Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Theory of evolution » Nylonase Isn’t New Information

Nylonase Isn’t New Information

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Nylonase Isn’t New Information Empty Nylonase Isn’t New Information Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:04 am


Nylonase Isn’t New Information

This is it: the holy grail of evolution. Bacteria (Flavobacterium, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) have evolved the ability to digest a man-made product, nylon, which has only existed since 1935. It was originally proposed that a frameshift mutation acting on duplications caused the change. If this is really the case, then new information would have been added, because the original copy was kept and the duplication changed meaning. This would prove that evolutionary change has been observed.

But the mechanism is under serious question. The four antisense DNA strands (1,535 base pairs) that underwent frameshift lack stop codons.Thus it is most unlikely that a frameshift mutation is the culprit for nylon digestion. Why is this? Frameshifts are known to produce a number of stop codons when they occur, and this would undoubtedly have happened in the supposed ‘evolution’ of nylonase enzymes.

So how did nylon digestion come about? It seems it arose from a carboxyesterase gene which already had some capacity to degrade nylon oligomers. A team lead by Negoro proposed that the nylonase enzyme was derived from a pre-existing esterase enzyme.

But whichever way nylon digestion came about, evolutionists have yet to show it as an example of new information. So the burden of proof is on them if they want to use it to bolster their theory.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum