>> Not necessarily. Axe looked at the function of the modified proteins in vivo. Such large numbers of changes are unlikely to happen all at once in real organisms, so that coevolution of associated proteins is possible. As an example, mitochondrial rDNA genes do not even use the same genetic code as nuclear rDNA genes, so they cannot be interchanged, yet both successfully perform the same function
>> Dr. David Campbell
>
>I did not claim there could not be any possible evolutionary path, but that the number of possibly active RANDOM sequences had been vastly overestimated. For darwinian evolution, this is irrelevant IF there is at least one feasible path. But it makes a huge difference for the success of random mutational paths not under selection, e.g. when a new function emerges in a pseudogene or other cryptic state.
>Peter Ruest <pruest@dplanet.ch>
My point was evidently not clear. The number of possibly active sequences is not well-measured in this experiment, because possibly active and works in a particular organism are not the same thing.
Dr. David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
Biology Department
Saint Mary's College of Maryland
18952 E. Fisher Road
St. Mary's City, MD 20686-3001 USA
dcampbell@osprey.smcm.edu, 301 862-0372 Fax: 301 862-0996
"Mollusks murmured 'Morning!'. And salmon chanted 'Evening!'."-Frank Muir, Oh My Word!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 12:00:15 EST