Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA

I&#x27;ll quote myself from a previous comment regarding epigenetics.<p>Epigenetics. It&#x27;s the make-file for your genetic source code. Certain conditions can cause certain parts of your genetic code to be uncommented or commented-out. There are actually a number of different kinds of comments (histone modifications [1]) - each set of marks particular to a different compiler, in different contexts. And these comments&#x2F;marks are copied with some fidelity to daughter-cells&#x2F;children along with a high-fidelty copy of the underlying genetic code itself.<p>So the genes themselves are not being heritably altered, rather the recipe for which gene is where, when can be subtly changed. But again, the same mechanisms that permit the change in expression of those genes during a lifetime can be subsequently changed in the next just as easily.<p>In this way you can store the code for some trait or capability over many generations without having it always be running. It can manifest itself in individual organisms as having very different phenotypes even with the same underlying code.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Histone_code" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Histone_code</a>

One thing that I don&#x27;t hear talked about in many of these discussions about the genetic components of race is how the mixed racial ancestry of many &quot;black&quot; people in Europe and the Americas impacts these studies.<p>MANY blacks in the Americas and Europe have significant European DNA. For example, even though my family identifies as black, my mother and her siblings are almost 50℅ European according to DNA tests.<p>How does this factor in when making medical decisions based on assumptions regarding race?

<i>&quot;Scientists and clinicians have increasingly tried to move away from simplistic racial and ethnic categories in disease research, the authors say, and – with the rise of precision medicine – in clinical diagnosis and treatment as well. Studies by the Burchard group and others have found that using genetic ancestry rather than ethnic self-identification significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for certain diseases.<p>But the new data showing that a large fraction of epigenetic signatures of ethnicity reflect something other than ancestry suggests that abandoning the idea of race and ethnicity altogether could sacrifice a lot of valuable information about the drivers of differences in health and disease between different communities.&quot;</i><p>The study shows that abandoning the idea of ethnicity could sacrifice information, but it still seems to indicate that genetic ancestry is more useful than race. Why does the article seem to conflate the two?

if culture impacts DNA then the concept of DNA being subject to mutation as the primary driving factor is at last beginning to crumble.<p>Also if culture impacts genetics then the idea there are races is clearly not the case, but rather loosely organized behavioral groups that can change in whatever direction their common culture takes them next.<p>All of the conclusions being drawn about the implications of this for your hobby-grudges about politics are beyond inane

In my understanding, the article was saying that who your ancestors are has less of an impact on DNA methylation (epigenetic markers) than where you grew up. It&#x27;s not about race, it&#x27;s about ethnicity---the cultural identity of the individuals, the environment they lived in. It&#x27;s not about DNA, it&#x27;s about how DNA is actually manifested, as represented by methylation markers.

Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that &quot;race&quot; is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has hindered medical advancements once again.

You know what&#x27;s crazy? My cousin is months away from finishing his PhD in pharmacy. Over thanksgiving break, he revealed to me that he had never heard the term &quot;epigenetics&quot;. I explained it to him. He works for a drug company modeling interactions for new animal antibiotics and he&#x27;d never heard the term &quot;epigenetics&quot;<p>My cousin is a bright, driven guy. There are reasons I distrust the western medical establishment.

Ugh, the alt-right supremacists are going to have a field day with mis-information around this o_o

Cultural changes rate are too infinitesimal compared to the time which is required for any genetic change to get a chance to form and propagate through a population to attain a stable presence (forming a distinct trait).<p>The probability that a certain cultural difference induced mutation could be formed (given that there is no flow of information from a phenotype back to genotype) is something incalculable.<p>What might work for a bacteria does not work for humans due to, you see, fundamental differences in the reproductive system and development.<p>There are a few main principles from genetics 101 to consider before making any attempts of &quot;doing science&quot;.<p><pre><code> 1. all mutations are *random* 2. there is no backward flow of information 3. environment does not alter DNA. random mutations do 4. propagating of a mutation is an extremely rare event 5. it takes *many* generations. </code></pre> To understand these principles think <i>why</i> we do not have much mutations of, say, hemoglobin or glucose pathway enzimes.<p>There is another fundamental principle: way to many hipsters in what they call &quot;modern science&quot;.