@pauluc: Bacteria did have the digestive function before nylon was …

Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Gene Fortner.

@pauluc: Bacteria did have the digestive function before nylon was invented. The fact that they could not digest nylon before nylon was invented is simply because there wasn’t any nylon to digest.
New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.] In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.

Gene Fortner Also Commented

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
George,

A historical narrative does not have to be “scientific” to be true.

There is plenty of “scientific” evidence to support Gen 1-11.

The truth will make you free.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Bob,

I am a YLC and I got there by studying the Bible and science.

The only thing that makes sense is the creationism of the Bible.

Without that you have nothing.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Has anyone seen the video of Ford and Rea on the John Ankerberg show?

Too bad no real SDA’s showed up??


Recent Comments by Gene Fortner

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
yes


GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Bill “How inane would it be to claim an apple tree is not an apple tree unless and until it has apples on it?”

Bill,

Comparing babies and apple trees is a bit more inane than comparing apples and oranges.

BTW,

“The ONLY DEFINITION FOR SIN that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law… IT CONDEMNS EVERY SIN, AND REQUIRES EVERY VIRTUE.” E.G. White, ST, March 3, 1890 par. 3.

If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!


Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)
Thanks Sean


GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Ethan,

IMHO,

No statement was necessary.

In fact I consider it thoughtless.

FB#6 should have absolutely no effect on their ability to support the world church and perform work faithfully and with integrity.


GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:

Bill,

Sin is transgression of the law.

Where does it say being born is a sin?