Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fact Theory Falacy
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 62 of 136 (3911)
02-09-2002 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 1:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Is there an example of point mutations creating new functional protein?
Yes.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche. They don't work at all on the bacterium's original food - carbohydrates. And this type of mutation has even happened more than once!"
--I found the article very interesting, I also found this, I quote form an AiG rebutal towards an e-mail they received regarding nylon digesting bacterium:
AiG - That depends on what your definition of information is - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp

But, again, there is no definition of what information is, let alone new information.
TC, you have already given me the requirements that genetic information would need to display to exhibit new information, I have shown that it does occur by mutation, by your definition. You cannot now move the goalposts by defining information differently. What is the point of a discussion, when the person who has his definition of new information proven, then cries "that's not the correct definition!".
I have asked many times for creationists to define "new information", now you know why they don't, because that definition could show new information, as a result of mutation. At least you had the balls to try
.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids /b][/QUOTE]
New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids is like saying digestion of starch is due to chromosomes.
What this shows is an example of not understanding the issue in hand. What is being inferred is that the gene was gained from another bacteria, via interspecial recombination, which does occur. However, the ORIGINAL carbohydrate gene has been sequenced, as has the new nylon one This shows the addition of a Thymine nucleotide, causing frame shift. No amount of wriggling will get away from this, it is a repeatable experiment. I repeat, the only difference in over 400 nucleotides is a single thymine addition.
Now, back to new information. The problem I have with creationist definitions of the above, is that they deliberately try to be so narrow, so as to exclude new functional proteins as being derived from new information. For example, when I asked for a definition of new information, I got this :
A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon),
Can you not see our frustration? Does this definition allow new information to be gleaned by a book? Morse code? Pictures? No, it’s ridiculously narrow a definition. A simple, all encompassing definition is all we want. Then, armed with this, we can check definitions of new information that exist at different levels of information. ie What is & isn’t new information in a genetic context, but I want a general definition first.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 1:43 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 02-09-2002 12:24 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 65 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:44 PM mark24 has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 136 (3915)
02-09-2002 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mark24
02-09-2002 7:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
What is being inferred is that the gene was gained from another bacteria, via interspecial recombination, which does occur.
Good answer Mark but I think the important criticism of their plasmids is that even if the ability was gained from other bacteria why the hell do those bacteria have the ability to digest a synthetc material that has only existed for 50 some years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 7:33 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 12:40 PM joz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 64 of 136 (3917)
02-09-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by joz
02-09-2002 12:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Good answer Mark but I think the important criticism of their plasmids is that even if the ability was gained from other bacteria why the hell do those bacteria have the ability to digest a synthetc material that has only existed for 50 some years?
Thanks Joz, & I agree, but you expose a hole in my knowledge, that I really should have closed ages ago.
Do asexual bacteria have multiple alleles like sexually reproducing organisms? My initial answer would be no, there is no recombination to "sort" them out, there would be no point.
This means there is only one allele per gene (if that makes sense), & any mutation cannot destroy function, because the only gene would be wrecked. Whereas, in a sexual organism, if that allele was one of many, it would become a pseudogene.
Anyone?
Thanks,
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 02-09-2002 12:24 PM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 136 (3918)
02-09-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by mark24
02-09-2002 7:33 AM


"But, again, there is no definition of what information is, let alone new information.
TC, you have already given me the requirements that genetic information would need to display to exhibit new information, I have shown that it does occur by mutation, by your definition. You cannot now move the goalposts by defining information differently. What is the point of a discussion, when the person who has his definition of new information proven, then cries "that's not the correct definition!"."
--I will stick to my definition of new information as I did in the past post, now with the example you have given me, it seems this would be new information, now all we have to do is figure out what was the method of this new information, ie, can it cooperate with a creationists response to 'new information' as new information should be able to be a short mirror image of evolution taking place. For instance, I can take human DNA and put it into a bacterium or somthing of that nature and wouldn't that be new information? Technically yes, but it has previously existed, that would be one example that would not quallify. I'm not ready to cry and say 'thats not the correct definition!'.
--The only thing I am worried about is getting myself stuck in a rut by means of getting into something that I may not have the knowledge to easily participate in, as you may. Though this does not confine my interest in the subject of new information.
"I have asked many times for creationists to define "new information", now you know why they don't, because that definition could show new information, as a result of mutation. At least you had the balls to try."
--And hey, mabye I have the balls to carry on! Lets just hope they don't get splatterd.
"New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids is like saying digestion of starch is due to chromosomes."
--Sorry, I was just mentioning the comment, obviously it claims to be significant, so I thought I would propose it. I don't actually have the article though I would love to get ahold of it .
"What this shows is an example of not understanding the issue in hand. What is being inferred is that the gene was gained from another bacteria, via interspecial recombination, which does occur."
--So the gene was taken from another bacteria?
"However, the ORIGINAL carbohydrate gene has been sequenced, as has the new nylon one This shows the addition of a Thymine nucleotide, causing frame shift. No amount of wriggling will get away from this, it is a repeatable experiment. I repeat, the only difference in over 400 nucleotides is a single thymine addition."
--Its a repeatable experiment, how was it observed, and how was the experiment carried out?
"Now, back to new information. The problem I have with creationist definitions of the above, is that they deliberately try to be so narrow, so as to exclude new functional proteins as being derived from new information. For example, when I asked for a definition of new information, I got this :
A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon),
Can you not see our frustration? Does this definition allow new information to be gleaned by a book? Morse code? Pictures? No, it’s ridiculously narrow a definition. A simple, all encompassing definition is all we want. Then, armed with this, we can check definitions of new information that exist at different levels of information. ie What is & isn’t new information in a genetic context, but I want a general definition first."
--I must say I don't have the highest knowledge in the field of genetics or molecular biology, so that is my main problem. I would have to say though, that new information, doesn't really have to have a functional use to a sertain degree. But if thats all they can find, non-functional use, then thats a problem that Evolution on the the macro-scale will have to figure out. I would still like to have a somewhat discussion on this, I have the feeling I won't be able to carry on later though, I may not know genetics like you may. (hey at-least I have the 'balls' to admit it).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 7:33 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mark24, posted 02-09-2002 7:27 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 66 of 136 (3923)
02-09-2002 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 12:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"What this shows is an example of not understanding the issue in hand. What is being inferred is that the gene was gained from another bacteria, via interspecial recombination, which does occur."
--So the gene was taken from another bacteria?

In this case, no. Flavobacterium "carbohydrate" gene still exists in other Flavobacterium, the mutated strain differs in the "carbohydrate" gene being a "nylon" gene instead.
In other bacteria, functional genes can be gained by recombination with different species. Some anti-biotic resisant bacteria naturally have a gene that produces a protein that attaches itself to the penicillin protein, neutralising it. This gene has since turned up in bacterial species that previously never had it (such as tuberculosis), making them resistant too. If you read Fred's article in "Reproductive Cost problem more devastating than ever " thread, he maintains that asexually producing organisms to not exhibit recombination. This is patently wrong. It may not be as important as in sexually reproducing organisms, but it is going to stop a lot of bacteria suffering the same fate as smallpox, which now only exists in a few laboratories.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:44 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 67 of 136 (3930)
02-09-2002 10:04 PM


that nylon eating bacteria is fascinating, do they know of one able to digest freon or whatever it is that air conditioners and air spray release. if there is, we may be able to combat all the pollutants were puttin in the air. maybe one day we could actually breathe fresh and clean air.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by lbhandli, posted 02-09-2002 10:17 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 136 (3936)
02-09-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 10:04 PM


Freon was banned several years ago and it is even banned in the 3rd world now. It wasn't an issue of air quality, but of degrading the ozone layer. Air quality is most affected (ironically) by ozone and particulate matter in most US cities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 10:04 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 10:48 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 69 of 136 (3943)
02-09-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by lbhandli
02-09-2002 10:17 PM


how bout a carbon monoxide eating bug then? :-) im really very curious.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by lbhandli, posted 02-09-2002 10:17 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 11:16 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 70 of 136 (3951)
02-09-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 10:48 PM


That's the field of bioremediation, using living things (sometimes with genetic engineering) to detoxify chemical waste. The best example now is using genetically modified microbes to decompose oil slicks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 10:48 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:19 PM gene90 has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 71 of 136 (3953)
02-09-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by gene90
02-09-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
That's the field of bioremediation, using living things (sometimes with genetic engineering) to detoxify chemical waste. The best example now is using genetically modified microbes to decompose oil slicks.

sweet, science in action i love it. lets just pray it doesnt eat up all the oil on the planet, i cannot imagine what that would cause.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 11:16 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 8:06 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 72 of 136 (3977)
02-10-2002 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 11:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
sweet, science in action i love it. lets just pray it doesnt eat up all the oil on the planet, i cannot imagine what that would cause.

I can't imagine how they would survive the pressure, or get that far underground, through solid, non-porous rock!
Another related example of science in action, is the synthesis if human insulin in bacteria (for the benefit of diabetics). The human insulin gene is inserted into the bacterial plasmid, which is reproduced as the bacteria reproduces. The new organism dutifully produces insulin from this recombinant DNA.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:19 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:46 PM mark24 has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 73 of 136 (3986)
02-10-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by mark24
02-10-2002 8:06 AM


on their own theyd have trouble getting down there, but whose to say someone wouldnt put the bacteria in competitors wells to get more profits.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 8:06 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 12:50 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 74 of 136 (3988)
02-10-2002 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 12:46 PM


How do you get something down a deep pipe that only pumps up?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:46 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:59 PM mark24 has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 75 of 136 (3990)
02-10-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by mark24
02-10-2002 12:50 PM


yeah but they still store the oil in tanks on the surface.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 12:50 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 1:33 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 76 of 136 (3994)
02-10-2002 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 12:59 PM


well, maybe you got an industrial espoionage idea!
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:59 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 4:19 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024