The Nylon Bug

>>>>>>So, if the evolution could not be random, then it would have to be nonrandom, and as I have suggested in my book, they would be triggered by the environment. That is, the capability is built into the bacterium and the environment triggers the mutations.<<<<<<<

I am not sure that this guy knows what he is talking about. What is a nonrandom mutation and how is it triggered? How does a nonrandom mutation differ from an random one? Seems to me that if there is a mechanism for triggering a nonrandom mutation, then the effect is still the same regardless of whether it is random or nonrandom. How does this help the creationist?

What does it mean that the "capability is built into the bacterium"? If the capability was not there before the mutation, then it is not built into the bacterium.

 

There is one sense in which there is an environmental cause for mutations. That is when the environment stresses a cell so that the normal error correction methods are comprimised, allowing more mutations to get through.

This can work to the advantage of a population, allowing the cells to evolve more quickly in an environment that they are not well suited for, and once the evolution succeeds, they are less stressed, and the error correction mechanisms again are restored to full efficiency.

But the important thing to note here is there is no control over any particular mutation itself. That is still a random event. It is the natural selection afterwards that determines whether the mutation is "good" or "bad" for the population.

 

PETER101, it would appear this line you quoted is an echo of the creationist mantra that living things never invent anything new, they only exploit potentials they already had.

But it got me to thinking. Could it be that the original task that the bacteria faced, in the plant wastewater stream, was how to dispose of the excess nylon precursor chemicals in the water? That in the original evolutionary path was better waste elimination, and that incidentally a way was developed to use the resulting degraded nylon components for energy?

This would be a possible line of research.

 

My undergraduate degree is in bacteriology, and he's spouting hooey. The reason that the frameshift mutation worked (they are usually devastating) is because the gene happened to be on a plasmid, and so the frameshift didn't affect the whole genome.

The fact that the enzyme, once evolved, was repeatedly refined by further mutations is not surprising. Barry Hall's work on E. Coli showed the same thing occuring.

 

Hmm.. I took biophysics. Not much in evolution in most biophysics courses.

And I've been studying evolution as long as Spetner has.

But there's a difference. He's shackled to his religious assumption of creationism. And so he has to find excuses, instead of dealing with the evidence.

The fact that he didn't understand what a "plasmid" was, tripped him up this time. Sometimes, when talking about bacteria, it helps to know something about them.

It's why frameshift mutations are so often successful in bacteria: plasmids are transferred by conjugation, and rarely are necessary to the survival of the bacterium.

 

>>>>>It's his field of expertise, and obviously not yours, Peter101.<<<<<<

Well maybe you and your reference know more about the subject than I do. But still I repeat my question and specifically ask you for a response, Helen. The question is this. Suppose your reference is correct that the mutations that produce nylon eating organisms are in fact non-random mutations. How does that help the creationist position? Does it make evolution any less likely? If so, how?

 

>>>>>Let me see, Galatian. Spetner had a fellowship in Biophysics at Johns Hopkins in 1962-63 and has been studying organic evolution ever since.

You're on a roll! You are smarter than Spetner, more correct than "Evolutionary Biology", ...

and,ummmm, you teach jr. hi. Right?<<<<<<
.............................................
Helen, let me make sure I understand you. You are implying that credentials are important?

 

Only when they are held by someone who supports a young earth model. All those scientists in the majority are crazy despite their credentials, so they can be discounted.

 

Helen, it's not possible to be "deceitful" about what other christians believe, because christians are such a diverse group that some christian somewhere is going to believe anything you could possibly specify!

Galatian's ideas generally seem sound. If you don't like them, attack the science. Uncover evidence, for example, that frame shifting in plasmid dna really is fragile instead of robust like he asserted and show it to the world.

 

The Barbarian actually earned a degree in bacteriology, unlike Spetner, who did not. His lack of expertise is obvious to anyone who understands bacteria. I'm not saying that because my credentials are better than Spetners (they are), but because he doesn't understand the issue.

I've been studying in this area for almost 40 years now, and I have a degree in the field.

I didn't say he was totally ignorant. I'm merely pointing out why a frameshift mutation in a bacterial plasmid is generally not harmful.

Sorry. If Spetner is saying what you seem to be implying that he is, then he's ignorant about framshifts in bacterial plasmids. And that was the question.

Giving the same answer to the same question is not considered a bad thing in science. But I've given you on this board, a great deal of information that is well-documented. I'm not sure what you think assailing me personally is going to do to help Spetner.

Actually having earned a degree in bacteriology, I assure you that I do know about this subject.

Most folks deny what they want to. For their own purposes. Why would they deny what they don't want to, for purposes they didn't intend?

No. There are indeed some Christians who believe in creationism. But that doesn't make it a Christian belief, any more than "no dancing" is a Christian belief.

As you've seen, mixing supernatural and science gives you unworkable science and worse religion.

It's good to be skeptical. I encourage you to check my assertions on your own. You'll find that they are correct.