Nylonase is not new information: CrEvo Rant #80 with Wazooloo

http://wazooloo.com
http://ianjuby.org
In this CrEvo rant, Ian addresses the evolutionary claim that nylonase (and other, similar bacterial mutations) are an increase in information in the genome.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• bacteria
• nylonase
• information
• theory
• creation
• evolution
• Ian
• Juby
• crevo
• rant
• intelligent
• design
• pwnage
• olympics
• richard
• dawkins
• 777quip
• Richard Dawkins
• Creationism
• Information Theory
• Darwin
• Charles Darwin
• wazooloo

[bottlezone]

By this guy's reasoning, we can just burn down all of the libraries, because all of the information that they contain is already contained on a single piece of paper with the alphabet written on it.

[maskofsan1ty]

A gene underwent gene duplication. The duplicated gene was then able to mutate without the old function being lost. A base pair insertion occurred within one of the copies and a new start codon was created. Due to it being an insertion there was a frame shift meaning potentially all of the amino acids after the insertion site would have been changed, in this case the entire gene due to the insertion creating a start codon. This means nothing of the original gene remained = New information

[sleazybtd]

Gaining the ability to digest nylon is a perfect example of biological evolution.

Apparently, you accept biological evolution and reject your own creationist definition of evolution.

[MunkyDrag0n]

Let's recap the fails, shall we?

1. Nylonase is an enzyme for digesting nylon, not the genetic change.

2. Accidental mutation = change. Non-accidental mutation = change. What?!

3. Dating a fictional character, eh?

4. A nylonase-producing bacterium will not lose its ability just because it cannot use it. See Lamark.

5. Plasmid ingestion is common, random, and shows no deliberate design (It also has nothing to do with nylonase).

6. Don't touch me!

Need I say more?

[Answerquestions1]

@TheScienceFoundation

ohno did not provided evidance fora frame shift (he simply assume it)

´´ the mutation did not only occur on plasmids´´

where did you get this information?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Answerquestions1 No it doesn't, that's not even an article, it's a blog. And I've already explained that the claims they made were either empty assertions or outright fabrication.

The original work by Ohno shows how the original nylonase was the result of a frameshift.

[Answerquestions1]

@TheScienceFoundation

the article explains why it couldn´t be a random mutation, do you have any strong argument that proves that it was a random mutation?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Answerquestions1 That's not an article, that's a blog on a site that admits they reject anything that contradicts scripture. They're also wrong specifically for many reasons, there was no adaptational mechanism demonstrated, only claimed and the mutation did not only occur on plasmids, it was a frame reading error.

[Answerquestions1]

@TheScienceFoundation

the experiment was done with two different species of bacteria (where compleatly different enzimes were formed on each)

but when te experiment is repeated with the same specie the same enzymes are produced ths article shows reasons of why the nylon bug was not form by random mutations

´´The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste´´

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Answerquestions1 No, they're not the exact same enzymes, they're different than the original nylonase.