's probably unlikely due to transcription errors - any on a large scale would probably manifest themselves as behaviour we call autistic, paranoid, bipolar, or a plethora of diagnoses. So yes…and no. It's sort of that gray fuzzy area where just have to pin one thing down or another.

If genetic changes cause ostracism, I figure that would be dependent on if we are speaking about sentient/social creatures or more or less automatic behaviors.
In a society of social creatures who make a culture, there are a plethora of reasons to make an individual an outcast - some biological, some philosophical, and some that seem just downright random. It almost seems that genetic change is not regarded in societal sense, at least on a base level. What matters more is the ability to fit into the community rules - if a genetic change is major, it will probably lead to ostracism, because it is strange to the community, however that scenario is not always the case in epigenetic change. In animals such as birds, I don't really think any change other than major detrimental change will have too much effect on their status…obviously the more prone the new gene is to survival the more prone that individual is to be able to mate.

Epigenetics may serves to help us better understand evolution, in all of rapid and slow expanses. Are some mutations, however large, kept? Why or why not? I think every specific situation has its exact causes.

And for your robot idea….it is certainly a simplistic way to explain the human experience.

[Ask Jappleack]

baby bijou

Well it's been shown recently that humans experience genetic change on the small-scale level with every social interaction, so while it is accurate to say that anti-social people have minuscule differences in their epigenetic makeup (and without quoting said article, I believe the genes which changed their expressions were mainly to do with the immune system - a bypass of sexual engineering), it's probably unlikely due to transcription errors - any on a large scale would probably manifest themselves as behaviour we call autistic, paranoid, bipolar, or a plethora of diagnoses. So yes…and no. It's sort of that gray fuzzy area where just have to pin one thing down or another.

If genetic changes cause ostracism, I figure that would be dependent on if we are speaking about sentient/social creatures or more or less automatic behaviors.
In a society of social creatures who make a culture, there are a plethora of reasons to make an individual an outcast - some biological, some philosophical, and some that seem just downright random. It almost seems that genetic change is not regarded in societal sense, at least on a base level. What matters more is the ability to fit into the community rules - if a genetic change is major, it will probably lead to ostracism, because it is strange to the community, however that scenario is not always the case in epigenetic change. In animals such as birds, I don't really think any change other than major detrimental change will have too much effect on their status…obviously the more prone the new gene is to survival the more prone that individual is to be able to mate.

Epigenetics may serves to help us better understand evolution, in all of rapid and slow expanses. Are some mutations, however large, kept? Why or why not? I think every specific situation has its exact causes.

And for your robot idea….it is certainly a simplistic way to explain the human experience.

if theres a large enough nuetral mutation which leads to benefits and drawbacks, but more benefits, it will probably try to not be adopted, but succeed, such as johnyy depp lol his personality quirks make him famous for replicating. He is rich, but he shows up to work drunk, he says he is on a contract with his employees so he is allowed to film while drunk. He if hard to work with, but for the sake of benefit, they work with it. Thats what society is like, people with issues can still be succesful. and they can learn how to deal with their issues because we are more intelligent than we commonly acknowledge. Because if someone with issues can rise that far, couldn't everybody? But if everyone did it, no one would watch the billions of productions lol, thus youtube. But if people don't try they cant succeed. But there is a hierarchy running our society I notice now, such as for every scientist theres needs to be workers in more than one field working to produce the things they need to be scientists.