To: GourmetDan
It was new when they made it. It needn't be novel to be new. The mutations for producing an enzyme capable of digesting nylon might well have existed thousands or hundreds of thousands of times in the past for brief moments; but there was no survival advantage to having it and so it was lost through natural selection.
How is new information on how to digest nylon, an adaptation that led to an entire new way of life for these bacteria, considered devolution and not evolution? By what criteria?
496 posted on
08/15/2008 2:48:52 PM PDT by
allmendream
(If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
To: allmendream
"It was new when they made it. It needn't be novel to be new." The point is that you already admitted that wasn't true. That same protein undoubtedly exists in countless nylon-free environments around the world today. It is neither new nor novel.
"The mutations for producing an enzyme capable of digesting nylon might well have existed thousands or hundreds of thousands of times in the past for brief moments; but there was no survival advantage to having it and so it was lost through natural selection."
Not only in the past, but in the present in nylon-free environments. This means that it is neither new nor novel and your claim is destroyed.
499 posted on
08/15/2008 2:56:25 PM PDT by
GourmetDan
(Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson