The population did not have the enzyme to digest nylon until it mutated the gene for an esterase enzyme, then a NEW protein was made that conferred a NOVEL ability (the ability to digest nylon being predicated upon the existence of nylon).
My claim has not been destroyed. My claim is supported. My claim being that living systems are capable of changing such that new proteins come about and novel applications can be found for them.
How blind must one be to characterize this change as devolution?
==How blind must one be to characterize this change as devolution?
Straw man. He separated the frontloaded ability of an organism to adapt to a changing environment from devolution/loss of information. Go back and read what he said again.
So, you're back to using intelligently-designed systems to support your naturalistic belief? How cute.
"The population did not have the enzyme to digest nylon until it mutated the gene for an esterase enzyme, then a NEW protein was made that conferred a NOVEL ability (the ability to digest nylon being predicated upon the existence of nylon)."
Every bacterial population creates that enzyme multiple times. The enzyme is neither new nor novel. The bacteria create it each time they are stressed for food. You just don't think so because you don't see it unless nylon is present. Anthropocentric reasoning error.
"My claim has not been destroyed. My claim is supported. My claim being that living systems are capable of changing such that new proteins come about and novel applications can be found for them."
Your claim has no substance. Claiming that living systems are capable of changing such that proteins come and proteins go does not mean that the ability to do that has evolved. You beg the question by assuming that the ability to do that has evolved. It could just as easily have been created. Logical error again.
"How blind must one be to characterize this change as devolution?"
How blind must one be to beg the question and assume that the ability to perform this feat has 'evolved'?