And then there are those that could be beneficial, neutral or harmful depending on the outside pressures and the nature of the risks.
If the outside risk of Malaria is a bigger threat than the disadvantages of possible anemia then the Sickle Cell mutation is beneficial. But in an environment where the incidence of Malaria is low, it is detrimental.
Perhaps they are not neutral! IT seems possible to me that mitchondria might surface the theoretical LITERALITY of the Gladyshev thermostat and whose to say that the diffferent genetics of mitochondria could not interact with temporal effects of different changes in J-DNA via the SYSTEM interative supramoleucularly with said thermostat?
To say the truth, I know very few abt Gladyshev thermostat.In my opinion, j_Dna is neutral 'coz it can't be seen (sort of) by natural selection. In the origin of life, DNA evolved as they got the more stable forms to keep info(also say by thermostat law). After billions of years, some selfish genes managed to make their self-copying stuff as junk dna; never got translated or transcribed. i think 'feed back' things don't apply in this case. Besides,these j-dna are evolving at pretty fast rate (by drift )compared to other protein coding dna. For mitochondria, it is saaid that about 85% of changes in mitochondria is silent. As far as I know, it was once free living bacteria has it own genetic info, but i don't know how important is the proteins that mitochndria genes code for. sorry about thermodynamic thing. I have no idea about that. Actuallly, I don't get how thermodynamic plays important role in evolution of organsms which are open systems.Got any info that can make me clear abt that? thanks.
I am on the "road" on vacation now for a month so I do not have the time and resources available at hand as I usually do so I will note two things and BEGIN to respond.
1) think about semantic information transfer which might SKIP a generation 2)the thermo stuff- I will get into the details on on NOT thinking chemically abt compounds but about chemistry as an "instructed mixture paradigm" (see J.-M. Lehn,"Supramolecular Chemistry/Science SOME Conjectures AND Perspectives" in "SUPRAMOLECULAR SCIENCE WHERE IT IS AND WHERE IT IS GOING" NATO SERIES 1998-527.
There is a littel bit of "creative" reading that is necessary for the best (Noble Prize level) thinking still had seperated physical and biological hierarchies which would be UR unified on this thought outside the subject and object it was.
Yes, I am thinking of A LITERAL existence for said thermostat whether organlle exemplar or just posssible demonstrable by reorganizing Pascal's postulate on the cone where electrons seek the outside conducter with the identification in such chemistry of what elsewise technically is a thermocouple, (this would be a triangle etc instead).
The point will be tha the "netural" changes might be part of a functioning thermostat which obeys the Gibbs minimization of Gladyshev but that the difference of junk DNA and coded DNA is simply the level of organization that selection can cut the macrothermodynamic nesting across in. Depedning on the plietropy and epistasis a given base pair difference between individuals might alter the LEVEL of organization being stablized (organelle vs organ etc) but within the same equilibrIUM taxogeneically (per grade in a clade associable space AND time metaphysically).
Biological Evolution: Mutation seemed to be the perfect forum for my post.
All Hail the Chief http://www.patriotica.org/bush01/index.html
"A preacher thundering from his pulpit about the uniqueness of human beings with their God-given souls would not like to realize that his very gestures, the hairs that rose on his neck, the deepened tones of his outraged voice, and the perspiration that probably ran down his skin under clerical vestments are all manifestations of anger in mammals. If he was sneering at Darwin a bit (one does not need a mirror to know that one sneers), did he remember uncomfortably that a sneer is derived from an animal's lifting its lip to remind an enemy of its fangs? Even while he was denying the principle of evolution, how could a vehement man doubt such intimate evidence?" SALLY CARRIGHAR, WILD HERITAGE