You are just busting at the seems to talk about bacteria aren't you? Its incredible to me how someone can take a single celled organism which bares almost no resemblance to the incredible diversity of multi-celled organisms found on Earth and use it as their sole biological argument for universal common decent. An interesting thought to chew on for a few moments, is to consider what a designer might have created bacteria for to begin with.
You are just busting at the seams to make this example of evolution increasing information just go away. The facts of the matter is that this new and novel enzyme was the product of random mutation. If this is not an example of an increase in information then evolution does not require an increase in information.
Secondly, single celled organisms are more diverse than multi-cellular organisms. The majority of the biomass on Earth is made up of single celled organisms. You can whinge and wail all you want, this isn't going away. This is an example of mutations producing new information in the genome.
For those reading this who aren't familiar with the whole "nylon eating bacteria" argument, allow me a second to bring you up to speed. Basically the idea is that since nylon is a man made product that didn't exist until 1935, then these bacteria developing the ability to digest the manufacturer waste product (according to the argument) must have "evolved" to be able to do so. The Nylonase flag was raised by atheists and planted firmly into the hill of intelligent design, and touted as a great victory!
We have the genome without the mutation and the genome with the mutation. This is a case of a mutation producing a new and novel enzyme.
I just want to first point out that all the changes occurred in the plasmids.
You do realize that plasmids are made up of DNA, right?
Since none of these new enzymes have been found to catalyze with any naturally occurring amide compounds, it is assumed that the enzymes are completely new and not just modified existing enzymes. The argument is usually made that this new enzyme (EII) was the result of a frame shift mutation, while others insist that it is actually the result of a loss of specification. And that is actually what the whole nylonase debate boils down to (frame shift mutation or loss of specification). Most ID proponents suggest that because five transposable elements exist on plasmid pOAD2 that it could be interpreted as evidence of it being "designed" to be adaptive.
Thus, we find just how dishonest ID really is. They ask us for examples of mutations producing new enzymes, since such examples should exist if evolution is true. We show them the mutations. Their reply? It doesn't count because it was designed to do that. Pathetic.
Opponents to ID argue that because the transposons jump around at random without regard to the cell’s need, therefore the mechanism is purely random mutation and natural selection. But considered the fact that transposons cleave to the DNA strand by use of an enzyme called transposase, which recognize specific sequences of nucleotides and these transposons insert into the DNA molecule. This in turn creates direct repeats on each side of the transposons, known as insertion sequences. When they are activated, transposase enzymes coded within, cause genetic recombination. External forces such as exposure to poison, starvation or high temperature are known to activate transposases.
That tells us that it is in fact with regard to the cells need!
This is false. The insertions that are produced are neutral, beneficial, and detrimental. They are random with respect to fitness. This is true in multi-cellular organisms as well.
Finally my case in point is this. For those of you who aren't familiar with plasmids, they are a small circular unit of DNA that replicate within a cell completely independent of the chromosomal DNA and are mostly only found in bacteria. But wait a second, the whole argument using nylonase is that they are an example showing us how DNA could have formed by natural processes.
Baloney. It is an example of a mutation in DNA producing a new and novel enzyme, otherwise known as an increase in information.
So again Taq, show me an example in the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism and we can talk.
Do a comparison of the chimp and human genome. The similarities are inherited from the common ancestor. The differences are lineage specific mutations that resulted in the species we see today. It's pretty simple, really.
™ Version 4.2
(1)