Nylon eating bacteria problem

[Fozzwald]

Correcting Hovind's lack of grammatical skills still does nothing to further evolutionary theory. In order for species to advance there would have to be a net information gain, which isn't the case with nylon eating bacteria.

The bacteria gained the ability to digest nylon, therefore was able to survive in a new environment. Two distinct advantages

But, the bacteria lost its ability to survive in its old environment, eat its former diet and suffered a 98% loss in efficency. Three disadvantages.

So by taking two steps forward and three steps backward, where is the net gain?

If nylon eating bacteria was "proof" of evolution, we would still be pond scum, but with the ability to digest whatever happened to become the primary foodsource.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Correcting Hovind's lack of grammatical skills still does nothing to further evolutionary theory. In order for species to advance there would have to be a net information gain, which isn't the case with nylon eating bacteria.

The bacteria gained the ability to digest nylon, therefore was able to survive in a new environment. Two distinct advantages

But, the bacteria lost its ability to survive in its old environment, eat its former diet and suffered a 98% loss in efficency. Three disadvantages.

So by taking two steps forward and three steps backward, where is the net gain?

If nylon eating bacteria was "proof" of evolution, we would still be pond scum, but with the ability to digest whatever happened to become the primary foodsource.

Nylon eating bacteria are not proof of evolution. They are a demonstration of acquisition of new information. Nothing more.

If I lost two CDs and found one, are you claiming I haven't gained a new CD?

 

[Jet Black]

yes, it is an information gain a completely new enzyme has been produced.

 

[Mainframes]

It is the same type of thing us human having gained the ability to walk upright and and have high intelligence but lost the ability to synthesuze vitamin C

 

[webboffin]

Is this supposed to be a pro-evolution evidence?

 

[Jet Black]

it is a refutation of hovind's point that no new information can be generated from mutations.

 

[Mainframes]

Is this supposed to be a pro-evolution evidence?

Of course it's pro-evolution evidence. If a baceria has changed from using one type of food to an entirely new type unaccesible to other bacteria then it has evolved....

 

[Jet Black]

and now it is a refutation of fozzwald's point. we have demonstrated hat there is an information gain. and since in order for species to advance there must be information gain, we have showed by his argument that species can advance.

well done on there fozzy, you just knocked another nail in the coffin of creationism.

 

[Fozzwald]

and now it is a refutation of fozzwald's point. we have demonstrated hat there is an information gain.

All you have demonstrated is that there is no NET gain, which is needed for more advanced species to evolve. Your argument is the equivalent of a gambler going to Las Vegas and winning $100 nine times and losing $1,000 on the tenth, yet claiming to be a winning gambler.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

All you have demonstrated is that there is no NET gain, which is needed for more advanced species to evolve. Your argument is the equivalent of a gambler going to Las Vegas and winning $100 nine times and losing $1,000 on the tenth, yet claiming to be a winning gambler.

This "net gain" semantics tries to deflect the issue.

Suppose I was writing a book. If wrote a new page, but tore out two previous pages, is there new information in the book? Yes, the page I wrote is completely new. Yes, I might have ripped out two previous pages in the process, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the book has brand-new information it never had before.

Much like our bacteria here.

 

[Rational Ag]

Evolution isn't about "gain", or "improvement" or "advancement". It's about adaptation and mutation. Things don't necessarily get "better" on the whole, but living organisms definitely get better at doing specific functions, sometimes at the expense of something that doesn't matter in that particular environment. All mutuations are not "good" when the bigger picture is considered, especially since "good" is such a subjective term.

-Rational Ag

 

[Jet Black]

All you have demonstrated is that there is no NET gain, which is needed for more advanced species to evolve. Your argument is the equivalent of a gambler going to Las Vegas and winning $100 nine times and losing $1,000 on the tenth, yet claiming to be a winning gambler.

it is NEW INFORMATION. NEW INFORMATION has been created in the process, in a NOVEL ENZYME that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE.

this bacterium has created a COMPLETELY NEW ECOSYSTEM, in which it can evolve at will, completely unhindered by competition with other organisms.

you are not talking about NEW INFORMATION at all.

 

[Arikay]

This is the problem with the "no new information" or well "no net gain information" argument, it ignores what evolution is.

As was said, Evolution is not about Net gain, its about adaptation to the environment.

The bacteria has now created a niche for itself. A food source that it has no competition for. I would consider that a gain.

This is like saying that the first animal to completly walk on land gained nothing because it lost its ability to swim.

Again, Evolution is Not about creating a super creature that can do all things, its about adapting the the environment. Creating a niche food source that there is very little competition for, is definatly an adaption and its adding New information.

 

[Vance]

Oh, Fozz, please, please, please tell me that this is, indeed, the definition of the "no new information" position!!! Are they really just saying that if there is not a "net gain" in the amount if information, then the species can not truly evolve?

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is not the "amount of information" that matters to the process of evolution, but the effect of the change in the information, whether more or less. If the change results in less information, but creates a being that can now accomplish X, then we have an evolutionary move in that direction. Enough of those moves and we have a new species.

It does not matter one whit whether there is a net gain or loss in information. It does not matter what traits or abilities are lost as new traits are gained. It is the CHANGE that matters.

I think the red herring is the idea of "advancement" or "progress" which is inherent in this "no net gain in information" concept. It is not a matter of moving forward or backward, it is a matter of each particular species moving *toward* those mix of traits which will best allow it to survive in its given environment. You take two groups of the same species and place them in different environments, you would eventually (if you could watch them for long enough) see the gene pool move in different directions, losing some traits, gaining others, in order to best adapt. This has nothing to do with overall "progress" of the species, but adaptation to a specific environment.

 

[lucaspa]

But, the bacteria lost its ability to survive in its old environment, eat its former diet and suffered a 98% loss in efficency. Three disadvantages.

So by taking two steps forward and three steps backward, where is the net gain?

Fozzwald, you misunderstood the data.

1. The bacteria did NOT lose the ability to digest carbohydrates. Those enzymes are still present on the genome. The article stated that the new enzymes would not digest carbohydrates, only nylon. But there was nothing there that the carbohydrate digesting enzymes were lost. The point was that the nylon degrading enzyme was NEW, and NOT a modification of the carbohydrate degrading enzymes.

2. There was no loss of efficiency. Instead, the article stated that the new enzyme was inefficient compared to the carbohydrate degrading enzymes. IOW, it catalyzes the degradation of nylon at 2% of the efficiency that the carbohydrate degrading enzymes degrade sugar.

The point is that the enzyme is NEW, and has not yet undergone the selection for more efficient forms of the enzyme. Remember, the carbohydrate degrading enzymes have 3.8 billion years of evolution to get to their level of efficiency. The nylon enzyme has not.

So, thanks to your misreading of the article, you have created a strawman and strawman objections. When you really read the article, we find out that the new nylon degrading enzyme is EXACTLY what you want from evolution: new information without loss of the old, and a new capability not previously seen.

Congratulations! You have just proven evolution for yourself.

 

[Fozzwald]

Fozzwald, you misunderstood the data.

1. The bacteria did NOT lose the ability to digest carbohydrates. Those enzymes are still present on the genome. The article stated that the new enzymes would not digest carbohydrates, only nylon. But there was nothing there that the carbohydrate digesting enzymes were lost. The point was that the nylon degrading enzyme was NEW, and NOT a modification of the carbohydrate degrading enzymes.

2. There was no loss of efficiency. Instead, the article stated that the new enzyme was inefficient compared to the carbohydrate degrading enzymes. IOW, it catalyzes the degradation of nylon at 2% of the efficiency that the carbohydrate degrading enzymes degrade sugar.

The point is that the enzyme is NEW, and has not yet undergone the selection for more efficient forms of the enzyme. Remember, the carbohydrate degrading enzymes have 3.8 billion years of evolution to get to their level of efficiency. The nylon enzyme has not.

So, thanks to your misreading of the article, you have created a strawman and strawman objections. When you really read the article, we find out that the new nylon degrading enzyme is EXACTLY what you want from evolution: new information without loss of the old, and a new capability not previously seen.

Congratulations! You have just proven evolution for yourself.

Bzzzzt.....wrong.

A little cut and paste job and.....
"This organism, Flavobacterium sp.K172, cannot live off of normal carbohydrates. It needs nylon to survive."
I believe the key word here is "cannot."

 

[Fozzwald]

This "net gain" semantics tries to deflect the issue.

Suppose I was writing a book. If wrote a new page, but tore out two previous pages, is there new information in the book? Yes, the page I wrote is completely new. Yes, I might have ripped out two previous pages in the process, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the book has brand-new information it never had before.

Much like our bacteria here.

Those "net gain" semantics are the issue. I'm not saying there wasn't any new information; the ability to digest nylon. What I am saying is that over the course of time there have to be advances for evolutionary progression (going from the primordal soup to a human being) to occur.
Trading one food source for another does nothing to show that was the case.

If you keep tearing out the same number of pages, or more, in your book as you add each day, it will never "evolve" to a novel.

 

[Fozzwald]

Oh, Fozz, please, please, please tell me that this is, indeed, the definition of the "no new information" position!!! Are they really just saying that if there is not a "net gain" in the amount if information, then the species can not truly evolve?

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is not the "amount of information" that matters to the process of evolution, but the effect of the change in the information, whether more or less. If the change results in less information, but creates a being that can now accomplish X, then we have an evolutionary move in that direction. Enough of those moves and we have a new species.

It does not matter one whit whether there is a net gain or loss in information. It does not matter what traits or abilities are lost as new traits are gained. It is the CHANGE that matters.

I think the red herring is the idea of "advancement" or "progress" which is inherent in this "no net gain in information" concept. It is not a matter of moving forward or backward, it is a matter of each particular species moving *toward* those mix of traits which will best allow it to survive in its given environment. You take two groups of the same species and place them in different environments, you would eventually (if you could watch them for long enough) see the gene pool move in different directions, losing some traits, gaining others, in order to best adapt. This has nothing to do with overall "progress" of the species, but adaptation to a specific environment.

Oh, please. Unless you actually believe that life started out more advanced, or just as advanced, as life is today, there would have to be 1,000s of net gains for life to be as complex as it is today. It has to move forward at some point in time. Your Flavobacterium sp.K172, by simply exchanging food sources, has not shifted gears.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Oh, please. Unless you actually believe that life started out more advanced, or just as advanced, as life is today, there would have to be 1,000s of net gains for life to be as complex as it is today. It has to move forward at some point in time. Your Flavobacterium sp.K172, by simply exchanging food sources, has not shifted gears.

Unless there were a gene duplication prior to the frame shift mutation.

Please give us the exact definition the information you are so sure can't increase through mutation and natural and explain to us exactly why it can't increase through gene duplication and mutation in one of the duplicates. I don't think the definition of information from Shannon's theory of communication is really appropriate for evolution.
Kolmogorov-Chaitin seems more relevant to me. If you agree can prove that K-C information content can't increase through evolution and if you disagree can you explain exactly why Shannon information theory is more appropriate the K-C information?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Im not sure, but didnt Lucaspa mention that it never lost its ability to eat its old food source, only gained a new one.

Sounds like a net gain to me.

Those "net gain" semantics are the issue. I'm not saying there wasn't any new information; the ability to digest nylon. What I am saying is that over the course of time there have to be advances for evolutionary progression (going from the primordal soup to a human being) to occur.
Trading one food source for another does nothing to show that was the case.

If you keep tearing out the same number of pages, or more, in your book as you add each day, it will never "evolve" to a novel.