Why do so many people doubt evolution?

Except that you don't have the slightest understanding of what you are reading - that quote says the exact opposite of your paraphrase.

What it actually says, is that there are three other highly evolved and efficient enzymes which perform similar reactions to one of the new enzymes (used to break down nylon byproducts), which only has 2% of the efficiency of the three others. In other words, the new nylonase enzymes haven't been around for billions of years to improve through natural selection to match the efficiency of the other, older, enzymes.

Your lack of understanding is further demonstrated by the fact that within just the excerpt I pasted, they specifically said three times that the enzymes are new and unique.


EDIT: Posted this before I saw that WongKimArk already tore you apart.

 

I do wish you would stop saying lies within your posts... So, I will ask this then.

Enlighten us on specifically "how" it was wrong please and relate it to a specific sentence (or sentences) within your link... I can't wait!!!



You stated exactly what I did genius...

 

THANK YOU!!!! More clarification on the subject I was posting to Ak about those sequences.

Thank you Nullity, I think probably now everyone is on the same page now that you and WKA have supported my initial post dealing with this bacteria in question!

 

No we haven't. Your initial posting on this was the complete opposite of what WKA and I (and the article) are saying. Even your second reply about it was still totally wrong.

You got caught and are now trying to brush it under the carpet.

 

Silly DBM... This is the idiocy that you first wrote and then came back to defend:

You now agree that you got that bass ackward.

Silly, silly DBM.

 

If you were wondering the initial post that was highjacked by WKA an Null which they seem not to understand is as follows:

I replied as follows:

They both have agreed with me...

 

That wasn't the first!!! Look again genius...

 

Right above you in black on blue Null...

 

Silly, silly DBM. Don't tell fibs.

You got it completely backwards. Like the other day when you completely got the Paper on ERVs backwards.

You are such a goof.

 

Really?

When you stated that they were not inactive and submitted that post, then you JUST suggested that these enzymes have been around for millions of years... Thus, they were recently turned on. AND as you stated did not go through natural selection as the other three enzymes have...

You stated that... but I stated that first. Since you are not familiar with enzymes on the level of Ak and Myself - no wonder you got confused.

In Ak initial post he/she suggested the exact same thing... all I did was agree....

 

I think there may be a little confusion. When I say "start", I am referring to when you began arguing against the link and quote I posted (I believe WKA is also). It seems you are saying "start" in reference to a post from Akhlut.

However, to be honest, it really doesn't matter where it started, all of your posts have been wrong.

 

LOL, that is not at all what I said. Wow, you sure have a difficult time with reading comprehension. Go back and read it all again - slowly - several times if you have to.

I have no problem admitting that Akhlut's knowledge of biology is greater than my own. You, on the other hand... not so much.

No, he didn't. Not Akhlut, WongKimArk, nor myself have agreed with you on any of this.


Honest question, not at all meant to be derogatory...

Is English your first language?

 

First of all, "hijacking" is changing the subject in an attempt to derail the thread, which I did not do. I only joined in with the same discussion - which I am permitted to do in an open public forum. What you were discussing with Akhlut and what we are discussing now is all the same subject.

No. No one but you stated that the enzymes appeared to have already been present - including the article that I provided.

 

okay...

Like I stated - you said the enzymes had been around - about a billion years ago and have been "inactive" and thus was unable to mach the efficiency of the other, older (active), enzymes...

I know what you said. It seems you said it and don't even understand what you said....

HERE: the new nylonase enzymes haven't been around for billions of years to improve through natural selection but they obviously have been around, just a billion years ago!

BRILLIANT!!! Thank you again!!!

Translations of topics dealing with biology is difficult when you have different levels of understanding. When I post to Ak and Ak to me (or Goldwater for thta matter) we are quite vague because we know what the other is saying and we don't need to spell it all out.

If we have questions about what it is they posted we will ask questions to make sure we understand each other.

If I was directing that answer to you or WKA I would have not put what I did for Ak... It would have been different. Also, probably wouldn't even engage WKA in such manner since it's Grasping in a Joker costume....

 

Sorry about that - new to all this "internet" lingo... I was just suggesting hijack as being hijacked is all... My apologies.

And yes it is... The discussion is that there seems to be "left-over" enzymes that are not active within that bacteria. They became active (as what Ak suggested) during some chemical reaction, maybe the nylon itself. We do not know yet.

But, I suggested along with his/her statement that not only that, but they could have been inactive....

View the quote I put above...

 

Please read the bold because I do believe you say it here... Did I interpret that wrong?

 

Yes, you did interpret it incorrectly, which I have just clarified in my post before this one.

 

Stupid comment <<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

Nylonase is an enzyme. The clue (for the chemically competent) is the name. The fact that it ends in "-ase" means that it is an enzyme.

 

Question: What is your interpretation of the following?

It has been shown that one of the new enzymes (the linear oligomer hydrolase) has about 2% of the efficiency demonstrated by three other enzymes that perform similar reactions with biologically derived substrates

 

That the enzyme is newly evolved, and hence far less efficient than highly evolved enzymes that have been a round for a much longer period of time.

 

Out.. Won't be around tomorrow... have a good and safe weekend - will post on Monday!

 

because we got all the religious rejects of Europe. any cult or groups of extremists, that weren't allowed in Europe came here.

 

Well, Darwinism can offer no credible theory for how life could emerged naturally from non living chemicals.

 

The credibility, or lack there of, of abiogenesis has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.

 

Yes this is what I have been asking for to demonstrate the failure of evolutionists as I did it here; http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...ny-people-doubt-evolution-32.html#post4718540

Lies are not information, links to atheistic propaganda sites instead of scientific publication are a deception. Evolutionists live by lies and deceptions in their mental darkness.
It is the 1st time when you have provided a valuable link link.

Playing WongKim games? Evolution is a fact and if you don&#8217;t believe google it yourself? All I need to do is to demonstrate that believers in evolution have no shame, no decency and not even a drop of honesty. One does not have to be a scientist in order to figure out that evolution is just a hateful ideology.

NOW:

. &#8220;KI725 showed no growth on unfractionater nylon oligomers (Nom1) obtained from a nylon factory as a sole carbon and nitrogen source (Nom1 minimum plate).&#8221;


1. you have not read the whole article. You post a link so that wide audience cannot read.
2. bacteria do not look at byproducts of Nylon as they are man made: as I have said; but from the POV of bacteria they are a sole source of carbon and nitrogen, which as I&#8217;ve said are life components.
3. In neither of the articles there is a mentioning of evolution, appearances of new species.
4. We look at the results of a man manipulation with: a)&#8216;&#8217;in which all of nylA (the gene for 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase [EI]) was deleted&#8221;
b)&#8220;Extracts of KI725 cells&#8221;, c)&#8220;were spontaneously isolated&#8221; d)..

which led to &#8216;&#8221;Cloning and sequence analysis showed that the nylC gene is located close to nylB on pOAD21&#8217; a proposition of existence and location of another gene &#8211; a new genome.
5. The lies and deceptions evolutionists have made out of these experiments prove beyond any reasonable doubt that evolutionists are not only illiterate but they actively work on imposing illiteracy on general public. I am here not to educate the general public, but to appeal to common sense and decency. <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

Microbiotechnology &#8211; as Michael Egnor http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/neurosurgery/mike.htm has noted http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...ny-people-doubt-evolution-38.html#post4719966 has nothing to do to evolution, it does not need it at all. It uses totally different methodology.


And as the final but not the last available comment, eating man made polymers bacteria is not anything unusual. As a matter of the fact chemists and microbiologists have been working on biodegradable polymers for quite a while

Bacteria are fascinating and hardly understood. &#8220;Species&#8221; of bacteria are the fittest to survive, and thus &#8211; speaking evolution - are the crown of evolution. Believers in evolution see the world up side down. beilivers in evolution live in mental darkness.