B
buffalo
Guest
Nylon and proteins are polyamides made from amino acids. Nylon is derived from adipic acid which comes from oat hulls or corncobs. It should be no surprise bacteria digest it.
- Status
M
Michaelo
Guest
This is a red herring that has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
No, that’s wrong. We know precisely which bond in nylon prevented all bacteria from degrading it, and we also know precisely how the mutation which allowed it happened.
**Now, let’s get back to Biology, and the case of the bacterium which has evolved the capability of ingesting nylon waste (see Kinoshita et. al.). This case is most interesting. Nylon didn’t exist before 1935, and neither did this organism. 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, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine (‘T’) nucleotide caused the new bacterium’s enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting. The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection. However, this inefficiency would certainly not be expected in the work of an intelligent designer. The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced.
The image below shows just a part of the 400±long nucleotide string for the key enzyme (see the Susumu Ohno paper). The original (“old”) enzyme’s amino acid sequence appears on top, and the frame-shifted (“new”) sequence on bottom. The DNA nucleotides appear in the middle for both the old species and the new (one T inserted). Over this small portion of the enzyme, the old DNA coded for the amino acids Arginine, Glutamic Acid, Arginine, Threonine, Phenylalanine, Histidine, Arginine and Proline.**
nmsr.org/nylon.htm
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
And it’s a despicable smear on Darwin, who asserted that such things were an “overwhelming evil.”
E
edwest2
Guest
C
CGDouglas
Guest
Wikipedia:
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
6-aminohexanoate is an effective inhibitor for enzymes, yet the strain of Flavobacterium managed to survive and thrive off 6-aminoheaxoate, and some other byproducts of Nylon 6.
God Bless.
Chris.
E
edwest2
Guest
Hi Chris,
There are bacteria found in dirt that are already resistent to natural and syntheic threats:
sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/02/22/life/soil.grows.drug.resistant.bacteria.html
Bacteria have the built-in (pre-existing) ability to do a lot, including exchanging genetic material with each other, and even other species of bacteria. Something macro life forms cannot do. As I wrote earlier, bacteria that survive, survived because they already could, not because they changed. And if some do change, don’t forget they have built-in capabilities.
Peace,
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
M
mlz
Guest
–from Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity
Is this a book??
mlz
Is this a book??
mlz
C
CGDouglas
Guest
Nylon didn’t exist before 1935, neither did this strain.
6-aminohexanoate, what about the inhibitor, and the success of the strain of Flavobacterium? And also:
^ Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I (May 1995). “Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution”. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61 (5): 2020–2. PMID 7646041. PMC: 167468. aem.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?vi…g&pmid=7646041.
God Bless.
Chris.
B
buffalo
Guest
are not known to have existed.
Manmade products synthesize what nature already has done. Polymers existed right from the beginning of life.
E
edwest2
Guest
Let’s see. Scientists force bacteria to live, or attempt to live, off a particular substance. Their internal machinery goes to work and some survive. This is not evolution, but the use of a built-in ability.
If you and 5 million other people were put in a room and given only nylon to eat, how many would survive? Any?
I think evolution has become the bright, shiny object that hypnotizes some people into believing that it can magically do things. If a bacteria uses its own abilities then that’s not evolution.
Peace,
Ed
C
CGDouglas
Guest
We have a generation of the nylon hydrolysing genes, if I’m correct.
God Bless.
Chris.
C
CGDouglas
Guest
The internal machinary:
Wikipedia:
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria#Genetics
Also: ^ Denamur E, Matic I (2006). “Evolution of mutation rates in bacteria”. Mol Microbiol 60 (4): 820–7. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05150.x. PMID 16677295.
Unlike humans, bacteria populations can multiply two-fold within every 9.8 minutes.
Source: ^ Eagon R. “Pseudomonas natriegens, a marine bacterium with a generation time of less than 10 minutes”. J Bacteriol 83: 736–7. PMID 13888946. pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=13888946.
Within such drastic reproduction, genetic mutations occur more rapidly in comparison to human reproduction, so comparison to which species would more likely survive on Nylon alone, it’s inappropiate. Not to mention the development of humans to obtain a omnivore diet system…
God Bless.
Chris.
M
Maranatha33
Guest
Barbarian,
To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.”
Out of respect to you, but against my better judgment, I will again answer you.
*That does no small damage to his credibility. I am very careful about anything anyone from AIG says, after they were caught altering the statements of scientists they cited. (evidence on request)
*
I can understand why you are careful about AiG. They have DOZENS of Phds. in varying fields of science, but they don’t have YOUR opinion. Were these alterations a sinister deception, or maybe new information, a change of the understanding by the person who made the initial claim, a comparison of information with another Phd., or simply a mistake that needed to be corrected. How do you know that they shouldn’t deserve more respect for admitting a mistake AND correcting it, if that is the case.
Since Mike is untrained in biology, why would anyone listen to him on dinosaurs or the origin of life? And since he associates and presents at anti-Catholic meetings, why do you think any of us would give him any credibility on the Bible or creation?
How do you know he is untrained in biology? Just because he has a degree in mathematics, and an advanced degree in education, does that mean he hasn’t studied in the sciences? He was also a trainer for microsoft, and a national pentathlon champion (1976) for the United States. So that shows he can do multiple actions, and is quite intelligent. And since He is brought into many presentations and debates over evolutionary and biological topics, there must be a lot of sponsors who think he is qualified, because they frequently pay him quite a sum.
*Which, in your opinion, makes him an authority on evolution?
*
The authority, no. An authority, yes. See above.
Which is why he is involved with anti-Catholic organizations?
This is a really a lame attempt to bring in negative emotions. Trying for sympathy?
Is he anti-catholic clergy? Anti-catholic doctrine? Or anti-Catholic members? Is it possible that he defends his Biblical perspective that may on occasion differ with catholic teachings? Do these organizations include the KKK (anti-catholic) or Billy Graham’s crusades, which hold to the Sola Fide tenet?
There are a lot of good speakers. Good thinkers are somewhat harder to get.
True. Are you the authority on who is or isn’t a good “thinker?” Seems to me that someone who has risen to the level of trainer at the largest computer software (and possibly all computer related companies) in the world would qualify as a good “thinker.” (as well as his other accomplishments)
How about one who actually knows something about biology?
How are you privy to this amazing discovery? Did Mike forget to check with you first?
Since you don’t seem to be able to support your original claim about Riddle’s calculations, can we conclude you’ve withdrawn the claim until you can support it?
I think it is a safe assumption that an expert (to your chagrin) who presents these calculations (remember the math degree?) in many public forums and through the media, who has most likely had others, except yourself, analyze his findings, knows from where he speaks. Don’t you think that someone other than yourself has checked his findings? If proven wrong, he is vulnerable to public scrutiny, so I think it is safe to believe him… that is unless YOU can dispute his findings. No withdraw given. Once again, you produce no evidence, facts, or data on your own.
Let’s take a look:
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors
But in the report, Axe admits that you could make as many as 10 changes at once in amino acid sequences of an enzyme, without destroying its function. In some cases, his data shows 30 changes with the enzyme still functional. Yet he seems to argue that it can’t happen.
That’s pretty weird. Moreover, better understood enzymes such as cytochrome c, show that the argument is false:
I commend your data, but your argument simply boils down to one word… seems. How do you know his total perspective, analysis, or even opinion? Adding many words to your unsubstantiated assessment of his argument simply doesn’t prove your point. You can’t hide your unprovable point behind data, it needs to prove a fact, that you once again, don’t present. Pretty weird.
The authors cited tried the same argument Axe did, but likewise were blindsided when it became clear that their “invariant” regions were nothing of the kind.
These cited authors, did they try the exact same argument? Where is there analysis? Blindsided? Now that is a indisputable declaration. Was it a car wreck, or nothing of the kind? Where are their calculations to compare to his calculations that you haven’t presented?
Regarding Darwin and my quote on his promotion of eugenics, It is in the book. So this begs the question was he confused, senile, or just covering his tracks?
You seem to let your world view of Darwinian Evolution control your reasoning. Obviously you are an intelligent young man ( unless you are a female barbarian). Try to somehow become truly objective, instead of proving your world view. I truly think that you can make some outstanding findings, if you aren’t blinded. I would hope for you to be a Biblical Creationist (see Genesis) because therein lies the truth. First things first, however, try for objective. Let’s give it some time, then get back again.
May God Bless.
To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.”
Out of respect to you, but against my better judgment, I will again answer you.
*That does no small damage to his credibility. I am very careful about anything anyone from AIG says, after they were caught altering the statements of scientists they cited. (evidence on request)
*
I can understand why you are careful about AiG. They have DOZENS of Phds. in varying fields of science, but they don’t have YOUR opinion. Were these alterations a sinister deception, or maybe new information, a change of the understanding by the person who made the initial claim, a comparison of information with another Phd., or simply a mistake that needed to be corrected. How do you know that they shouldn’t deserve more respect for admitting a mistake AND correcting it, if that is the case.
Since Mike is untrained in biology, why would anyone listen to him on dinosaurs or the origin of life? And since he associates and presents at anti-Catholic meetings, why do you think any of us would give him any credibility on the Bible or creation?
How do you know he is untrained in biology? Just because he has a degree in mathematics, and an advanced degree in education, does that mean he hasn’t studied in the sciences? He was also a trainer for microsoft, and a national pentathlon champion (1976) for the United States. So that shows he can do multiple actions, and is quite intelligent. And since He is brought into many presentations and debates over evolutionary and biological topics, there must be a lot of sponsors who think he is qualified, because they frequently pay him quite a sum.
*Which, in your opinion, makes him an authority on evolution?
*
The authority, no. An authority, yes. See above.
Which is why he is involved with anti-Catholic organizations?
This is a really a lame attempt to bring in negative emotions. Trying for sympathy?
Is he anti-catholic clergy? Anti-catholic doctrine? Or anti-Catholic members? Is it possible that he defends his Biblical perspective that may on occasion differ with catholic teachings? Do these organizations include the KKK (anti-catholic) or Billy Graham’s crusades, which hold to the Sola Fide tenet?
There are a lot of good speakers. Good thinkers are somewhat harder to get.
True. Are you the authority on who is or isn’t a good “thinker?” Seems to me that someone who has risen to the level of trainer at the largest computer software (and possibly all computer related companies) in the world would qualify as a good “thinker.” (as well as his other accomplishments)
How about one who actually knows something about biology?
How are you privy to this amazing discovery? Did Mike forget to check with you first?
Since you don’t seem to be able to support your original claim about Riddle’s calculations, can we conclude you’ve withdrawn the claim until you can support it?
I think it is a safe assumption that an expert (to your chagrin) who presents these calculations (remember the math degree?) in many public forums and through the media, who has most likely had others, except yourself, analyze his findings, knows from where he speaks. Don’t you think that someone other than yourself has checked his findings? If proven wrong, he is vulnerable to public scrutiny, so I think it is safe to believe him… that is unless YOU can dispute his findings. No withdraw given. Once again, you produce no evidence, facts, or data on your own.
Let’s take a look:
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors
But in the report, Axe admits that you could make as many as 10 changes at once in amino acid sequences of an enzyme, without destroying its function. In some cases, his data shows 30 changes with the enzyme still functional. Yet he seems to argue that it can’t happen.
That’s pretty weird. Moreover, better understood enzymes such as cytochrome c, show that the argument is false:
I commend your data, but your argument simply boils down to one word… seems. How do you know his total perspective, analysis, or even opinion? Adding many words to your unsubstantiated assessment of his argument simply doesn’t prove your point. You can’t hide your unprovable point behind data, it needs to prove a fact, that you once again, don’t present. Pretty weird.
The authors cited tried the same argument Axe did, but likewise were blindsided when it became clear that their “invariant” regions were nothing of the kind.
These cited authors, did they try the exact same argument? Where is there analysis? Blindsided? Now that is a indisputable declaration. Was it a car wreck, or nothing of the kind? Where are their calculations to compare to his calculations that you haven’t presented?
Regarding Darwin and my quote on his promotion of eugenics, It is in the book. So this begs the question was he confused, senile, or just covering his tracks?
You seem to let your world view of Darwinian Evolution control your reasoning. Obviously you are an intelligent young man ( unless you are a female barbarian). Try to somehow become truly objective, instead of proving your world view. I truly think that you can make some outstanding findings, if you aren’t blinded. I would hope for you to be a Biblical Creationist (see Genesis) because therein lies the truth. First things first, however, try for objective. Let’s give it some time, then get back again.
May God Bless.
M
Michaelo
Guest
Maranatha33, can you remind me what Mike from AiG specifically said that impressed you?
C
CGDouglas
Guest
Maranatha33, have you read the book?
I will again quote, and will cross out those that have been deliberately omissioned from the statement:
Originally Posted by [URL said:
]
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon
eliminated; -]and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of
health./-] We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the
process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and
the sick; -]we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost
skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to
believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox./-] Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be
highly injurious to the race of man. -]It is surprising how soon a want of
care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic
race; but excepting in the case of man himself,/-] hardly any one is so
ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Please explain these omissions…
God Bless.
Chris.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That one is often used as a mantra against logic.
Barbarian observes:
That does no small damage to his credibility. I am very careful about anything anyone from AIG says, after they were caught altering the statements of scientists they cited. (evidence on request)
Everyone should. They presented the astronomers Clark and Caswell as saying that the number of supernova remnants in the galaxy was a “mystery”, when in fact they had written “the mystery is solved.”
Precisely the opposite of what the two scientists had written. If they were willing to lie about that, they will lie to you about anything.
I don’t lie about what other people write in scientific papers. They seem to think that it’s O.K. if it advances their cause.
Barbarian observes:
Since Mike is untrained in biology, why would anyone listen to him on dinosaurs or the origin of life? And since he associates and presents at anti-Catholic meetings, why do you think any of us would give him any credibility on the Bible or creation?
His biography is on the net.
Why is he participating in anti-Catholic conferences if he’s so smart?
Barbarian suggests:
Since you don’t seem to be able to support your original claim about Riddle’s calculations, can we conclude you’ve withdrawn the claim until you can support it?
We can’t tell, because you are, for some reason, unwilling to show us the calculations.
Apparently no one has, since they are nowhere to be found. Since you can’t or won’t present them, we’ll have to conclude they don’t exist.
Barbarian observes:
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors
But in the report, Axe admits that you could make as many as 10 changes at once in amino acid sequences of an enzyme, without destroying its function. In some cases, his data shows 30 changes with the enzyme still functional. Yet he seems to argue that it can’t happen.
That’s pretty weird. Moreover, better understood enzymes such as cytochrome c, show that the argument is false:
I can only go by his statement. It seems completely at odds with his results.
Barbarian observes:
The authors cited tried the same argument Axe did, but likewise were blindsided when it became clear that their “invariant” regions were nothing of the kind.
Yes.
Doesn’t seem to have been one.
Yep.
Didn’t you read the link? The invariant regions they supposed to exist weren’t invariant at all. They just included one group of evolutionarily connected organisms, so the differences in cytochrome c were less among the group than they were with more distantly related organisms. This is one of the more compelling facts that support common descent.
You saw his statement condemning eugenics as an “overwhelming evil.” Because genes had not become known in his time, Darwin thought eugenics was possible, but evil to do. Because you didn’t actually read his book, you were fooled by the guys who quote-mined his book for you.
You’ve trusted people who turned out to be unworthy of your trust. Go find out for yourself.
And then you are no longer under their control.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I very much doubt that Maranatha33 intentionally altered that passage. Almost certainly someone who presented himself as a Christian gave it to him, and he trusted that person.
It’s the usual case. Most creationists are not dishonest, but they are preyed upon by creationists who are.
A
agangbern
Guest
You answered the above post in the following way:
You did not notice that your answer is too far from the question. For what runs in the mind of the Church as her reason in apologizing for Galileo, if indeed she did that, could not be known by any man except she herself would express it in words. For no man can read another man’s heart and mind. But you pretended to have read what went in the heart of the Church and so you declared that the reason of the Church was "because it understands nothing of its own astronomical heritage"
- Status