"Does the nylon example qualify? A quick read of the link and you will see it doesn’t. A huge cost is incurred in efficiency, and thus in a normal environment the mutated strain could not last long (AiG also argues plasmid xfer, but the enzyme effeciency loss alone in the article cited by zephyr is sufficient to dismiss mr. nylon as a hero of the evolutionary faith). Does sickle-cell qualify? Of course not."
Of course not! But that part isn't advertised since it doesn't help the 'cause'.
This is a bit of a misnomer. The loss in effeciency comes about when comparing the effeciency of the glycocytic enzymes and the effeciency of the nylonase enzyme. The activity of the nylon enzyme is only 2% that of the glycolytic enzymes which is what you would expect given the amount of time that both enzymes have been subjected to natural selection. Read post 23 in this topic to find examples of enzymes increasing in effeciency due to mutation. Also, nylon as a primary food source was a "normal" environment for the mutant bugs. That's why they were cultured, because bacteria were found growing in an environment they had never been found in before. Do you think mutations that allow an organism to fill and empty niche is a bad thing for the organism? No competition is a very good think IMO.
I really can’t believe the number of evolutionists who use a DISEASE as evidence of evolution!!!
Their choices are few and far between so they gotta go with what they have. It's sort'a like when they're asked for evidence of a 'transitional fossil'. Archaeopteryx has been used so many times that the blasted thing doesn't have any feathers left ... it's been plucked clean! (heheh)
Actually, parasitism (like malaria) is a very strong selective force. Those that can resist the parasite will have more children than those who can not survive the infection. Makes sense to me that evolutionists use it. It's really not that much different than predation, just on a microscopic scale.