AIG has an article up on the nylon-digesting bacteria

Trixie,I dug through the sequence data a little bit myself. Most of the info, including papers by Yomo and Prijambada, can be found on this thread. One of the papers claimed that all of the nylonase genes had a corresponding antisense open reading frame. However, I wasn't able to find one for the nylB' gene. I used the pOAD2 sequence found in NCBI and the ORF Reader from the same site. Good luck.

Brad--Sorry I don't frequent this board to respond in a timely way, but I really can't understand a thing you're saying! Maybe you're lightyears beyond me (all I've got is a couple years on a Ph.D. in biochemistry) but I really can't see where you get your ideas or where they're going. You've got "homework" on quaternions... OK, I use quaternions in some of my programs, but that's about all I can dissect from your posts, and I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion.Question: are you a creationist posing as an evolutionist/theoretician? If so, it's not gonna work. I've successfully posed as a creationist before, but I have yet to see someone do the opposite.

Almost no one can understand Brad. Don't let it worry you.

hey there Wounded,wj is correct in understanding what I was trying to say about cytochrome c. The point was not that it had evolved independently several times, but that in each animal it does the same job--but it is different everytime.Perhaps I did not word it very well.About the APT binding proteins, perhaps I did not word that well at all. I believe I should email Spetner again to be sure he understands. What do you think? Should I include other examples that demonstrate that his assumption is incorrect? If so, what? How do you think I could word it better?Thx very much for your feedback.--Black[This message has been edited by Black, 04-17-2004]

I remember reading about other times that nylon-waste 'digesting' proteins (or something) had been evolved through mutations in the lab. Anyone have information on this? If each time, the resulting bacteria was different, that would basically show that what I was telling Spetner was correct.Anyone know about this?

I haven't forgotten about this thread, but I haven't had time to write anything about plasmids and the selection pressures on bugs to keep or get rid of them. I've been wandering around the sequence databases looking at the nylB sequence and comparing it to other sequences. Last night I pulled out some interesting information from all of this which has left me astounded and puzzled. I'll try to sort out my brain on this tonight and get something written and then I'll get something written about plasmids in general. Thanks for being patient.By the way, toddler STILL not well! (yeuch)

quote:

---

I remember reading about other times that nylon-waste 'digesting' proteins (or something) had been evolved through mutations in the lab. Anyone have information on this?

---

Yes, the complete citation is:Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 May;61(5):2020-2. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, Urabe I.The complete paper can be found here in PDF format. Interesting article, showing the emergence of two types of nylon digesting enzymes.

Let it, I didnt bring the working paper(s)(which I see now would have been useful for biophysicist which I was working on and from before I posted. The issue is NOT about information INCREASE as I was led onto on TrueSeekers (as to any or all prior online info) but if information itself goes the way from protein to DNA and there are plenty of people using a more "heuristic" approach (than my application of track width to grades (not CLADES!!) across discontinuous spaces) who HAVE ALREADY been documenting in this vein, I simply extend the reasoning INTO the creationis position. I do not repose too soon. Read Gottleib's book on NEOPHENOGENESIS if you want to grow your own thought on biology in a different landscape than Ernst Mayr for standard reference for instance. I CAN THINK of the 1957 seperation of clade interms of Crick's force of base pairs but the creationist reading writes Volta's side and not Galvani's to which I am personal inclined so it is not easy for me to compose the creationist position correctly easily from within KNOWN ideas of biological change. It can be done. That is all that is needed for DEBATE. Biophysicist would be wrong to think that creationism wont work for I have been able to redisplay with baraminiology things herpetological that had already "played" themseleves out in my childhood. One needs a sharp enough magestria to note that Gould's punctuation speaks acutally AGAINST the notino of grades being disconitnuous as baraminology can logically direct but IS done at the expense of an UNADUJDIACATED claim to age and area against Gould's but not necessarily Fisher's notion of Natural Selection which the Pacific Ocean already WAS for Croizat BEFORE Huxley thought the time for anagensis that Gould streches out statistically. Time as Bridgman understood it IS necessary to sort out the material differences an Einstein could bring to this notion of adaptions FROM adaptabilities but whether they are theorized from a discontinuous (my preference and that which best supports creationist concepualization) or a continuous (any old decent with or without slopy mechanical seperations wrongly (in my opinion) permitted)one there ARE claims that behavior migh morph BEFORE any gene frequnecy changes. The issue is if the grade is thus arithemetically described can the geometry be also convergent or track narrowing within any lineage and can not adaptabilities CHANGE the genetics (not the INFORMATION!)to the DNA level of base pair mathematically equivlanet to clade abstract space seperation. Not only do I assert this is possible conceptually which anyone with an ability to read biology can find out but I am working out the consequences of a use of thermal contact as the cause of both the failure to incorporte Croizat, the seperation of the word "Clade" with the warm bloods, and the rightful justice of the creationist position on the physical discontinuites in the GENE data. The work on multiple gaped alingments would not be uncalled for. I however KNOW that there is NOTHING wrong with creation and biology in general BECAUSE I know that a grade<>clade no matter what Gould said. As for the nylon thing this gets a bit more complicated as to the issue of frame shifts and unlike the general direction which even Nosy ought not to warn posters of of my ability to speak on for regardless of how the cell cuts there is still the mathmatical use of catstrophe theory WIHTHIN creationist taxonomy that is not available to the evolutionist. I try not to take the readers this far as there is not *that* much exictment%% about creationism here on EvC and I dont want others to simply be disinclined to post for feeling a kind of religous connativity.Ned, while it is true that some of my posts ought not worry one. This thread should! I am not mad, just using the icon for affect. I'll try to edit down my working papers to some essentials for the B in our midst.

The basic elements of nylon are the peptide bonds CO-NH-CO-NH which are also present in all the proteins. So, the nylon digesting bacteria have a protease enzyme which breaks the peptide bonds in nylon.

Greetings Biophysicist,In my experience Brad is unique and he has been writing like this for awhile. There are theories and I've gone through a few. Currently I think it amuses Brad to parody academic writing in this elaborate style. I think what he does is an intellectual exercise of some sort largely for his amusement and our entertainment as we try to decipher it.I suggest you adopt the attitude most members here have taken of bemused humor and benign perplexity over the ways Brad can twist language into complex structures that never quite reveal anything whilst sounding very weighty.I think Brad writes to entertain and entertain he does, granted it's in a very esoteric way.Welcome to EvC, btw,lfen

Howdy lfen,The Biophysicist post you responded to was about 2 years old or so. Not sure he's back. I'm sure you noticed it, it's just that I was bored enough to point it out.

I noticed it after I posted it and I'm still trying to figure out how I stumbled on it.I usually am looking at the most recent posts and clicking on them opening them in tabs in Firefox (using dial up it takes a while so I load a few topics at a time). But how I managed to bring that one up I can't figure out! I'm tired and should just turn in. sheesh,lfen