Nylon eating bacteria problem

[Pete Harcoff]

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.

It sounds to me like you are trying to argue the nylon-eating bacteria is something it is not. The whole point of this example is to show that, yes, new genetic information can be produced giving rise to new functions.

If you agree with that, then you really have nothing to argue about.

 

[Cantuar]

This is the bacterium that underwent a gene duplication followed by a frameshift mutation, isn't it? So it started with one gene, then had two copies of that gene, then experienced a mutation in one of the two copies that resulted in a gene that encoded a new enzyme. The mutated gene encodes the new enzyme that enables the bacterium to digest nylon; the unmutated gene encodes the original enzyme that enables the bacterium to digest its original source of nutrients. Exactly how does this decrease information? And exactly how is this stuff about information relevant to evolution anyway? It's just a creationist definitions game - let's define evolution as something that can't possibly occur naturally. Doesn't alter what's going on in the real world.

 

[Jet Black]

anyway fozzy, these aren't the only examples:, there are lots that can digest manmade compounds now:

There are a number of creationist claims that have been discounted several times:

No entirely new features or biological functions have evolved.

(note with interest the evolution of a single celled bacteria to form multicellular colonies.)

and alsoMutations only vary traits that are already there. They don't produce anything new

there's lots of examples for you to look at and argue about.

 

[Fozzwald]

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

True...which is why I cut and pasted:

"This organism, Flavobacterium sp.K172, cannot live off of normal carbohydrates. It needs nylon to survive."

 

[Fozzwald]

This is the bacterium that underwent a gene duplication followed by a frameshift mutation, isn't it? So it started with one gene, then had two copies of that gene, then experienced a mutation in one of the two copies that resulted in a gene that encoded a new enzyme. The mutated gene encodes the new enzyme that enables the bacterium to digest nylon; the unmutated gene encodes the original enzyme that enables the bacterium to digest its original source of nutrients. Exactly how does this decrease information? And exactly how is this stuff about information relevant to evolution anyway? It's just a creationist definitions game - let's define evolution as something that can't possibly occur naturally. Doesn't alter what's going on in the real world.

First, it's debatable whether it was frameshift mutatation or plasmids that were responsible. There have been published papers on both suggestions.
Second, to cut and paste, "This organism, Flavobacterium sp.K172, cannot live off of normal carbohydrates. It needs nylon to survive."

 

[Jet Black]

it's an information gain fozzy, an information gain!

 

[Jet Black]

what about all those other examples fozzy?

 

[nyj]

it's an information gain fozzy, an information gain!

Does it matter? The simple fact that this was an inheritable genetic trait means the organism evolved. It passed the "nylon eating" trait to its progeny. The fact that its progeny also lost the ability to metabolise other carbohydrates means nothing. If one or the other had happened, rather than both... both are instances of the organism evolving.

 

[Jet Black]

Does it matter? The simple fact that this was an inheritable genetic trait means the organism evolved. It passed the "nylon eating" trait to its progeny. The fact that its progeny also lost the ability to metabolise other carbohydrates means nothing. If one or the other had happened, rather than both... both are instances of the organism evolving.

the whole point of bringing up the nylon bug is to show that information can be gained... the problem is that some people immediately create a strawman and slart blathering on about how it hasn't turned into a dog, or there isn't a "net gain" when that isn't what this is all about. as you say though, it is the organism evolving.

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, but, "cannot eat", and "Cannot live off" are two different things.

I can still eat meat, however Im not sure If I could Live off meat, as I need a source of vitamin C (like oranges) to survive.

Lucaspa said,
"1. The bacteria did NOT lose the ability to digest carbohydrates. Those enzymes are still present on the genome."

So I am curious for anyone that knows, can this organism still digest carbohydrates? Even though it may need nylon to survive, could it still eat its old food?

True...which is why I cut and pasted:

"This organism, Flavobacterium sp.K172, cannot live off of normal carbohydrates. It needs nylon to survive."

 

[Phred]

Ya know what? It doesn't matter at all whether or not the bacteria can still digest carbohydrates. Net gain semantics don't matter either. Here's what matters. An organism is now consuming Nylon as a source of nutrition. It is no longer in competition with any other organism for its foodsource. It has entered a brand new niche and has it all to itself. This is evolution. The gain here is not the efficiency or the change, it's the ability to eat without competition. This bacteria can now reproduce to its heart's content. It has stepped beyond its carbohydrate-consuming cousins.

Might I also note that Nylon was not in existence back when the Earth was young? "God" could not have created this organism back then and we only noticed it now.

 

[nyj]

An organism is now consuming Nylon as a source of nutrition. It is no longer in competition with any other organism for its foodsource. It has entered a brand new niche and has it all to itself. This is evolution.

That's not the definition of evolution either. The simple fact that it this bacterial population has passed on heritable changes is what makes it evolution.

 

[Phred]

I guess I have to get used to being incredibly specific. 'scuse me, I'm new.

 

[Cantuar]

First, it's debatable whether it was frameshift mutatation or plasmids that were responsible. There have been published papers on both suggestions.

It was a frameshift mutation on a plasmid. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Second, to cut and paste, "This organism, Flavobacterium sp.K172, cannot live off of normal carbohydrates. It needs nylon to survive."

You aren't cutting and pasting from the original article, just from a commentary about it. The abstract of the original article gives a list of things that KI72 can't hydrolyse; it doesn't say that it can't hydrolyse anything but nylon. Nor does it say whether, even if it WAS the case that it couldn't hydrolyse anything but nylon, that state of affairs occurred immediately after the mutation or after many further generations of growing on nylon, when the ability to hydrolyse other substrates would be useless to it. There are an awful lot of things that aren't being said here.

 

[PhantomLlama]

I guess I have to get used to being incredibly specific. 'scuse me, I'm new.

You have to be careful with your definitions here to avoid being pounced on, because a lot of YEC arguments are based on faulty definitions of terms.

 

[nyj]

You have to be careful with your definitions here to avoid being pounced on, because a lot of YEC arguments are based on faulty definitions of terms.

BINGO!

 

[Fozzwald]

It sounds to me like you are trying to argue the nylon-eating bacteria is something it is not. The whole point of this example is to show that, yes, new genetic information can be produced giving rise to new functions.

If you agree with that, then you really have nothing to argue about.

I disagree with the term "new functions."

It's like the woman who calls her husband excitedly at work and says, "John! Guess what? Little Johnny tied his shoes today!"
"But hon, Johnny is 15 years and has tied his shoes for years."
"Yeah, but this time he tied his left shoe first! Isn't it wonderful!"

The bacteria had the ability to digest food and when all was said and done it still just had the ability to digest food. Perhaps if it could perform a new function, say like sway to the irresistible beat of the Captain & Tenille's "Muskrat Love," you might be onto something.

 

[Arikay]

LoL thats got to be one of the funniest dodges.

You do understand what it means for this bug to be able to digest a completly different material that it could not before?

Next your going to say that if a fish evolved lungs that its not a "new function" because it still breaths oxygen.

 

[Cantuar]

The bacteria had the ability to digest food and when all was said and done it still just had the ability to digest food.

OK, so on the one hand it's highly significant that it can no longer digest some substances (if that's in fact what the paper says), and on the other hand, it's completely insignificant that it's now digesting different substances from what it digested before. Anybody else getting confused by this argument?

 

[Arikay]

nah, im not confused at all, it seems perfectly in line.