If DNA gets corrupted through aging, how is it possible that children gets fresh one?

> "Come on man"
> Posts a random wikipedia page to like the one thing they know about genes

There is no way you mean "has exclusively non-harmful recessive genetic errors" when you say "terrible genes". Most people have a lot of genetic errors, each of which contribute small detriments on your over all health. If you lose the genetic lottery and have "terrible genes" we arent talking about recessive alleles. Thats not the typical genetic cause of poor health. Its exceptional.

First of all, I'm not the guy who posted the terrible genes thing, I'm assuming he meant genetic diseases. Carriers of genetic diseases is the most obvious example of people with "terrible genes" that don't exhibit a terrible phenotype.

>If you lose the genetic lottery and have "terrible genes" we arent talking about recessive alleles.
Says who?

>Thats not the typical genetic cause of poor health. Its exceptional.
"poor health" implies disease. Some recessive genetic disorders can be masked in people with diseased genes and unmasked in their offspring. Recessive genetic diseases are not uncommon, they make up a significant portion of genetic diseases. I really don't get the point you're trying to make.

Are you implying that terrible genes = ugly appearance or something like this? Because that would be irrelevant.

the healthiest man in the world
genetically wouldnt be by definition if he produced shitty gametes

>obvious example of people with "terrible genes"

Well then I guess we consider different things obvious.

> Some recessive genetic disorders can be masked in people with diseased genes and unmasked in their offspring

Yeah I know.

> I really don't get the point you're trying to make.

Heres what I am talking about:

You have a colossal amount of genetic data, and youve inherited at least thousands of genetic errors from your immediate ancestors. The probability that they do anything good is basically zero, and the probability that they are slight impairments is pretty high. You have thousands of genetic mutations, that realistically no one will discover, which at best do nothing, but more than likely make you slightly less fit in some way. They make it a little more likely that youll get a heart attack, or theyll make it a little bit harder for you to breath, and more likely than not, they will make your brain work a little bit worse, impairing your intelligence slightly or contributing to a behavioral disorder.

So lets add up all the detriments to our health, and look at it like a pie chart. Most of it will be due to genetics. Now consider just the genetics, most of that is due to those thousands of small genetic errors. The "recessive carrier allele" category is almost none of the genetic factors to disease.

You're arguing definitions, rather than making an argument based on the definition provided by .

"Healthy" genes for him means genes that do not affect the gene carrier detrimentally. If you define "healthy" genes as genes that when combined with other genes can cause disease in offspring, then the definition of a healthy man narrows greatly. It's also kind of nonsensical to me, for what it's worth, because under that definition the "health status" of a gene would depend on hypothetical combinations with other genes that could ultimately confer detrimental effects. The definition in is much more solid and does not depend on hypothetical crosses.

Anyway, my point is that you're opening a whole other string of arguments by using a different definition of "healthy", which is irrelevant to my later posts.

Ok I get what you're saying, that many diseases have their roots in low effect size genetic mutations (or SNPs) that make it more likely for the individual to develop a debilitating disease, not specifically a genetic disorder (100% caused by genes). Many of the diseases that I assume you're thinking of have environmental origins as well though, it's worth mentioning I think.

Anyway, the problem is the different definition of "terrible genes" you give in your post in contrast to . He was obviously referring to a few specific genes being terrible (if my recessive disease interpretation is correct), rather than your "accumulation of mutations" definition of terrible genes. Since he didn't direct his "terrible genes" to specific diseases, I guess you are correct that it's not that obvious and I will agree that it could be phrased better.

> I guess you are correct that it's not that obvious and I will agree that it could be phrased better.

Yeah, but maybe I am being the weirdo. I think the genetic factor I described is less well known.

Either way thanks for being respectful on the internet my friend.

Why don't all veld have this mutation correction device if it is better?

I cant speak to the exact biology you two are talking about, but evolution doesnt select for organisms which are better at repairing their own DNA. Life span and dead are evolved traits, and if the optimal age of death is around 40 or so, evolution will select for whatever traits result in a death at age 40, including cancer.

of course that children will almost certainly receive the same DNA mistmaches of the mother and the father

source?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germline_mutation#Mutation_frequency_is_lower_in_the_germline_than_somatic_line

Right, but you said "special mechanisms and enzymes". I'm pretty sure that germ cells use the same forms of DNA repair mechanisms like NHEJ and HR as somatic cells.

>This feature appears to be due, in part, to elevated levels of DNA repair enzymes that remove potentially mutagenic DNA damages.[5]

expression of enzymes that allow for NHEJ and HR are higher in those cells, as well as others which are involved in high fidelity repair

They don't but when the two gametes combine it produces a much more fit organism. This is part of why sexual reproduction is a really good system.