In article <41shjc$28f at decaxp.harvard.edu>,
Keith Robison <robison at lipid.harvard.edu> wrote:
>I don't know of the timing, but the phylogeny is quite sound. rRNA
>analysis places the mitochondria in amongst the purple ("gram negative")
>bacteria. Among the purples, mitochondria seem to be the _only_
>species with altered genetic codes. Similarly, all of the other
>known deviations from the canonical genetic code are one little
>tip of the tree. Hence, we must conclude that these are late
>events, and the best explanation is that a codon fell into disuse
>(either through drift in a small genome or codon usage selection),
>allowing a switch to another usage (which is what Jukes currently
>argues).
Your comments, Hubert? By the way, I originally posted simply to _echo_
Keith's presentation of this argument; which in turn derives, as Keith
notes, from Jukes. So don't try to pretend that this is just some
idiosyncratic idea that _I_ made up. The phylogenetic evidence
summarized above tells very strongly against your theory, whether you
like it or not. Tough luck; many pretty theories have come to grief
when confronted with empirical evidence. That process is called "science."
--
Opinions are mine alone; I never met a university with opionions!
Steve LaBonne ********************* (labonnes at cnsunix.albany.edu)
"It can never be satisfied, the mind, never." - Wallace Stevens
