Re: News: Evolution is a fact.

On Jul 18, 10:30 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 17 July, 19:54, Andrew Cunningham <azier...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 17, 7:57 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using
to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other
enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other
bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other
than the manmade nylon byproducts."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

That last sentence:
"not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon
byproducts"

is impossible to prove, & unscientific to claim.

Then show me just one natural source of nylon.

Why?

Because such a thing would be REQUIRED to exist if your blubbering
'but, but - HOW DO YOU KNOW NYLONASE WASN'T A NATURAL PRODUCT ?!?!?!'
to be considered valid.

The "byproduct" these bacteria digest is "6-aminohexanoate", or
"Aminocaproic acid" which is almost identical to "Lysine".

'Almost identical' is NOT 'identical'. A change in the position of a
few atoms can make all the difference.

The STANDARD amide bond is R1-(C=O)-NH-R2; the beta amide bond seen in
nylon oligomers is
R1-NH-(C=O)-R2. Reacting the NH2 group of lysine to an available
carboxylic acid residue (COO-) would yield the standard amide bond AND
NOT THE BETA AMIDE BOND seen in nylon oligomers.

It already binds to the  kringle domain in many blood clotting
proteins.

It is reasonably to believe that a pre-existing enzyme that catalyses
lysine in some fashion could also catalyse "6-aminohexanoate".

Not really, given the FACT that the beta amide bond is different from
the amide bonds seen in every other organic compound that has amide
bonds.

Now prove that the 3 enzymes are *not* "coincidental in nature".

Prove that natural sources of nylon exist.

Why do you keep going on about nylon?

These bacteria live on nylon "byproducts", that are almost identical
to Lysine..

Once again simpleton : 'almost identical' is not 'identical'.
Thalidomide has TWO isomers - the same chemical formula, but the atoms
are arranged differently. One isomer is a tranquilizer; the other is
a mutagen.

Starch and cellulose are made of sugars linked together - but the
linkage between them in cellulose is DIFFERENT than that seen in
starch (which is WHY special enzymes are needed to digest cellulose).

<snippidity> cockroach stuff.

3) Are you saying D.Radiodurans evolved this capability from the
1950's onwards? (careful there).

Nope, I'm saying its capability is coincidental in nature.

So again: Now prove that the 3 enzymes are *not* "coincidental in
nature".

Prove that natural sources of nylon exist.

Again:

Why do you keep going on about nylon?

These bacteria live on nylon "byproducts", that are almost identical
to Lysine..

'Almost identical' is not 'identical'; the beta amide bond that
nylonase digests is different from all other amide bonds seen in
naturally occurring organic compounds.

I would be glad, though, if you could show me otherwise. (Don't worry, I was
careful.)

No need. You've proven my point nicely.

Your point that natural sources of nylon exist?

Why do you keep going on about nylon?

These bacteria live on nylon "byproducts", that are almost identical
to Lysine..

Or are you saying that nylon is as easy to digest as potatoes?

The bacteria seem to think so.

ONCE THEY EVOLVED A NYLONASE TO CATALYZE THE REACTION; before that,
they couldn't digest it.

4) *IF* D.Radiodurans had this ability *before*, then why do you say
bacteria could *not* digest nylon before it's invention?

Because the former doesn't require these ultra-high doses of radiation
to survive, whilst the latter does require nylon to survive? Weird how
that works, huh?

No.

Please elaborate.

It's not weird at all.

Nylonase is a frameshift mutation, and was selected for by positive
selection : those that could digest nylon oligomers could access a
locally abundant food source that other bacteria in the pools could
not.

They left Pseudomonas in an enviroment with the nylon byproduct as the
only source of nutrients.

And that's where your problem is.

You have 0 way of knowing wether the introduced Pseudomonas had the
ability before or not.

According to the study you're talking about(That you didn't even
reference in any way.) the cultures of Pseudomonas had different
enzymes between the strain that could consume nylon and the strain
that couldn't.http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020?view=long&pmid=7646041

Exactly my point.

It is becoming increasingly well known that there may be thousands of
different strains of what were only a few years ago considered "a
single species".

You have 0 way of knowing wether your samples were contaminated with
bacteria that *already* had the ability to digest nylon byproducts.

The *ONLY* way to be 100% sure was to place a *single* bacteria in
culture, and see if "it's" offspring developed the ability to digest
Aminocaproic acid.

As far as I know. *NOONE* has done this.

Actually, they did - in a lab, cultures are DERIVED FROM A SINGLE
BACTERIUM. They grow them on a plate and since bacteria don't move
well, they tend to pile up into a colony visible to the naked eye -
and each bacterium is a clone of the single one that started it.

Plus the FACT that researchers know the entire genome sequence of the
bacteria that can't digest nylon and the sequence of those that can,
it was simple to OBSERVE that Pseudomonas that can digest nylon are
not a different species than those that can't. Thus DISPROVING your
'external contamination' whine.

Now I have another question.

Why did dopy "weirdo" stomp about like a deranged lunatic *claiming*
that some of the sequences I uploaded a while back were
*CONTAMINATION*.

Because those DNA sequences WERE contaminants - that fruit fly
sequence in a sea urchin cDNA library was determined to be a
contaminant because it was NOT in the sea urchin genome.

That firefly sequence in a mouse cDNA library was determined to be a
contaminant because of the FACT it had a 2900/2900 match to a
commercially available reporter vector.

Yet, he is so *confident* these batches were not *CONTAMINATED* with
bacteria that previously had the ability to digest Aminocaproic acid?

A contaminant WOULD HAVE BEEN DETECTED THE MOMENT THEY SEQUENCED THE
BACTERIA'S GENOME - they KNEW the genomic sequence of the bacteria
they started with.

They sequenced the genes from the nylon-digesting mutant and the
original host strain - there was no contamination.

In order for there to be a contamination, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A
NATURALLY OCCURING SOURCE OF NYLON OLIGOMERS FOR THE BACTERIA TO GROW
ON BEFORE NYLON WAS INVENTED.

So either A) : there was an unknown pool of nylon oligomers lying
around somewhere for a few billion years, supporting a strain of
bacteria that couldn't rush out into the world until humans developed
nylon, or

B) bacteria can mutate to digest novel substrates.

Most sane and rational people go with option 'B' until evidence to
favor option 'A' is presented. Got any ?

.

Quantcast