Re: Fw: Most popular/common dinosaur misconceptions

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Takata" <rmtakata@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:31 AM

> remember that most of proteome present in the mitochondria are of
> nuclear origin, which could imply a early gene transfer from
> mitochondria (or the original endossymbiont) to nucleus.

Certainly -- these must have happened before animal mitochondria started 
evolving their own code.

> No one is saying that the life forms that we know today are not
> monophyletic. What is proposed is the possibility that the cenancestor
> or its ancestral form could be originated by independently originated
> genetic systems merging into a single biological entity.

I am arguing that just this is impossible.

> How could genetic system with different genetic code be compatible?
> First, it could be the case that the translation system was not so
> specific or so reliable. Recall the wobble hypothesis of codon origin.

If the codes are too different, this still won't work.

> And, on the other hand, termination codon is not a yes or no codon,
> but a probabilistic codon - which depend somewhat of the genetic
> context (the flanking sequences).

Are you talking about selenocystein?