Wait, you just know that the bacteria did not mutate naturally? Just like that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution Vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dallas1125
- Start date
- Status
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Do yourself a favor. Learn what ToE says. Then you will see that the nylon bug is a classic example of ToE in action. Or would you rather I explain it to you?
The nylon didn't cause the bacteria to mutate. Bacteria mutates all the time. Eventually a lucky bacteria came into existence with a mutation that happened to allow it to digest nylon, so it thrived. Do you understand this or do I need to make it simpler for you?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What I'm getting is that you are not interested in understanding evolution, because that might cause you to accept it.
Gloone
Well-Known Member
I understand how it works. But if you want to explain it go ahead. I have agreed with most of the things you have said already.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
According to ToE, when organisms (here, bacteria) reproduce, they do not make perfect copies of themselves. Because DNA mutates, (and because, in the case of other organisms, sexual reproduction, and in the case of bacteria, lateral gene transfer), the offspring differ slightly from each other and from their parents. When an organism is born with a mutation that is advantageous in its environment, it will survive and reproduce, so that change is preserved in the population, aka the gene pool. Over many generations, these changes add up, so that populations change. As a result, especially when groups are isolated from each other, the changes eventually add up to be big enough that one of the groups is classified as a new species. According to ToE, that's how we get new species.
Here we see that in action. There were billions of bacteria in the pond, and none of them could eat nylon. All of the offspring in each generation (which may be like, 10 minutes, I don't really know) have mutations in them. One of them happened to be "born" (are bacteria born?) with a mutation that allowed it to digest nylon. Because they happened to be in a nylon-rich environment, this enabled that bacteria and its offspring to survive and multiply like crazy. Eventually, there were billions of these creatures that live exclusively off nylon waste living in that pond, and nowhere else in the world. They are different enough from all the bacteria in the pond before that biologists classify them as a new species. Thus we see a perfect example of how we get new species, just as ToE predicts.
And that's why it's a big deal.
Here we see that in action. There were billions of bacteria in the pond, and none of them could eat nylon. All of the offspring in each generation (which may be like, 10 minutes, I don't really know) have mutations in them. One of them happened to be "born" (are bacteria born?) with a mutation that allowed it to digest nylon. Because they happened to be in a nylon-rich environment, this enabled that bacteria and its offspring to survive and multiply like crazy. Eventually, there were billions of these creatures that live exclusively off nylon waste living in that pond, and nowhere else in the world. They are different enough from all the bacteria in the pond before that biologists classify them as a new species. Thus we see a perfect example of how we get new species, just as ToE predicts.
And that's why it's a big deal.
Gloone
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that very elaborate and detailed post Autodidact. So would say this mutation is a good thing, seeing how it tries to digest nylon or a bad thing?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It was a very good thing for a single bacteria and her offspring in this environment. This mutation probably happened many times before in the history of bacteria, but since there was no nylon to eat, it was a neutral/bad thing, so died out. You might say that evolution is all about the interaction between populations of organisms and their environment.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Gloone and creationists:
This is the sort of thing we (and biology) mean by ToE.
Creationists use it to mean "Science says God didn't create the universe." This is simply wrong.
This is the sort of thing we (and biology) mean by ToE.
Creationists use it to mean "Science says God didn't create the universe." This is simply wrong.
Gloone
Well-Known Member
.. and this is what I understand of it. It can also help aid in the biodegradation of environmental pollutants. And as much as I have been criticizing it, I understand it has its benefits.
Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.
"In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the process of adaptation. The artificial expansion of the metabolic diversity of microorganisms toward various unnatural compounds would be important in terms of biodegradation of environmental pollutants."
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Auto just answered this one but I'll reiterate....The bacteria, yes, was in the pond but the current species was not able to digest nylon or its byproduct. It was able to adapt and is now able to eat this man made product. It was not able to before. This adaptation has produced a "new" species capable of consuming the nylon. This is exactly what evolution is.
I'm dismissing it because it matters not that it was the nylon itself or its byproduct or both. What matters is that the species of bacteria that existed was not and did not eat the nylon or the byproduct but adapted and now this new species of bacteria is capable of eating it.
Where?
Apparently not all of us are on the same page. The significance of this discovery, in regards to this thread, is that it is further evidence that Evolution is fact.
Right. Evolution works like that. It has no intent.
How could they? They had no idea that was going to happen.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Then you should understand that it is talking about evolution and how the findings were confirmed and is regarded as fact....right?
Gloone
Well-Known Member
Sure if that is what you want to call it. How else would you deny that an observation is false?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Aren't observations true by definition?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Gloone
Well-Known Member
Not with bias, which a lot of people have when it comes to evolution. I could tell you roses are beautiful because I have observed them. When the truth of the matter is, you don’t know the color, smell, if they are dead or alive, dipped in gold or chocolate. The experiments in the labs are predetermined with expected results in controlled environments. The nylon eating bacteria or the enzymes that cause the bacteria to eat it were not in a controlled environment. It is like the chemicals agitated or triggered the bacteria to digest the byproduct. I eat salads for a week then decide to eat pizza. I’m not adapting to my environment I just have a change of appetite.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, that's not what happened. Chemicals could have done stuff to the bacteria forever, and nothing would have happened. What happened was, the bacteria had a mutation that enabled them to eat the nylon. The old bacteria, without the mutation, could not eat the nylon, no matter what. Under no circumstance. The new bacteria--a new species of bacteria--are "born" with this ability.
McBell
Unbound
This is a perfect example of willful ignorance.
Wait till you read post #157
It takes enormous faith (although bias might actually be a better word) to believe that bacteria capable of eating nylon subproducts were always around, but somehow were never observed actually disgesting the synthetic material for about a decade.
It would be a most extraordinary happening, a supernatural one even. It is not even like finding a dead body that will not decompose; it is far more impressive a feat, comparable to no bodies worldwide decomposing at all for a few years. It just can't reasonably be expected to happen.
- Status