B
buffalo
Guest
First off - what is nylonase made up of? Carbon chains…
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Nylonase is an enzyme, a protein. It is made by the bacterium and is made of amino acids like any other protein.
The Bacterium uses the nylonase enzymes to help it digest the nylon oligomers.
Flavobacterium sp. KI72 metabolizes 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer, a by-product of nylon manufacture, through two newly evolved enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer hydrolase (EI) and 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase (EII). These enzymes are active towards man-made compounds, the cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of 6-aminohexanoic acid respectively, but not towards any of the natural amide bonds tested.
Source: (1983)et al
Notice that these enzymes are not active against any of the natural bonds tested, but only against those of the artificial nylon by-product.
There is a short Wikipedia reference to 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase which you may find useful.
At this point the chemistry is beyond what I am able to fully understand. You will have to search further for yourself.
rossum
I
itinerant1
Guest
I would like to toss these considerations into the mix…most medically important antibiotics come from soil bacteria. Also, the compounds we call antibiotics may have evolved. That is, in nature, soil bacteria secrete trace amounts of antibiotics.
Microbiologist Julian Davies (Univ. of British Columbia) suspects that these secretions, at trace levels, serve as a means for bacteria to communicate: helping co-ordinate bacterial activities such as swarming, biofilm formation, and diverse interactions with multi-cellular hosts.
Only when man uses these antibiotics at unnaturally high concentrations do the chemicals inhibit bacteria (Davies). However, in light of what was said above, any new antibiotic that man uses may already have a resistance gene somewhere in nature.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
How about a pre-pope pope’s approval of the scientific evidence for common ancestry? Cardinal Ratzinger formally approved the International Theological Commission’s document COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God . I thought you would be familiar with it by now.What Pope mentioned what evidence for which common ancestry?
Citation please. Or is this the same misinformation mentioned earlier?
Paragraph 63 says, “According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”
Par. 64 says, “Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996.)”
Par. 69 discounts ID Theory: "The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa Theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
E
edwest2
Guest
This does not square up with the biology textbook account. Evolution is simply a mechanism that spits out organisms that if they happen to have the correct characteristics, happen to be in the right place, at the right time, and happen to get selected, as opposed to a competing organism, they get to reproduce.
This does not apply to man in the sense that man was willed by God. He was not an accident or a lucky occurrence.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
This does not apply to man in the sense that man was willed by God. He was not an accident or a lucky occurrence.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Point one: Absolute randomness is a contradiction in terms.
Point two: Evolution is not a mechanism. Evolution has a mechanism – natural selection. Perhaps NS is not the only mechanism.
Point three: Chance presupposes design.
Point four: There is purpose and design in the larger picture surrounding NS. The very Darwinian phrase “struggle for existence” indicates there is something more involved in biological development than a random push from behind.
Point five: There is a design that enables the organism to struggle for existence. Loren Eiseley, says “The struggle for existence, the willingness of an organism to struggle, a fact which Darwin does not attempt to explain, equates at least partially, though perhaps not quite so teleologically, with Lamarck’s life power, or perfecting principle.”
Point six: Textbook authors vary in their correct understanding of the philosophical aspects of biological evolution. The variance seen begins with zero and goes up.
Point seven: Survival of organisms presupposes an environment generally capable of supporting life. The Earth’s environment is no cosmic accident, though chance has its role. Our Earth-moon system is most unique. For more on this subject, read “The Privileged Planet” by Gonzalez and Richards.
In sum, I could easily continue with many more examples, and in more detail, of teleology in nature and evolution but this should suffice for now.
G
grannymh
Guest
Personally, I would not substitute “formally approved” for permission for publication.
Personally, I would expect that a paper if it included scientific evidence for common ancestry actually “approved” by a well-known Cardinal would either have a direct quote or have a footnote indicating that important point.
Personally, I have trouble relating paragraph 69 to your upfront evaluation of it. I will continue to study the paragraph’s philosophical aspects.
Personally, I respect scientific opinions by high ranking clergy, knowing that these opinions are not in the Church’s domain of faith and morals.
Personally, I need time off CAF to sort out the evidence for the real parents of the human species.
Easter blessings,
granny
John 20: 24-31
I
itinerant1
Guest
Point eight: All is a matter of Divine Providence. That includes evolution’s general direction toward greater complexity and production of organism that have more life and greater cognitive abilities. Only man’s appearance involves a direct creation. Lower organisms were not created directly, but instrumentally by secondary causes or the natural processes of nature: confer Genesis 1; “Let the waters teem…”; “Let the earth produce…”
Point nine: The direct action of the Creator in the creation of man does not preclude the fact that man’s body had a prehistory in the natural processes of evolutionary development.
L
larkin31
Guest
Both Benedict and John Paul II have been quoted in this thread (or other threads here, I lose track). See just above in Itinerant’s post for one example.What Pope mentioned what evidence for which common ancestry?
Citation please. Or is this the same misinformation mentioned earlier?
What “misinformation” are you referring to?
G
grannymh
Guest
Fact?
Don’t you mean "some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. " Please see post 641
Apparently, some theory will account for the diversification of life instead of identical cloning of that first organism mentioned in post 641.
Apparently, what the members of the subcommission preparing the study did (see link in post 641 for names and the procedure) was to review current scientific research in order to come up with a timely summary. This is acceptable. This is why paragraph 63 begins with “According to the widely accepted scientific account…”
The difficulty with the summary format is that it is wide open for all kinds of interpretations especially when there are no cited references.
The beginning of Paragraph 69 is “The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality.”
In my humble opinion, the real misunderstanding is that of the nature of science and the different ways it deals with rational and non-rational living organisms. One cannot apply the assumptions regarding non-rational beings to rational human beings.
One does need to check the rest of the paper if one is interested in learning about human nature. Here is an interesting out-of-context quote: “But more significant among the factors undermining the theology of the imago Dei was the conception of man as a self-constituting autonomous subject, apart from any relationship to God.”
This sentence serves as a reminder that when one is reading summaries of scientific opinions, one must take into account that science, by definition, is limited to the material/physical realm.
Easter Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
E
edwest2
Guest
“the fact”? Of a provisional science? A limited science? There is also the fact that Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side. This fact cannot be overlooked by Catholics. The Fall as taught by the Church describes an actual event in time.
There are no peer reviewed, scientific papers analyzing Genesis, so where do these facts come from and do they actually apply to the work of God? It seems that man wants some sort of answer to God’s work that suits his present understanding. But is such an answer possible? And on what basis? There are no textbooks titled: Scientific Interpretation of the Book of Genesis. So where do these conclusions come from? How are they generated?
It appears that what is always ignored is the work of God as performed by Jesus Christ. A modern scientist standing next to Him would have nothing to report back to his colleagues in the future. Jesus used no technology and no science to perform His work. Telling a man to stretch forth his withered arm and it instantly becomes whole. This is what God can do. Calming the sea and the storm – again, no instrumentation was used.
Or, there is the tendency for humans to isolate parts of the Bible into, yes, we will allow God to do this, and no, we will not allow God to do that. We have a better explanation, an explanation that suits us. The explanation that is often overlooked is that God can create everything from nothing. He can also be crucified and rise bodily on the third day. Of course, this is allowed by those seeking a ‘natural’ explanation for Genesis.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have lost track of the “misinformation” I originally referred to. Here is a current example. I consider it misinformation to say or imply that the writings of the subcommission presented in post 641 is the same as a valid quote from a pope.
Actually, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, was not directly quoted in the science excerpts presented in post 641. There are no citations indicating this.
As the President of the International Theological Commission, the then Cardinal Ratzinger give his permission for the publication of the document COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God.
In Catholic circles permission for publication is not necessarily the same as personal “formal approval” of all the “scientific” speculations contained in the document.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.
G
grannymh
Guest
One last thought–LOL Paragraph 70 makes far better sense than the paragraphs cited in this post. Do be careful not to substitute “as populations” for “in populations.”
“In populations” makes monogenism possible, while “as populations” denies the Catholic doctrine of two sole parents of the human species.
Easter Blessings,
granny
John 20:24-31
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Why not?
G
grannymh
Guest
Go ahead and do so. I’m not interested in nitpicking .
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Neither am I!
H
hugh_miller
Guest
Right on Granny and here may be a bit of support for your contention. This web site critique’s the latest exhibit at the Smithsonian that would like to brainwash our kids and grandkids that we are a product gazillions of positive mutations over gazillions of years.
Yes and it’s from those terrible Intelligent Design folks at the Discovery Institutre so you all should take an interest. It just cam across my computer today.
evolutionnews.org/2010/03/smithsonians_new_human_origins.html
Happy Easter and protect those innocent Easter bunnies from those dreadful birds who have evoloved over giga years from dinosaurs.
E
edwest2
Guest
Hi Hugh,
I used to enjoy science until it became politicized. That’s why Tim Matthews decided to grill a Republican politician about evolution.
You must admit, evolution has the most flexible explanatory filter in the universe. As a writer, it could be useful but as the explanations become less plausible, I can’t find a use for it.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
I used to enjoy science until it became politicized. That’s why Tim Matthews decided to grill a Republican politician about evolution.
You must admit, evolution has the most flexible explanatory filter in the universe. As a writer, it could be useful but as the explanations become less plausible, I can’t find a use for it.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I suppose for a TEC education equals brainwashing. No wonder YECs make no significant contributions to society, or learning, or the Church.
- Status