Nylon eating bacteria problem

[Jet Black]

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

I think you are clutching at straws now.... anzway not to worry, you still haven't answered the issue:

is the enzyme new information?

 

[Jet Black]

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

Exactly, it is this sort of mutation that allowed life to spread from wherever it started, to other areas, like thermal vents in the oceans, out in the oxygen of the atmosphere, in caves and so on....

 

[Fozzwald]

I think you are clutching at straws now.... anzway not to worry, you still haven't answered the issue:

is the enzyme new information?

I never said it wasn't. What I did say is that swapping food sources does absolutely nothing to explain evolutionary progression, i.e.,the transformation of simplistic organisms from the primordal soup into something as complex as the world's most advanced life form, Yanni.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I never said it wasn't.

Good. We are in agreement then. New information can be added to the genome. ICR/AiG/Hovind are wrong.

What I did say is that swapping food sources does absolutely nothing to explain evolutionary progression, i.e.,the transformation of simplistic organisms from the primordal soup into something as complex as the world's most advanced life form, Yanni.

Ah, well that's a whole different issue for a different thread. This one's purely about information gain, which you agree we've demonstrated.

 

[Jet Black]

ok good, so you agree that new information can be formed through mutation... Hovind and friends are wrong... that's a start.

first of all, it is not just a matter of swapping food source; it is a matter of a completely new ecosystem. this is the sort of thing that would have been required aerly on in the earth's history when the environment was alot more harsh than it is now. I will get back to you on whether is is "swapping" or "adding" a food source, since I have seen slightly conflicting reports on it, but I suspect lucaspa is right.

now have a look at the other links I posted, there are several there of whole new metabolic pathways being formed, and even previously single celled organisms mutating and clustering together to form simple multicellular organisms. what do you think of those?

 

[lucaspa]

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

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

Unfortunately, Fozzwald, you didn't read the ENTIRE article, just found what you wanted.

Now, in the main article we find your quote here and a passage above that one reading:
"Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides. ...

However, if you CONTINUE reading you find that the mutation occurred NOT in the GENOME, but in a plasmid. So, it did NOT disrupt the existing metabolic enzymes as the author of the site originally claimed.

We see this in the following:

"It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift. This mutation did not exist 60 years ago."

Notice the "NON-CODING" in the quote. That means the DNA sequences were never being translated to make an enzyme.

So, this is REALLY new information and not at the expense of the old.

1. The genomic DNA is intact and unchanged, complete with the old ability to eat sugars.
2. The altered sequence of the plasmid DNA NEVER was used for information. It was simply there.

The author of the site never went back up and corrected his previous mistakes, Fozzwald.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

LOL! I agree with Arikay! That is a really funny dodge.

The real analogy would be: Johnny ate and digested a tire today. Aw, that's nothing new! Johnny has been eating and digesting food for years!

 

[mikelaughs]

Hey, so this is where you all went

I'm sorry, but i have to go with Fozzwald here, based purely on humor. I too would like to see a bacterium swaying to the irresistible beat of the Muskrat Love.

Can someone please tell me how we know this bacteria did not exist before now? Also, do we know if the bacteria can survive on any other food source? I mean, isn't nylon a fairly new invention?

Don't blast me, I'm not inciting, i'm just asking

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.

 

[lucaspa]

Can someone please tell me how we know this bacteria did not exist before now? Also, do we know if the bacteria can survive on any other food source? I mean, isn't nylon a fairly new invention?

If you go back up the thread you will get the answers.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

"It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift. This mutation did not exist 60 years ago. If this gene was always there, whether in a plasmid or not, we can reasonably wonder why a bacteria would have a gene for hydrolysing an artificial polymer that did not exist until just a few decades ago; and why, in the absence of such a substrate, was the gene not mutated to uselessness over the millenia?"

It's the mutating to uselessness argument that is compelling. If the mutation were old, then another mutation would have changed it, and that change would most likely have made it useless. If it did improve it, then it would have a higher specific activity than the minimal activity it currently has.

As to surviving on other food sources, all the original metabolic enzymes are still there in the genome. The mutation was in a plasmid.

 

[mikelaughs]

If you go back up the thread you will get the answers.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

"It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift. This mutation did not exist 60 years ago. If this gene was always there, whether in a plasmid or not, we can reasonably wonder why a bacteria would have a gene for hydrolysing an artificial polymer that did not exist until just a few decades ago; and why, in the absence of such a substrate, was the gene not mutated to uselessness over the millenia?"

It's the mutating to uselessness argument that is compelling. If the mutation were old, then another mutation would have changed it, and that change would most likely have made it useless. If it did improve it, then it would have a higher specific activity than the minimal activity it currently has.

As to surviving on other food sources, all the original metabolic enzymes are still there in the genome. The mutation was in a plasmid.

I'll add the conclusion from the nylon site here as well:
This organism, Flavobacterium sp.K172, cannot live off of normal carbohydrates. It needs nylon to survive.
Nylon did not exist before 1935. It is man-made. There are no "nylon deposits" that the bacteria could have lived in prior to 1935. (See http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa980325.htm for the details.)
Therefore, this organism could not have existed before 1935. Where did it come from? Why, it evolved.


So why aren't Evolutionists (and there are alot of them) dancing in the streets, heralding this on the 6 O'clock news, and burning their bras?

Because this conclusion is a point that they are trying to make and is not the only explanation.

You already alluded to that in your above statement. You already heard the creationist viewpoint and know that i would say that the bacteria had the genetic code to eat nylon when it was created.

However, you go on to say, why didn't it evolve out of the species, since it wasn't used? Remember-im not the evolutionist here. Some genes remain dormant and exist in many or all members of a group, regardless of other traits.

Finally, why would God have put the ability to eat nylon in a bacteria when nylon wasn't invented until recently?

Good question. Ask God. maybe he doesn't like hoesery

 

[Arikay]

I find it amazing how many dodges and excusses creationists have to come up with to try and keep their preconceived beliefs.

We know it wasnt in the gene before because as you can see on the website, we can see the mutation, the mutation didnt activate some dormant gene, but changed the gene sequence.

 

[wblastyn]

So why aren't Evolutionists (and there are alot of them) dancing in the streets, heralding this on the 6 O'clock news, and burning their bras?

We don't need to because we have already "won", creationism has been falsified and in the unlikely event that evolution is falsified (which will not validate creationism), it is here to stay.

 

[JohnR7]

We don't need to because we have already "won", creationism has been falsified and in the unlikely event that evolution is falsified (which will not validate creationism), it is here to stay.

Creation"ism" has NOT been falsified. Although some seem to feel that the YEC theory of Bishop Ussler from about 500 years ago has been falsified. This is the sort of mis information that you get from evolutionists that show they are just not reliable in what they say.

 

[wblastyn]

Creation"ism" has NOT been falsified. Although some seem to feel that the YEC theory of Bishop Ussler from about 500 years ago has been falsified. This is the sort of mis information that you get from evolutionists that show they are just not reliable in what they say.

The theory that life was zapped into it's full form and is immutable has been falsified.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Creation"ism" has NOT been falsified. Although some seem to feel that the YEC theory of Bishop Ussler from about 500 years ago has been falsified. This is the sort of mis information that you get from evolutionists that show they are just not reliable in what they say.

Young Earth CreationISM was falsfied by Christian Geologists between 200 and 130 years ago and masses of data since have added virtually countless additional falsfications. This is not misinformation at all. Young Earth creationism has been falsified by many aspects of geology, many aspects of paleontology, biogeography and archeology to name a few.

Added in edit: But that doesn't have anything to do with this thread which is about the way in which a specieds bateria evolved the ability to eat nylon.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

John,

This has nothing to do with this thread, You are Trolling.
And, you just called the majority of christians dishonest. Congrats.

Please dont Troll threads.

Creation"ism" has NOT been falsified. Although some seem to feel that the YEC theory of Bishop Ussler from about 500 years ago has been falsified. This is the sort of mis information that you get from evolutionists that show they are just not reliable in what they say.

 

[Fozzwald]

Ah, well that's a whole different issue for a different thread.

Actually, that was the premise for the creation of this thread, but
instead of trying to explain how it's possible for a single-celled life
form to evolve into a species capable of doing The Macarena in such
a short span of time, everybody keeps going back to "information gain,"
which I never disagreed with.

My point was there has to be millions of net gains for species to reach their current form. Not this switch from one food to another stuff, but some real evolving, like the difference between Tiny Tim and the rest of us mere mortals.

 

[PhantomLlama]

I'll add the conclusion from the nylon site here as well:
This organism, Flavobacterium sp.K172, cannot live off of normal carbohydrates. It needs nylon to survive.
Nylon did not exist before 1935. It is man-made. There are no "nylon deposits" that the bacteria could have lived in prior to 1935. (See http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa980325.htm for the details.)
Therefore, this organism could not have existed before 1935. Where did it come from? Why, it evolved.


So why aren't Evolutionists (and there are alot of them) dancing in the streets, heralding this on the 6 O'clock news, and burning their bras?

Because this conclusion is a point that they are trying to make and is not the only explanation.

No, it is because an organism evolving is not news anywhere outside of Creationopolis.

 

[Jet Black]

However, you go on to say, why didn't it evolve out of the species, since it wasn't used? Remember-im not the evolutionist here. Some genes remain dormant and exist in many or all members of a group, regardless of other traits.

this isn't dormancy, this is a completely new enzyme, that has resulted from teh scrambling of a section of the genome.

 

[Fozzwald]

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

Yeah...in a few billion years it will be sprouting legs in order to Tiptoe Through the Tulips.