Otangelo
Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015
|
| Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 21 2016,17:31) | | Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:24) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,22:31) | |
| Quote | | Piffle. This assumes that one and only one genetic code will work. We know of a number of alternative genetic codes that are somewhat different from the canonical genetic code, which is presumably the one that Otangelo believes is uniquely functional. |
I agree . But its not any code and cipher that will to the job.
The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1832087 |
Your own source gives a supported evolutionary hypothesis for how the code evolved.
| Quote | | How did such near optimality for parallel codes evolve? One possibility is that the ability to include parallel codes within protein-coding sequences conferred a selection advantage during the early evolution of the genetic code. Alternatively, the genetic code might have been fixed in evolution before most parallel codes existed. We therefore sought a different selection pressure on the code, which could have existed in the early stages of the evolution of the genetic code. One such inherent feature of protein translation is frame-shift translation errors (Parker 1989; Farabaugh and Bjork 1999; Seligmann and Pollock 2004). In these errors, the ribosome shifts the reading frame, either forward or backward. This results in a nonsense translated peptide, and usually loss of protein function. These errors occur in ribosomes nearly as frequently as misread errors (3 × 10−5 per codon, compared with misread errors of 10−4 per codon [Parker 1989]). These errors have a relatively large effect on fitness because they result in a nonsense polypeptide. Frame-shift errors may thus pose a selectable constraint on the genetic code: Codes that are able to abort translation more rapidly following frame-shift errors have an advantage |
Nice own goal there Otangebozo. |
aham. Because the papper says so, it most be true. Forgot to activate your brain and think critically ? ah. Almost forgot. Naturalists have the bad habit to swallow junk food, aka. just so scientific papper stories brainlessly. Isnt it ?
|
