Talk:Nylon-eating bacteria

"The latter claim that the plasmids in the bacteria allow for it to adapt to different food sources, and that this is an irreducibly complex feature"

Which would simply prove that IC features can evolve. Is there a creationist response to this experiment which isn't actually self-defeating? Tsumetai 12:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Whoever put that in....do they even know what the heck a plasmid is??? It makes ZERO sense to anyone with a shred of knowledge in biology Tmtoulouse 13:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. I was trying to get the gist across, but I am admittedly a bad person to try and push an ID argument. Maybe someone else has a different argument that supports their claim more forcefully? Also, I was just trying to put something in here that didn't make the claim that the bacteria sat around dormant until the invention of nylon. Any biologist that can make better sense of this is more than welcome to fix what I wrote.--Dave3172 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If someone has a link to a discussion from an ID perspective I will try.... Tmtoulouse 13:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here ya go. Have fun... [1]--Dave3172 13:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the citation. It is VERY interesting, and well written. It does, however, have some flaws. Now, this would be better flushed out by a bench researcher, as my bench days are over, but let me just leave a few points. First, the article actually gives no evidence that evolution/NS did not play a part here. Most of their specific complaints are invalid. For example: Point 1) They point to the usual argument that it "suggests design". This is an opinion. Point 2) This is a simple dismissal of evolution without evidence. Point 3) They say chances are very low of the mutated plamid naturally occuring, and give a number (unclear from where) of 1 x10 to the 12th. Well, of couse chances are very low. That is why bacteria are so darned good for observing natural selection. With their short generation time, and logarithmic growth phase, even unlikely events can occur with reasonable frequency. If you have, say, 10 (a very small number) of bacteria exposed to a new environment, over the course of a few DAYS, there will be BILLIONS of daughter cells exposed to the new environment, giving plenty of opportunity for a new mutation to occur and be amplified. Palmd001 14:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The reference mentioned above suggests that there was some sort of adaptation. How did the information for the adaptation get transferred from one generation to the next? If the bacteria get taken out of their nylon-only environment and get put in an environment of plentiful multiple food sources, do they continue to feed on the nylon? I stand by my original statement that they were waiting around for the nylon. --Descartes 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

This is fairly basic microbiology and genetics. There is a limited, but large, amount of information in a genome. Mutation over time allows for novel genes (and their products). It takes many, many generations, as non-lethal mutations are not frequent. The individual bacteria did not "adapt"--they either divided or died. If they survived to divide, the information in their genome was replicated via binary fission/mitosis and the two daughter cells in turn did the same. INDIVIDUAL CELLS DID NOT ADAPT TO THE ENVIRONMENT, THE POPULATION DID. If the population is moved out of a nylon-only environment, or any other environment with different selective pressures, the population either adapts as above, or dies out. Palmd001 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Darn it, it happens every time. I give a sensible response, and my discussant disappears. It only seems to happen when I make a good, clear point about biology/evolution. Why does this always happen to me?Palmd001 16:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't puff up your chest and beat it just yet, Mister. I have to wait until my boss is not looking to "reappear". And as it happens, I'm headed out for the weekend. :-) --Descartes 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I look forward to hearing back from you.Palmd001 21:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yawn...still waing Rene. PalMD 23:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Controversy

Cut from article:

The former believe it is an evolutionary example of a population changing in response to environmental selective pressures. The latter claim that the bacteria have some way to adjust to new food sources without needing to evolve.

Can someone explain the sides better? I didn't really glean much from the summary of the NMSR site. --Ed Poor 18:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I like your edit. I can help you out a little here. Evolution is sometimes complicated, and requires lots of words, which is why i stated it as above. Also, the ID folks like to get into this faux-information theory stuff which really isnt relevant. The main debate is that ID folks feel that there is no way to explain the phenomenon naturally, and Evos believe there is, e.g. as explained above. I can restate it here if you like.--PalMD^talk 18:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I think, in fact, I explained it well above, but I can try again...--PalMD^talk 18:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Poor citations

With http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp, this is a secondary source itself offering an interpretation of several articles. http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/ is a blog that is a tetrirary source itself - it is reporting on a news article and is presenting opinions. Please cite primary sources and be prepared to give an analysis of them yourself to show how they support the argument. --Mtur 19:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)