Recently, we noted that John Sanford was speaking at NIH on human health and mutations. Philip Cunningham writes to mention a 2017 paper by Sanford and S. T. Cordova, Nylonase Genes and Proteins – Distribution, Conservation, and Possible Origins on whether the ba cteria that digest nylon evolved new genes:
We began this work hoping to better understanding the various claims regarding the de novo origin of certain nylonase genes. The idea that nylonases would have arisen very recently, de novo, was based upon the widely-held assumption that nylonases would have been essentially non-existent prior to the artificial manufacture of nylon. This basic assumption would not be justified if there were any nylonlike polymers in nature, or if nylonase activity required very low specificity, such that enzymes with other functions might also possess or acquire nylonase activity.
Our analyses indicate that nylonase genes are abundant, come in many diverse forms, are found in a great number of organisms, and these organisms are found within a great number of natural environments. We also show that nylonase activity is easily acquired through mutation of other enzymes, which strongly suggests that nylonase activity has very low specificity of the active site. These findings refute the widely held assumption that nylonases were essentially non-existent before 1935. In this light, there is no reason to believe that any nylonase emerged since 1935, and so there is no solid basis for invoking any de novo nylonase genes. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to reexamine the earlier claims of de novo genes. More.
More from the Biologic Institute about nylon-eating bacteria.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: John Sanford gives lecture at NIH on mutations and human health
John Sanford: Darwin a figurehead, not a scientist
and
John Sanford: Accepting Darwinism’s collapse is a matter of scientific integrity
Has this been published yet? I can find a pre-print from August 2018, but no published version.
Bob O’H asks,
Due to the fact that peer-reviewed journals are thoroughly dominated by Darwinists, it is notoriously difficult for IDists to have anything published in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, many times, Darwinists have tried to outright censor ID related research.
As well, in regards to censorship, many times Darwinists will try to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source for information, yet the fact is that Wikipedia is not reliable as a source for information especially when it comes to the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate because of the problem of censorship within Wikipedia:
Regardless of the rampant censorship against ID, unless you are a Darwinist, there is nothing surprising about these findings for “preexistent” and widespread Nylonase since they match previous research in this area and also match what was found for antibiotic bacteria:
i.e. Though Darwinists love to claim Nylonase as ‘new’, the simple fact is that it is only a minor variation on previous enzymatic activity:
Even Wikipedia, which is notorious for its bias against Intelligent Design, admits that nylonase ‘most probably developed as a single-step mutation’, thus the adaptation is well within what Dr. Behe has set for the ‘Edge of Evolution’:
As stated previously, this research on “preexistent” and widespread Nylonase also matches what was found for supposedly ‘new’ antibiotic resistant genes:
Of related note: In spite of the rampant systematic bias against ID, here are some of the peer reviewed papers supporting ID that have been published anyway:
And let’s not forget the many distinguished scientists at “The Third Way” who, despite shunning ID, have none-the-less found Darwinian explanations to be grossly inadequate for explaining how all life came to be on earth:
One final note, it is interesting to note that Darwinian evolution, since Darwinists refuse to accept a rigid falsification criteria for their theory, fails to even qualify as a rigorous science in the first place but is instead best classified, (since again Darwinists refuse to accept a rigid falsification criteria for their theory), as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience:
The following further highlights the fact that Evolution simply fails to qualify as a science by any reasonable measure of science one might wish to invoke and thus, once again. Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience than a real science.
ba77 – there are ID-friendly journals out there too (e.g. Bio-Complexity), so I’m afraid the “nasty evilutionists are censoring our work” excuse doesn’t work.
You really do need to read what I wrote before you respond to me Bob (and weave), I already addressed that point in post 4.
And I did not even touch upon the many careers that have been ruined by the “Darwinian Gestapo”
But since you brought it up:
At the beginning of the following video Dr. Behe tells of how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracize him for supporting Intelligent Design:
In the following article, Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:
If silencing by intimidation, and/or censorship, does not work, often Darwinists simply ‘EXPEL’ anyone who disagrees with them:
OK, so even you admit that your argumentum ad gannitum doesn’t hold water.
Call it whatever you like. I consider it a ‘glass half full’ situation since you gave me an opportunity to once again expose, for unbiased readers, how atheistic Darwinists support their theory, not by any compelling empirical evidence, but by systematic censorship, intimidation and even expulsion of anyone who dares challenge what is, in reality, the pseudoscientic religion of Darwinian evolution.
Of related note, Dr. Behe deserves kudos for standing up for the truth in the face of the Darwinian schoolyard bullies:
You can pre-order Dr. Behe’s forthcoming book now: