>>16751729
we were separated by mountains and deserts and shit like that for hundreds of thousand of years and when we made contact again we were already genetically too distant to produce offspring

This is like asking why there are still black people in Africa.

>>16751729
we didn't evolve from modern apes dumbass, modern apes and modern humans have a common ancestor, which is probably different to both

>>16751729
This

>>16751729
>why do raw eggs still exist in the world if ii boiled a few of mine today
You're in my top 3 least intelligent posts this year, be proud.

>>16751729
At some point human evolution didn't required eugenics to keep shitty sociopaths enterteined

>>16751743
Well...
?

File: maga.png (45 KB, 471x314)

45 KB PNG

>>16751729
god did it

>>16751729
There’s confusion in this topic because dumb people will say things like “we didn’t evolve from monkeys we share a common ancestor!” despite said common ancestor literally being a monkey.
The actual answer is that the ancestors of other apes were just not subject to the same evolutionary pressures of the ancestors of humans.
Chimps’ ancestors remained in the forests whereas human’s ancestors moved into the plains and savanahs.

>>16751729
The last common ancestor of chimps and humans had 48 chromosomes. Common ancestors chromosomes 12 and 13 joined, and we now call it chromosome 2 in humans.
New species, and the two can not easily mate and the species go on their own separate ways.

>>16751743
wait so according to darwinism all the black people living in really cold climates will eventually become white? /pol/ btfo

>>16751913
>Chimps’ ancestors remained in the forests whereas human’s ancestors moved into the plains and savanahs.
It's not that they moved there, it was the environment around them that changed.

There is literally zero good faith argument for evolution. It's all just nihilism with sophistic explanations.

>>16751913
>evolutionary pressures
actually, we willed it.

>>16751729
soon enough youll realize there are no inter specie fossils so evolution is a giant sham perpetuated by atheists which is fine anything that gets you to go away from islam and judiasm is fine lmaoooo

>>16752042
yes i personally believe in things like vitiligo

>>16752097
god makes things better and worse

20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

>>16751919
>Common ancestors chromosomes 12 and 13 joined, and we now call it chromosome 2
This isn't correct. Now that the human genome has been directly sequenced we have completely disproven what was already thin that "oh man our chromosome numbers are actually different...well...there must have been a fusion!".

You can see the claimed site of the fusion by clicking here: http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?position=chr2:114360507-114360538&db=hg19&ss=../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.pslx+../trash/hgSs/hgSs_genome_4ac5_cc50.fa&hgsid=312102787. The second and third A’s are where the fusion site supposedly is.

Now, telomeres are the sequence CCCTAA (and its compliment, TTAGGG) repeated thousands of times. So to the right of the fusion site, we should see CCCTAA repeated over and over again. To the left, we should see TTAGGG repeated in the same way.

But we don’t. If you keep scrolling to the right, within 500 bases CCCTAA is never repeated more than twice in a row. And if you search within 64,000 bases (which is way longer than a telomere), its only there 136 times at all. Plus, unlike telomeres, the two sequences are jumbled together. You’ve got about 20 TTAGGG’s to the right of the fusion site, and about 20 CCTAAA’s to the left of it. So we don’t see anything at all like a telomere there.

Our mutation rate is not nearly enough to even come close to accounting for these changes if we descend from an apelike ancestor at the time evolution claims. So it is genetically impossible.

There’s also another problem: there’s no extra centromere in Chromosome 2. If two chromosomes fused, you’d have an extra centromere as well as a telomere. But there’s nothing resembling an additional centromere in the chromosome. You image says there is but that is completely false. Look at the paper at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5722054/, it's written to attempt to account for ways the second centromere could have been excised. It isn't there.

File: 1755300255255.gif (810 KB, 500x500)

810 KB GIF

If we evolved from a single cellular 2 organelle having organisms why are there still bacteria?

File: CckkMeAJRTfYN2sPJeqvxC.jpg (187 KB, 800x921)

187 KB JPG

>>16752197
There are hundreds of transitional fossils.
>creationists ask for a transitional fossil between species A and B
>transitional species C is discovered
>creationists: "perfect! now we have 2 points of contention instead of one. Where is the transition between A-C and C-B?
>transitional species D and E discovered
>"where are the transitional fossils between A-D, D-C, C-E, E-B?"
repeat ad nauseum

File: 1751525297077.png (49 KB, 454x611)

49 KB PNG

>>16752356
>You image says there is but that is completely false.
Forgot image.

>>16752356
>there’s no extra centromere in Chromosome 2.
According to the study you posted:
>We precisely located the ancestral centromere of human chromosome 2 (2qAC) in the human assembly NCBI36/hg18 (chr2:132,698,453-132,714,748) using the clone pαH21 as a query

>>16752364
Whoops was thinking of >>16750979
We've got two threads on this topic at once

>>16752370
>>We precisely located the ancestral centromere of human chromosome 2 (2qAC) in the human assembly NCBI36/hg18 (chr2:132,698,453-132,714,748) using the clone pαH21 as a query
What they located was what they claim to be the site where the extra centromere was. The entire paper is about how the extra chromosome supposedly could have vanished. They don't claim the extra centromere is actually there.

It's akin to someone claiming a man is standing on a hill. When you actually look there is no one. So he points to a random shapeless mud puddle and says "well this must be a footprint". The fact he has to resort to this tells you that no man is being seen on the hill.

>>16752378
>The entire paper is about how the extra chromosome supposedly could have vanished.
They're explaining how it was deactivated. As in "not acting as a centromere anymore." If you don't understand the difference, then I don't know what to tell you other than you might have an extra chromosome yourself.

>>16752383
To quote the paper:
"We hypothesize that the centromere inactivation was triggered by the full deletion of the active centromeric core"

And "Assuming this centromere-deletion model, two potential mechanisms could explain the centromere excision: a one-step excision, consisting of the deletion of the entire centromeric core in a single step".

>>16751729
why crocodile if chicken and crocodile evolved from a vommon ancestorrrr
heck why more than one species at all if presumably all species share one common ancestor?
hurr durr
really?

>>16752370
>>16752383
>>16752400
>expecting a creationist to actually read and understand a paper

>>16752356
>Our mutation rate is not nearly enough to even come close to accounting for these changes if we descend from an apelike ancestor at the time evolution claims. So it is genetically impossible
Meanwhile horses have 64 chromosomes and zebras have 32

>>16752479
If a paper speculating "how did the extra centromere get deleted?" isn't verification that there is no extra centromere I have no idea what would be. Unless you're appealing to how there's some satellite DNA. Alpha satellite DNA actually didn't finish getting sequenced and properly inserted into our model of the human genome until 2022 - it wasn't fully sequenced in earlier versions. And now anyone can see that satellite DNA is all over the place.

>>16752481
It's not the different chromosome count; as the post explained, it's the difference in what would be the site of the former telomere site in this supposed fusion and what we actually see today.

>>16752042
Over time actually yes.

>>16751873
reddit / bot

>>16751729
Literally and genuinely when have you ever seen an ape evolve into a man? No, I'll wait... Oh you haven't? Then why would you believe a book that said we did? Cause your teacher at your cuck school told you to?

>>16751729
Very rare mutations, interbreeding, a lot of RNG, and vastly different living conditions. You know how we still have aryan ubermensch Nordic whites, but also have dysgenic flabby onions American whites? It's like that, but over millions of years.

>>16752835
>If a paper speculating "how did the extra centromere get deleted?" isn't verification that there is no extra centromere I have no idea what would be
How the fuck is that verification of no extra chromosome? They stated that they did find the ancestral centromere. That’s like saying speculation on how snakes lost their legs is verification that they never had legs

>>16752049
you lost tranny

>>16751729
We evolved from fish too, why can I buy salmon?
I hope you realise now that this isn’t how species work.

>>16753171
I said extra centromere, anon. If two chromosomes merged there would be two centromeres. Chromosome 2 only has one and there is no trace of a second.

why are there still africans if we evolved from them?

>>16751873
Just answer the question next time

>>16753184
>Chromosome 2 only has one and there is no trace of a second
There is though
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00217134

>>16751729
This is like asking why there are still wolves when dogs exist

>>16752983
>the reddit/bot is more human than this poster
How odd.

>>16753201
This paper is more than 30 years old, before the human genome project was even done. Now that we've sequenced the entire human genome we see that no, there's not. That's why the earlier study was trying to speculate on ways that it could have been deleted. We can see that no, contrary to what this supposes, the second centromere-that-never-was was not "conserved". A second centromere is missing entirely because there never was one.

>>16752101
I was there

>>16753266
>This paper is more than 30 years old
And yet it still identifies the centromere you claim doesn’t exist. If you can’t articulate what the 30 year old paper did wrong then you should stop pretending you know what you’re talking about
>Now that we've sequenced the entire human genome we see that no, there's not
According to literallywho
>That's why the earlier study was trying to speculate on ways that it could have been deleted
It’s speculating on ways it could’ve happened because nobody was there to watch it happen, not because they couldn’t find it. To misrepresent the paper in such a way means you are either intentionally dishonest or stupid

>>16752983
cope / seethe

>>16753714
was / were

>>16751729
>beating around the bush
be straight forward, tell us all about the magic jew, rofl

>>16753311
>yet it still identifies the centromere you claim doesn’t exist.
The paper identifies alpha satellite DNA and then speculates that an extra centromere is there. Now that we have the full human genome sequenced we see that this kind of DNA is all over our genome completely unassociated with centromeres. This is why later researchers, in the article I posted from decades later, were talking about the centromere core being completely deleted.

>According to literallywho
The paper wondering how the extra centromere supposedly got completely deleted.

>It’s speculating on ways it could’ve happened because nobody was there to watch it happen
...Doesn't that mean they do indeed believe it happened?

And of they believe the centromere was deleted, doesn't that mean they're saying there's no centromere there?

>>16753853
>The paper identifies alpha satellite DNA and then speculates that an extra centromere is there
Alpha satellite DNA that “decorated all the centromeres of the human karyotype” seems like a good indicator that there was a centromere there
>Now that we have the full human genome sequenced we see that this kind of DNA is all over our genome completely unassociated with centromeres
Where can we see that? You just say this and expect me to take your word for it
>The paper wondering how the extra centromere supposedly got completely deleted
So we’re just going to pretend that seeking an answer on how something happened means that it never happened? That’s a reach
>...Doesn't that mean they do indeed believe it happened?
Gee I wonder if the geneticists who described it believe that what they described exists. Real intellectual weapon here
>doesn't that mean they're saying there's no centromere there?
A centromere being deleted means it had to have existed at one point. That doesn’t mean there’s no trace of its existence like you’re trying to say

>>16751729
gave us aids lol me and my monkey

>>16751729
bacause the apes live in an environment in which they are the optimum form for survival, i.e. no pressures to evolve significantly, while our descendants moved to environments where they had to evolve to survive.

>>16751729
why are no apes in europe
whites are the children of god

>>16751729
we were engineered into existence from monkey DNA and we will be engineered out of it with AI.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHQRo3Uz_VQ

>>16754294
I apologize in advance for the length of this. But biology is the science with the most complex object of study, so unfortunately, it's often difficult or impossible to be both full yet brief.

>Alpha satellite DNA that “decorated all the centromeres of the human karyotype” seems like a good indicator that there was a centromere there
Not at all! Alpha satellite DNA is all over the place, unassociated with centromeres. Forming a centromere is something that alpha satellite DNA does, but that's not its only function.

Now first off, mapping this kind of DNA was one of the hardest tasks in the entire human genome project, which is why it wasn't completed until just three years ago in 2022. Like https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3966626/ says, "the nature of alpha satellite, with its megabase-scale regions of higher-order repetitive structure, made it highly refractory to sequencing and assembly...A contemporary perspective on the plan warned of the possibility that potentially important duplications and tandem repeats would be 'swept under the carpet'...But again, due to the computational complexity required to accurately assemble such highly repetitive regions, few labs attempted to close these sequence gaps. A decade later, multi-megabase-sized gaps remain...Only in the past year have advances in sequencing technologies and innovative computational efforts focused on elucidating alpha satellite structure helped to make a full understanding of the genome and some of its most critical elements a real possibility". So alpha satellite DNA is, arguably, the DNA we’re most still learning about. Its only been three years since we even got a full sequence of it.

Which leads us to:

>>16754294
>>16756143
>Where can we see that?

Look for example at the paper at https://scholars.luc.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/39976134/Clusters%20of%20Alpha%20Satellite%20on%20Human%20Chromosome%2021%20Are%20Dispersed.pdf, which discusses how on chromosome 21 “The closest AS monomeric array on [chromosome 21] is more than 600 [thousand bases] from the centromere” and “the Mp3 HOR AS cluster is of large size (76 kb) and found at some distance from the functional centromere...These observations might be explained by the relatively recent evolutionary age of HC21p AS arrays...”

In other words you find the same kind of thing on chromosome 21, and they say the same thing about it, that it must just mean its due to a supposed recent evolutionary event.

The study at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7719264/ discusses how “in addition to their (peri)centromeric location, a bioinformatic search of the human genome revealed the presence of 133 blocks of alpha satellite located >5Mb from the centromere”. This isn’t something you only find here.

Now the question could then be “but that doesn’t mean this alpha satellite DNA isn’t the remains of an ancestral centromere that was mostly deleted, just that it isn’t necessarily so”. But what definitively refutes any notion that there was ever any centromere here is that this entire site of this satellite DNA, where a centromere would have been, is within a functional gene.

Specifically ANKRD30BL. And chimps have it too. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5722054/, discusses how “we found a gene, ANKRD30BL, that was ∼25-fold overexpressed in a large variety of chimpanzee tissues” and “Remarkably, we documented the presence of a gene, ANKRD30BL, highly differentially expressed between human and chimpanzee that may represent a fascinating subject to study in the future...fully retained the relicts of the ancestral centromere in the longest intron”.

>>16754294
>>16756143
>>16756145
That is to say, this supposed “ancestral centromere” is inside of the gene, and both ourselves and chimpanzees have the gene. Take a look at https://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=ANKRD30BL, it says this gene is located on “chr2:132,147,591-132,258,033”.

Where’s the supposed ancestral centromere? Take a look at https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/108/1/45/2631421, it’s located on chr2:132,208,802 – 132,250,410.

In other words, for humans, the supposed former centromere is entirely within the gene. This sequence of DNA cannot be the product of a centromere deletion. Chimps have it too which would be impossible if this came about from an ancestral centromere deletion that did happen in humans but didn't happen in chimps.

>>16751729
not fighting for same resources. they're not pack hunting bison. but we did wipe a good bit in between us and monkeys

File: bigfoot_cigbreak.jpg (19 KB, 320x320)

19 KB JPG

what even is monke?

Even if we use the simplistic and wrong 'ape turn into humans' outlook, this wouldn't mean all apes turn into human but a subset, so this logic even in this form is wrong.

Roughly speaking, a population of a species in some manner becomes separate the rest of the species, that population evolves into a new species.

Though that doesn't mean the original population doesn't change, which is why we use the notion of one having a common ancestor, ie modern apes and humans share a common ancestor.

Much easier to grasp when you think of it in terms of populations and family trees rather than like metamorphosis of species A to species B.

>>16751729
Same reason 'primitive' bioforms like crocs or dragonflies didn't vanish in the face of 'more complex' insects or reptiles. Selection pressures produced a very effective package in their niche and there was no strong pressure to evolve otherwise.

Our fellow great apes are very good at what they do and we aren't. We don't compete in their niche and our process of selection does not resemble theirs very closely. It's worth noting that despite this, humans are simply destroying their niche to expand their own (a competitive/selective 'failure,') and other species of humans did exist - we just raped or murdered them all out of existence. Unless you're someone who believes some ethnic groups are sufficiently distinct to be worth calling subspecies.

riddle me this nigga how did macro evolution produce 60 and 100 iq people? thats impossible psychometrically lmao the .3% chance is bullshit too lol yall dumb asf i swear

>>16751729
>Literally and genuinely why are there still WOLVES if DOGS evolved from them?
Same thing there. Checkmate, you scientifically illiterate ape.

>>16756851
Genuinely no clue what you are trying to say.

Trying to ask why evolution made people stupid?

Evolution isnt an endgoal: it doesn't state something will march to the optimal status as we imagine it.

>>16756851
>thats impossible
low iq dudes some times swim in pussy (likely) and some times even get a lot of money (less likely)
>source
reality

>>16756806
>and other species of humans did exist
Totally and completely arbitrary label forced onto them in an exercise in circular reasoning to justify evolution. People like Neanderthals were simply ethnic groups. If one was here walking around you'd barely notice him, except maybe noting that he looks like a foreigner of some sort. They could interbreed with everyone else and do all of the same things: make tools, art, culture and society. There's no sense in which they are a different species. They were descendants of Noah no different from everyone other person.

>>16756891
you lack intuition lmfao
>>16756903
kek

>>16757207
I have a good intuition but I'm sure by intuition you just mean cope for not understanding any of the science and its deeper concepts.

>>16757207
'Muh common sense'

>>16757226
>cope
lmfao shut the fuck up and go take your meds

>>16751729
why are there still spaniards if mexicans evolved from them?

A few people have hit the nail on the head. Look at how fast things can evolve under human control. Dogs, crops, etc. Would black people eventually turn white if living in a far northern climate? Yes. But it takes a long time. Environment, behavior, diet, lifestyle, etc all effect the next generation. Why do apes still live in forests? That’s exactly why they are still apes…..And no apes did not evolve into humans. An alien got one drunk and raped it. Lol

if it's invisible, ow come I can see it?

>>16752835
It's almost like the entirety of science is about questioning and testing theories and long held beliefs or something.

>>16757415
Sadly, the chromosome 2 fusion theory remains, so far as I can see, completely unquestioned among evolutionists, despite the colossal problems with the idea that make it all but biologically impossible.

>>16756932
>They could interbreed with everyone else
Reticulated pythons and Burmese pythons can interbreed and they aren’t even in the same genus. Reproductive compatibility has long been thrown out as a measure of species. Neanderthals and H. sapiens are separate species

>>16757423
It’s a good thing you don’t know what you’re talking about then. If you never stopped to consider that you might be the one who is mistaken and not the geneticists who have actually directly examined the material then I’m afraid you’re at the peak of Mt. Dunning-Kruger

>>16757446
And tell me, anon: what is your definition of "species"?

>>16757448
>It’s a good thing you don’t know what you’re talking about then.
Is that so? Care to show me where I go wrong?

>the geneticists who have actually directly examined the material
I've spoken to them. Many of them for years and years. In the end, once their arguments fail them, once every piece of "evidence" gets refuted, it always comes to exactly this same spot. "Well, all the others believe it, so it must be true". It's a big circle of people all pointing to one another saying "he's right so it's gotta be true". Refute the "him" and he points to someone else.

It never comes back to some solid piece of evidence. Never. It always - always - ends with "others believe it and they can't be wrong". Always.

Will you break the pattern and show me the error in >>16756162? Or will you be yet another example to add to the tally of how discussions about evolution inevitably end?

>>16757499
>And tell me, anon: what is your definition of "species"?
There is no single catch all definition of species. You can’t draw hard lines between ever changing populations and genetic groups. It is just how we like to categorise things for our own convenience. If all organisms were created by god in a single defined form it shouldn’t be hard to come up with one but sadly that isn’t what happened

>>16757511
what if species is the collection of individuals that can produce offspring which can reproduce?

>>16757514
Doesn’t work either. The existence of ring species has long since invalidated any definition of species being based on reproduction

>>16757520
then you can be part of two species.

>>16757522
There is no being part of two species in modern taxonomy. If a hybrid is fertile and forms a reproductively viable population distinct from the two parent species then it gets its own species name

>>16757499
>I've spoken to them. Many of them for years and years. In the end, once their arguments fail them, once every piece of "evidence" gets refuted, it always comes to exactly this same spot.
NTA but assuming you actually have spoken to any geneticists about this, it reads more like you refusing to actually take in information rather than actually finding any evidence against a deleted centromere. Which I am inclined to believe given what you’ve said about neanderthals just being funny looking modern humans because we could interbreed which is definitely false

>>16751729
We are literally still apes

>>16751913
BEHOLD!
The ignorant hick has spoken!

>>16757528
>but I did have breakfast

>>16757511
>There is no single catch all definition of species. You can’t draw hard lines between ever changing populations and genetic groups. It is just how we like to categorise things for our own convenience
You are outright confessing what I said: "Totally and completely arbitrary label forced onto them".

Meaningless and circular, like all arguments for evolution.

>>16757567
>rather than actually finding any evidence against a deleted centromere
My entire point is that there is not, and cannot ever have been, a second centromere. The claimed site is a functional gene that humans and chimps, and even more supposedly distantly related animals like macaques and even voles are all share: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/554226/ortholog/?scope=314146

Read what I said in >>16756162 and think it through. You'll see that this cannot be what was once a centromere. The story makes no sense from any angle. It was proposed before we even knew what the DNA here was.

>which is definitely false
Based on?

>>16757671
you decided on the conclusion and learned a lot to support it. you are statistically a very bad scientist and will amount to nothing.

>>16757645
That’s not a “but I did have breakfast” situation retard

>>16757671
>You are outright confessing what I said: "Totally and completely arbitrary label forced onto them".
That’s not a confession and that is the entire point. If organisms didn’t evolve and were all created in their current form then there should be no issue categorising them because there would be no blurred lines. Taxonomy is arbitrary specifically because organisms evolve, so you can’t draw hard lines between where one species ends and another starts
>Meaningless and circular, like all arguments for evolution
That’s not an argument for evolution in the first place. It is a consequence of evolution

File: IMG_0587.gif (1.66 MB, 320x180)

1.66 MB GIF

>>16751729
The Hybrid Origins hypothesis states that modern Man stems from a hybridization event between an ancient chimpanzee and a porcine. I won’t go into detail here, buit it is a simple and satisfying explanation for many puzzling difference between Man and the apes

>>16751729
>we
who said anything about you?

>>16757671
>My entire point is that there is not, and cannot ever have been, a second centromere
According to someone who never actually studied genetics and only learnt about this specifically to use as ammunition in online debates. Forgive me for being skeptical of literally everything you say
>The claimed site is a functional gene that humans and chimps, and even more supposedly distantly related animals like macaques and even voles are all share
That doesn’t preclude the existence of a deleted centromere though. In humans ANKRD30BL is on chromosome 2, in chimps and bonobos it’s on chromosome 13. How did it get to chromosome 2 in humans if there was never a fusion?
>Based on?
Based on the fact neanderthals aren’t even part of the same species complex as Homo sapiens, let alone the same species. As others said producing viable offspring is a bad way to define species

>>16757792
Pure ad hominem. Everything I've said I've provided detailed data to support. Do you have a real reply to any of it?

>>16757899
>If organisms didn’t evolve and were all created in their current form then there should be no issue categorising them because there would be no blurred lines
I think you have a slight misunderstanding - it isn't quite accurate to say that they were created in their current form. Like humans, there are different ethic group-analogues for the created kinds of animals. You can get tons of interesting combinations from genetic shuffling that takes places during mating. Hence you have things like Rhesus macaques and Japanese macaques which are classified as different species, but can interbreed, have the same ancestor, and all in all differ only in some relatively minor physical traits. If the same policy of different species were applied to humanity, we'd be calling the different major ethnic groups different species. But no one denies they all share a common ancestor.

>you can’t draw hard lines between where one species ends and another starts
You've admitted that "species" is an arbitrary label of convenience and doesn't actually correspond to any objective physical feature.

Genesis defines the different kinds of life quite clearly: those that can interbreed. So when we figure out that two animals can, or could, interbreed, they are the same kind of life. Objective and testable. Like real science should be. Not arbitrary and meaningless, like the labels you want to use.

>That’s not an argument for evolution in the first place.
So you're granting that the supposed different human "species" provides no evidence for evolution?

>>16757963
>According to someone
Nothing I've said is based on myself. Everything that I have said so far I've provided a published scientific source for. All written by evolutionists.

There is nothing I've written that you would reject, besides the obvious and inevitable conclusion from the data.

>In humans ANKRD30BL is on chromosome 2, in chimps and bonobos it’s on chromosome 13.
Now the supposedly fused chimp chromosomes have been relabeled after this theory got acceptance to chromosome 2A and chromosome 2B. If chromosome 2 were really the result of a fusion, then a gene that we have on chromosome 2 must be on what's labeled as either chimp chromosome 2A or 2B. As you yourself are seeing, the genes don't match. This is impossible if chromosome 2 is a fused version of 2A and 2B.

>How did it get to chromosome 2 in humans if there was never a fusion?
It never "got to" chromosome 2 in the first place. When we were created, this gene was put on our chromosome 2 and on a different chromosome in them, as it would best serve each of us. It's not something that traveled: it's something that was deliberate placed by an intelligent designer.

>Based on the fact neanderthals aren’t even part of the same species complex as Homo sapiens, let alone the same species
And what is that based on? What objective feature means they should be classified this way?

>>16758038
>If the same policy of different species were applied to humanity, we'd be calling the different major ethnic groups different species. But no one denies they all share a common ancestor
This is evolution. You are describing evolution. Increasingly there seems to be this willingness to accept that organisms can descend from a different organism but at the same there is a refusal to just use the word evolution
>Hence you have things like Rhesus macaques and Japanese macaques which are classified as different species, but can interbreed, have the same ancestor, and all in all differ only in some relatively minor physical traits
There is zero evidence of a limiting threshold though. If you accept that a Japanese macaque and Rhesus macaque descend from a common ancestor then why deny that they also share a more distant common ancestor with Langur monkeys? There is no stopping point
>You've admitted that "species" is an arbitrary label of convenience and doesn't actually correspond to any objective physical feature
That’s not an admission. It has always been the case. You are just now learning of it
>two animals can, or could, interbreed, they are the same kind of life. Objective and testable
Not objective at all. Again, ring species invalidate this definition. Take four species A, B, C and D where
>A can interbreed with B, same species
>B can interbreed with C, same species
>C can interbreed with D, same species
>D cannot interbreed with A, different species
This is why that definition of species falls apart
>Not arbitrary and meaningless, like the labels you want to use
Even without ring species that would still be an arbitrary measure of species. Why reproductive compatibility specifically? What about hybrids like ligers that are semi-sterile? What about those that are genetically compatible but barred by physical constraints like a yorkshire terrier and great dane or pygmy python and reticulated python?

>>16758065
>there seems to be this willingness to accept that organisms can descend from a different organism but at the same there is a refusal to just use the word evolution
It’s because they start with a statement they believe is true (“evolution is fake”) which they have to uphold.

But now that evolution has been observed in real time they have to say stuff like micro evolution is real but macro evolution isn’t and different species in a “kind” can come from one ancestor.

Then they just treat macro evolution as real evolution and micro evolution as something else to cope. And as we learn more they have to create increasingly convoluted explanations as to why evolution is fake ackshually.

Meanwhile they just forget that speciation is macro evolution and that Darwin’s entire theory was based on things like finches with different beak shapes which they would call microevolution. So by their own admission Darwin was right all along.

Also I'm not the OP, accidentally left my name on from another thread in the last post, whoops
>>16758065
>This is evolution. You are describing evolution.
All words depend on context for their meaning. When it comes to intelligence design vs. evolution, obviously you don't reject all intelligent design - the object you're having his discussion on is the product of intelligent design and we intelligently design genes and organisms all the time with generic manipulation. Even livestock breeding for a specific purpose is intelligent design.

The question is what evolved naturally and what was intelligently designed. An evolutionist says that the vast majority of what we see with life evolved, and a creationist says that the vast majority of it was intelligently designed.

>There is zero evidence of a limiting threshold though
That's something you can simply study, like anything else in biology. Just a question of "Can these interbreed? Why or why not? If not, what would need to be different for them to be able to? Was it ever different in that way?". Like anything it's just a matter of research.

>If you accept that a Japanese macaque and Rhesus macaque descend from a common ancestor then why deny that they also share a more distant common ancestor with Langur monkeys?
I don't rule that out out of hand, it's a biological question that we could study.

>That’s not an admission. It has always been the case.
In response to OP's question, you appealed to "other species of humans did exist". But if this is merely a matter of labeling, it is meaningless. It cannot be an answer to what OP was asking since it reflects no physical reality, only linguistic choices.

>ring species invalidate this definition
Not at all, ring species are all classified as the same created kind. You would agree it means they all share the same ancestry. Same for the other examples you give. That's a point where we agree, so what's the objection?

>>16758084
It’s because they start with a statement they believe is true (“evolution is real”) which they have to uphold.

But now that intelligent design has been observed in real time they have to say stuff like small-scale intelligent design is real but large-scale intelligent design isn’t and different kinds in a phylum can descend from one ancestor.

Then they just treat large-scale intelligent design as real intelligent design and small-scale intelligent design as something else to cope. And as we learn more they have to create increasingly convoluted explanations as to why intelligent design is fake ackshually.

Meanwhile they just forget that genetic engineering is intelligent design and that Brown's entire theory was based on things like humans forming things into different shapes which they would call small-scale intelligent design. So by their own admission Brown was right all along.

>>16758111
>An evolutionist says that the vast majority of what we see with life evolved, and a creationist says that the vast majority of it was intelligently designed
This makes no difference. What you are describing is evolution as first described by Darwin. You are saying that you believe in evolution but there must be some stopping point because too much evolution doesn’t fit your world view
>Just a question of Can these interbreed?
I am not talking about a reproductive barrier, I am talking about a threshold at which evolution stops. Assuming reproduction is the barrier between kinds and evolution occurs within each kind, what is there to stop one kind from splitting into two when each lineage has changed to the point where viable reproduction is impossible? What is the limiting mechanism?
>you appealed to "other species of humans did exist"
Not even me
>But if this is merely a matter of labeling, it is meaningless. It cannot be an answer to what OP was asking since it reflects no physical reality, only linguistic choices
The label is irrelevant. How you want to label them does not erase the identifiable genetic distance from modern humans. Whether or not you think that’s an arbitrary measure of species doesn’t make it meaningless
>Not at all, ring species are all classified as the same created kind
But species D cannot interbreed with species A and therefore are not the same “kind” by your own definition. You seem to have entirely missed the point being made.
Either reproductive compatibility is an objective measure of species and D is not the same kind as A, or reproductive compatibility is not an objective measure of species and kind is defined by some arbitrary level of relation. If you think the latter is true then you’ve just invented a shittier version of cladistics

>>16758564
Reading your first line is, to me, as if you agreed that humans perform genetic engineering and I replied:

"This makes no difference. What you are describing is intelligent design as described by Walt Brown. You are saying you believe in intelligent design but there must be some stopping point because too much intelligent design doesn't fit your worldview."

>I am not talking about a reproductive barrier, I am talking about a threshold at which evolution stops.
Naturalistic processes are incapable of creating new, functional base structures such as proteins. Such things, like all machines, are created by intelligent minds. Natural selection can only select from what an intelligent mind has given it to select from. Mutations can only slowly degrade DNA.

>Assuming reproduction is the barrier between kinds and evolution occurs within each kind, what is there to stop one kind from splitting into two when each lineage has changed to the point where viable reproduction is impossible?
To better illustrate the difference in these terms, evolution posits that all life is a single instance of what Creation would label a Kind: everything biologically descends from one single common ancestor.

Creation posits that life contains many different Kinds: some organisms do not share common ancestors but instead originate with unrelated organisms that were independently formed.

(Of course, all life is still related since God was the father of those Edenic independently formed organisms, but I mean in the strict sense of biological reproduction)

>What is the limiting mechanism?
New material to work with. Take a population of animals. They might have enzymes to process a variety of substances: chitinase to digest chitin, for example. But no amount of mutation can ever get them, say, a uraniumase to digest uranium. If you have a population with a uraniumase but no chitinase or chemical analogue, it will never on its own develop the ability to digest chitin.

>>16758564
>Not even me
This site lets you put on names in threads for this very purpose, you know P:

>How you want to label them does not erase the identifiable genetic distance from modern humans.
See now we're getting into something real and objective. What different genes would have you label them something besides yet another example of a human ethnic group?

>But species D cannot interbreed with species A and therefore are not the same “kind” by your own definition.
This is getting akin to saying "Two men cannot breed so they are not the same 'Kind' by your definition". Its about whether you have reproductively compatible ancestors. If you do, then you both descend from the same originally created templates.

Using these terms, the question could be framed as "Are there many Kinds?". If you say no, you agree with the current model of evolution, and if you say yes, you agree with the current model of Creation.

>>16758598
>What you are describing is intelligent design as described by Walt Brown. You are saying you believe in intelligent design but there must be some stopping point because too much intelligent design doesn't fit your worldview
The difference here is that you are secondarily assigning the term intelligent design to genetic engineering as it was first applied to biblical creation, whereas evolution as you are describing it is identical to how it was first posed by Darwin. Also genetic engineering is not creation, it is changing what already exists. Are you saying that god is not a creator but a mere engineer?
>Naturalistic processes are incapable of creating new, functional base structures such as proteins
Demonstrably wrong. Amino acids and proteins have long been proven to self assemble. That’s been known since the 50s
>Mutations can only slowly degrade DNA
Also demonstrably wrong. Mutations can result in gene duplication. That is not taking away from the existing DNA but adding to it. A duplication of the alcohol dehydrogenase gene gives fruit flies higher heat tolerance for example
>Creation posits that life contains many different Kinds: some organisms do not share common ancestors but instead originate with unrelated organisms that were independently formed
You are still unable to provide an objective distinction of kind
>They might have enzymes to process a variety of substances: chitinase to digest chitin, for example. But no amount of mutation can ever get them, say, a uraniumase to digest uranium
This is also false. A strain of Paenarthrobacter has evolved three novel enzymes to digest nylon, a material that didn’t exist before 1935. These enzymes are nylon specific and are derived from much older enzymes like beta-lactamase. The evolution of these enzymes wasn’t even particularly complex. A gene duplication, substitution or insertion is all it takes. This occurred naturally in a man-made nylon factory, a totally novel environment

>>16758607
>What different genes would have you label them something besides yet another example of a human ethnic group?
Not specific genes, they are too closely related to us for that. They do however have specific gene haplotypes not present in modern humans without Neanderthal ancestry, as in PLA2R1 and ITGB6
>This is getting akin to saying "Two men cannot breed so they are not the same 'Kind' by your definition"
No it isn’t. Those two men cannot interbreed because they are the same sex. Species A can’t interbreed with species D because they are genetically incompatible
>Its about whether you have reproductively compatible ancestors
You are changing your definition of kind from what you said was objective earlier
>Using these terms, the question could be framed as "Are there many Kinds?". If you say no, you agree with the current model of evolution, and if you say yes, you agree with the current model of Creation
In this case all life is the same kind. There is zero evidence of a time where multiple incompatible precursors to each modern “kind” existed

>>16757671
>My entire point is that there is not, and cannot ever have been, a second centromere. The claimed site is a functional gene that humans and chimps, and even more supposedly distantly related animals like macaques and even voles are all share
Because the centromere has been deleted Einstein. It doesn’t interrupt the functional gene because it’s not there anymore. Only traces of its existence remain. This is what happens when you skip genetics class and only learn what you want to argue about without having the basics first

>>16757896
yes it is, because I suggested we should change it so we deal with this shit in a simpler way. and your response was "ah we already have a definition for that"

>>16758038
>Pure ad hominem.
no, it's just an educated guess
>Everything I've said I've provided detailed data to support
that is not the point of my comment. my point is that you already decided on the conclusion and worked your way from there. which is the signature of bad scientists. you're betting it will make sense, eventually, because you "feel" it's true, so it's worth trying to find anything that explains what you decided is real. thus you will inevitably discard anything that doesn't fit. it's as simple as that. that makes you a bad scientist and statistically you will waste your life and probably some other people's time.

>>16758712
“I already had breakfast today” is an inability to comprehend a hypothetical. There is no hypothetical here. You’re suggesting to change taxonomy to an entirely different system that doesn’t work. You’re retarded

File: Whale-legs.jpg (32 KB, 530x533)

32 KB JPG

Don’t let this thread distract you from the fact that whales have legs

>>16758853
yes it's a hypothetical change, the idea is the discuss the implications of this hypothetical change. it's always strange interacting with someone who cannot into hypothetical, it's like it messes with your brain so bad you go full chimp mode
>but we already have a taxonomy u u a a

>>16758933
>would giving cars square wheels solve the issue?
>no. wheels need to be round to roll
>it’s just a hypothetical bro
You’re retarded and should feel bad for ever suggesting something so stupid

>>16758942
>>would giving cars square wheels solve the issue?
depending on the road, yes of-course. works perfectly in a very particular situation. has been done

>>16758947
https://youtu.be/FlvjWpWu99A?t=75

>>16758947
I understand you’re being a smart ass but try to stay on topic at least, we’re talking about taxonomy here. If you want to be entertained so much then it’s too bad roads like that don’t exist so posing that hypothetical has literally 0 worth.

>>16758598
>kinds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA

>>16758140
NTA you're arguing with but

>genetic engineering is intelligent design

Genetic engineering is just repurposing the tools on hand. Deleting genes to see what is necessary or patchworking existing genomes to make a new organism is a far cry from designing the DNA -> RNA -> Protein system from scratch.

Intelligent design would not just be single point abiogenesis to a single life form, but poofing the almost innumerable branches of the tree of life into existence at once.

>>16760399
Precisely! You've hit the nail on the head with what I was aiming to highlight with that anon talking about "microevolution" and "macroevolution" by rewording his post

>>16761302
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing at different scales. It’s like saying you can measure in inches but not miles

>>16761322
Editing bases in genes isn't "designing the DNA -> RNA -> Protein" at a smaller scale?

>>16758634
>The difference here is that you are secondarily assigning the term intelligent design to genetic engineering
Is genetic engineering an example of intelligent design?

>whereas evolution as you are describing it is identical to how it was first posed by Darwin
Darwin knew nothing about DNA or mutations, which modern evolutionary theory hinges on. It has to propose mutations as what supposedly makes new genetic information since now we know that normal processes of natural selection and reproduction can't actually make anything new. Mutations are the band-aid there.

>Also genetic engineering is not creation, it is changing what already exists.
"Create" doesn't mean not changing things that already exist. If you say "I created a program that will..." no one is going to reply "no you didn't, you used C# and a compiler!" or "I created a sculpture of..." no one is going to reply "no you didn't, that marble already existed!".

>Amino acids and proteins have long been proven to self assemble. That’s been known since the 50s
Is there something specific you're referring to? If it's what I'm thinking of, your argument is about to be the equivalent of "computer chips can self-assemble, we find copper and silicon deposits in the ground".

>>16758634
>Mutations can result in gene duplication. That is not taking away from the existing DNA but adding

Adding more DNA, but notice this merely duplicates information that's already present. It isn't adding any new information. Its like copying a page, rather than writing a new one. In the long-run, mutations can only slowly degrade DNA. The Law of Large Numbers makes this so. As http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full notes, “Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious”.

The Law of Large Numbers states that as your number of trials grows, the average in your sample will grow closer to the true average. Since mutations overwhelmingly erase genetic information, over time their effect will only be deleterious. Even if you have one that adds information (and, keep in mind, we’ve never observed this despite the untold plethora of mutations we’ve seen), it will be a fluke that cannot compensate for the much greater loss of information.

If your average is that you subtract more than you add, then you will inevitably decline as the process continues.

>provide an objective distinction of kind
I do in the very text you quote

>A strain of Paenarthrobacter has evolved three novel enzymes to digest nylon
I think the absolute best evidence for my argument there is that I've been having these discussions for nearly 20 years and in all that time, anytime someone wants to give an example, it is almost exclusively this and only this.

And it's one that doesn't work. I apologize in advance for the length of this and don’t expect a full response. But once you get down into chemistry interacting with genetics, it becomes quite hard to look at something both fully and completely. So bear with me – it will be worth it!

You portray it as “enzymes to digest nylon, a material that didn’t exist before 1935”. But what’s actually going on, at a chemical level?

>>16758634
>>16761841
One of the first papers written about this can be found at https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.81.8.2421. It discusses how “Waste water from nylon factories contains...6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer...it was found, as early as 1975, that Flavobacterium Sp. KI72 could grow in a culture medium containing 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer as the sole source of carbon and nitrogen...two enzymes responsible for this metabolism of 6-aminohexanoic cyclic dimer were identified...”.

So the first important thing to note is that this enzyme does not “digest nylon”, it digests two molecules (“dimer”) of 6-aminohexanoic acid joined head-to-tail in a ring formation (“cyclic”). This is not nylon, it is a waste byproduct of nylon production. As https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)59178-3/fulltext explicitly describes it: “responsible for the degradation of nylon-6 industry by-products”.

And what’s more, this type of bacteria already have always had a protein that could digest this. As it continues to say: “ its analogous enzyme (EII′) that has only ∼0.5% of the specific activity toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer”.

I.E. it already has a protein that can digest this type of material. The paper agrees, saying: “It was also established that the EII-analogous protein (EII′) is located on a different part of the [plasmid]. EII′ has 88% homology to EII (7) but has very low catalytic activity (1/200 of EII activity) toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer (Ald), suggesting that EII has evolved by gene duplication followed by base substitutions from its ancestral gene (8).”

In other words it could already do this, it just got better at it. How?

>>16758634
>>16761841
>>16761844
I'll tell you: It didn't come about through random mutation, those bacteria were able to modify their proteins to digest nylon using an analogous process to how we modify our white blood cells to fight previously unseen germs. For brevity, I’ll just refer to the material as “nylon” below, but keep in mind the above about his they are not digesting nylon itself, only a by-product of its production.

According to http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf, whenever these bacteria are put in with nylon, they quickly begin producing proteins that are capable of digesting it. It notes first, about the genes that encode for the nylonase, that “the responsible genes are encoded on plasmids”. This will become significant in a moment.

Now, an experiment was done. The same source says: “Pseudomonas aeruginosa…was clinically isolated in New Zealand and has been well studied biochemically and genetically as a standard strain of Pseudomonas. The wild-type PAO1 did not use [nylonase]; therefore, this strain was used to study whether microorganisms can acquire the ability to metabolize nylon oligomers experimentally”. So, these were put in on “plates containing 2 g of [nylon] per liter as the sole carbon and nitrogen source”. They had begun using nylonase “After 9 days”! After some further experimentation, it was concluded that “The enzymes seem to be…inducible”. In other words, when you put these bacteria under these conditions, they will, rather quickly, begin producing the protein that can digest nylon.

And significantly, the DNA that codes for this protein is not in a chromosome. Its on a plasmid. The plasmid that this was found on (which, as footnote 11 in that source notes, was “pOAD2”) contains a protein called transposase. Like http://jb.asm.org/content/176/4/1197.full.pdf+html says, the plasmid contains “a…transposase gene”.

>>16758634
>>16761841
>>16761844
>>16761846
Now, the purpose of transposase is to cause genetic recombination. It intentionally rearranges the DNA. This is very similar to the process by which white blood cells are made that fight new infections. White blood cells have areas called hypervariable regions – like http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hypervariable+region says, these are “regions present on [immune cells] where most of the variation in amino acid sequences occurs. These are also sites of antigen binding”. Like the plasmids, these areas are intentionally genetically modified in a process called somatic hypermutation. As http://www.anaptysbio.com/technology/somatic-hypermutation/ notes, “Somatic hypermutation (SHM) is a critical enzymatic process utilized by B cells to generate antibodies. Our immune system is highly adapted to generate antibodies toward a variety of different infectious agents using a limited set of genes within our genomes. To accomplish this many millions of different antibodies can be generated through the processes of gene recombination and SHM [Somatic HyperMutation]”. As it states, in this process, “SHM is catalyzed through an enzyme called activation-induced cytidine deaminase, also known as AID, acting directly on antibody DNA… It was discovered that AID regulates SHM by becoming activated immediately following B cell antigen stimulus and targets specific DNA motifs present specifically within antibody VDJ sequences. Hence, SHM is a non-random process…to generate disease-fighting antibodies”.

>>16758634
>>16761841
>>16761844
>>16761846
>>16761849
So what we’re seeing is really another way of storing information. There are regions within the plasmids, just like within white blood cells, that are purposefully changed by the organism to handle a protein/germ that it encounters. Instead of having the sequences for all of these proteins/antibodies, the information is stored in this manner.

That way huge masses of DNA don’t have to be lugged around and energy wasted on maintaining and replicating them. The price to be paid for storing information like this, however, is that the data needs to be “loaded”, so it takes some time for the proteins to be expressed. The plasmid genetic alteration through transposase, and the white blood cell genetic alteration through activation-induced cytidine deaminase, are like searching algorithms that pull information out of a database.

So it’s an instance of natural genetic engineering to draw out something the bacterium already has. Not random mutation.

Sorry again for the length of this. But the popular story "a random frameshift mutation gave it the ability to digest a brand-new chemical, nylon!" is so wildly inaccurate as to fall into outright deception. You will find this to be a recurring theme with all of the evidence for evolution.

>>16758641
>Not specific genes, they are too closely related to us for that. They do however have specific gene haplotypes not present in modern humans without Neanderthal ancestry, as in PLA2R1 and ITGB6
You're describing the very essence of what an ethnic group is. If pure Neanderthals (most people are at least partially Neanderthal) had always been around, do you think a single person would be classifying them as a different species, or would it just be yet another race of men among the many others?

>Those two men cannot interbreed because they are the same sex. Species A can’t interbreed with species D because they are genetically incompatible
Similarly, some people are born with genetic conditions that make them genetically infertile as well. But that, clearly, doesn't make them a different kind of animal. It's all about the very simple question: do you have reproductively compatible ancestry?

>You are changing your definition of kind
Not at all, as you dig down into any sort of classification system, you're going to start getting more specific. Everyone's always talked about interesting cases like horses, donkeys, and mules, or tigers and lions and the interesting hybrids you get there.

>There is zero evidence of a time where multiple incompatible precursors to each modern “kind” existed
What would you take as evidence of this?

>>16758680
>Because the centromere has been deleted Einstein.
Interesting how the story from evolutionists has had to be "there's definitely an inactive second one, we can see it" to "no the entire thing completely disappeared barely leaving a trace of its existence". Like everything, the more we learn, the less reality resembles the evolutionary story.

Remember that the story is that two chromosomes fused in our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees. Chromosome 2 is supposedly nothing but those two chromosomes fused together with a few mutations since then. This site is supposedly the old centromere. But now we see that it's a functioning gene. A gene we've found primates and even voles sharing.

It cannot be the ruins of a former centromere that did not ever exist in those primates or in voles.

>It doesn’t interrupt the functional gene because it’s not there anymore.
All those other organisms have this same gene, and have no centromere smashed in the middle, and no suggestions of any centromere ever having been there. This gene fully and completely encompasses the site said to be where the second centromere used to be.

Are you seeing the issue? The evolutionist claim isn't that a second centromere was formed, its that it was always there, two chromosomes simply fused.

>Only traces of its existence remain.
Those being what? Satellite DNA? That's all over the place, like we saw.

>>16758715
What you say without evidence about anonymous strangers says much more about yourself than it does the anon.

File: asd.png (64 KB, 908x878)

64 KB PNG

>>16751729
We didn't, apes is a broader category. We evolved from australopitecus africana, which no longer exists.
This is kind of like asking why do we have brothers if we were born from our father. Dad doesn't need to die for you to be born, and brothers aren't your parents.
To put it in a different way, new species don't evolve from all of a species, but some of the species. The rest will evolve in a different direction. Unless it's horseshoecrabs, they stopped evolving, because fuck you.

>>16761578
I don’t think you know what macro and micro evolution are

>>16761844
>So the first important thing to note is that this enzyme does not “digest nylon”
6-aminohexanoic acid eating bacteria doesn’t have the same ring to it. Also it’s not “this enzyme” but “these enzymes” and there are multiple bacteria that can digest aliphatic nylons themselves, not just nylon by products.
>>16761846
>this type of bacteria already have always had a protein that could digest this. As it continues to say: “ its analogous enzyme (EII′) that has only ∼0.5% of the specific activity toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer”.
0.5% of activity is so negligible it’s not even considered a nylon degrading enzyme by this very same paper. That’s not enough to be called specific enzyme activity
>>16761849
>I'll tell you: It didn't come about through random mutation
Strange, because the paper above states otherwise:
“These results indicate that the G181D and H266N are amino acid alterations specific for the increase of nylon oligomer hydrolysis. Thus, the nylon oligomer-degrading enzyme (EII) is considered to have evolved from preexisting esterases with β-lactamase folds.”
>>16761853
>http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf
this states that “a molecular basis for the emergence of nylon oligomer metabolism in PAO5502 is still unknown”. This paper makes no genetic examination. You are speculating as to the cause of the appearance of nylonases.
>But the popular story "a random frameshift mutation gave it the ability to digest a brand-new chemical, nylon!" is so wildly inaccurate as to fall into outright deception
That’s great and all, but that’s not the case. Rather I would say placing all focus on just one enzyme out of multiple and ignoring the findings made by your own sources regarding the mutations responsible is pretty deceptive. For someone who has supposedly been having arguments about this for 20 years it seems unusual you’d forget the rest of the enzymes

File: IMG_1038.jpg (6 KB, 290x174)

6 KB JPG

>>16751743
All black people are 99% similar to you compared to any other species “ape” sir, your ancestors were certainly black at a time, if you’re not from an invasive non terrestrial species actually unknown on Earth of course.

>>16751729
We did not evolve from apes anon, but we did evolved from the same great great great ancestor a “common ancestor” to be precise.

File: IMG_0974.jpg (73 KB, 697x900)

73 KB JPG

>>16752361
Evolution doesn’t work like a ladder where older forms vanish once something new appear it’s more like a branching tree. Multicellular organisms “including humans” evolved from ancient single-celled ancestors, but those ancestors were part of diverse lineages that continued to thrive and diversify alongside the new branches.

>>16752959
Many folks do not know this fact

>>16762133
I know exactly what they are: unhelpful, misleading terms

>>16762344
You can’t convince him. As I said before he’s only learnt enough to argue without actually understanding the principles behind it. No matter how many times you explain what’s wrong with what he said he’ll just come back with another semi-informed wall of text

>>16762344
>6-aminohexanoic acid eating bacteria doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Exactly. Like all of the other claimed evidence for evolution, once you dig into it, you see how all of it is misstated. Outright dishonest marketing like this is what tricks many into believing it.

>Also it’s not “this enzyme” but “these enzymes”
Did we not discuss multiple enzymes? One of which is, by all appearances, one that this organism naturally has that can digest these?

>there are multiple bacteria that can digest aliphatic nylons themselves, not just nylon by products.
Which do you have in mind?

>0.5% of activity is so negligible
That's because these were so negligible in its usual environment. Put it in an environment where there's more and its machinery uses a built-in process to do this more strongly.

For the evolutionary story to work we need new enzymes to be able to form through random mutation that do what no enzyme could do before them. This is not an example of that: they already naturally had an enzyme that could digest these and used cellular machinery analogous to an immune system to deliberately (as deliberately as machinery can be said to be, at any rate) amplify this preexisting ability. It was neither new nor random. The fact that this is virtually the only example ever brought forward says more than I ever could about how much our actual observations are contradicting the evolutionary stories.

>Thus, the nylon oligomer-degrading enzyme (EII) is considered to have evolved from preexisting esterases with β-lactamase folds
Indeed, and did so intentionally (in a sense, much as our immune system 'intentionally' learns to fight new germs), not through a random frameshift mutation like the popular story goes.

>>16762344
>This paper makes no genetic examination. You are speculating as to the cause of the appearance of nylonases.
It's obviously not a frameshift mutation like the story goes since it already has an enzyme that can do this. It gets a stronger version on a piece of its genome that it engages in intentional modification of like our own immune systems do. It's as if you found our immune systems fighting a new virus and called the notion that they didn't acquire the ability to do so by a frameshift mutation "speculation".

I suppose this is speculation in the same sense as if you see a man open fifty fifty-digit combination locks in a row while looking at a piece of paper, and say "he must have the combinations written on that sheet", that that's "speculation" since it isn't completely outside the realm of metaphysical possibility that he just keeps randomly guessing fifty digit combinations right.

>placing all focus on just one enzyme out of multiple
What do you mean? We did talk about multiple enzymes. What's of primary interest here is the enzyme that, by all appearances, they've always had that digests this substance and then the version of it that, when exposed to a large quantity of that substance, they will start making that digests it more powerfully.

If there are more enzymes you want to talk about, simply tell me their names and we'll take a look

>>16752042
Much less quickly with modern technology- an appropriate level of melatonin for your environment doesn't constitute as drastic and advantage if we have central heating and air conditioning and sunscreen and modern medical science. But on average gradually yes, their descendants will be selected for lighter-skinned alleles.

>>16762629
>he’s only learnt enough to argue without actually understanding the principles behind it
As I said before, as always, what someone says about anonymous strangers, they're often simply saying about themselves. You've seen that I'm familiar with the scientific literature here and am more than capable of discussing the genetics and the chemistry down at the base level.

>semi-informed
Be honest: did you believe the "bacteria developed the brand-new ability to digest nylon from a random frameshift mutation" story instead of the "bacteria have a natural enzyme that can digest a by-product of nylon production that's very similar to lots of naturally occuring chemicals. When they're exposed to lots of it they start making an enzyme that does it better through the same tools your immune system uses to fight new germs" reality?

If so, that is what being semi-informed is. Believing misleading headlines and summaries instead of reading the original sources and truly understanding what was seen and what, at the chemical level, is going on.

They stayed the same but we changed. How did they not struggle but hominids were being hunted by saber tooth tigers, giga eagles and losing fingers do to frostbite. 10/10 of the hominids in Europe lost a finger due to frostbite. The have all the branches of hominids that died out. Hominids living in caves, while monkeys built leaf canopies living their best lives.

>>16763059
Not so. Making White people requires extensive labwork (Yakub, -4000) and doesn't occur naturally (Ibid.)

Are creationists the stupidest people on the planet? Other than flat earthers I don't know if there's a single group that's dumber than them.

>>16763074
>You've seen that I'm familiar with the scientific literature here and am more than capable of discussing the genetics and the chemistry down at the base level.
You've shown yourself to have no understanding of what you're talking about and that you can't read papers.

>>16752959
Maybe without modern technology. But with tech they wouldn't have remotely the same evolutionary pressures that made white people.

>>16763165
Let's put that to the test! What would you say is the strongest evidence that we evolved from apes?

>>16763166
Would you care to actually demonstrate this?

>>16763348
You ARE an ape just like you ARE a mammal. "Evolved from" makes it sound like humans are no longer apes. Not how it works. The "best evidence" is that you are an ape right now. Separate creation, separate tree of life, and young earth creationism have all been disproved.
The entire thread is you getting bodied and shown you don't know how to read papers. That's the demonstration

>>16763357
Oh hey now we're in the word games part of the evolution episode! How fun! There isn't a single person who doesn't understand what I was asking. It's tediously pedantic like the irksome line you'll here some people say about how Canadians and Brazilians are Americans too since they live in North and South America. Nobody on the planet has any issue understanding exactly what's meant, but someone having a discussion in bad faith isn't interested in using words as tools of communication to find truth.

>you getting bodied
Care to point to a specific example? Points like a chromosome fusion or the "nylon-eating bacteria from a framshift" myth have been thoroughly disproven so far.

>>16763369
No, this is not a "word game", you shit for brained moron. You ARE an ape. Saying "humans came from apes" is as stupid as "humans came from mammals" or "pigeons came from birds"
And no, shit for brains, you were proved wrong about the nylon eating bacteria not being de novo and the y chromosome fusion not happening.

>>16763386
Obvious, plain word game. No one familiar with Creation and evolution, and their core disagreements, would have the slightest shred of doubt as to what the question is asking. If someone asks about men and about apes, nobody struggles grasp his words. But much like the cliche, trite, "no, they ARE American - they live in Canada, in North AMERICA", good-faith efforts to use language as a tool for information exchange have passed. At least you're not resorting to an appeal to authority like most evolutionists do at the end, though I don't imagine we're far from it.

>you were proved wrong about the nylon eating bacteria
Care to elaborate?

>and the y chromosome fusion not happening.
It's actually chromosome 2 that's said to have fused, but in what way was my counterargument disproven? The alleged centromere remains actually being a functional gene that even voles share is an absolute deathblow to any notion that this chromosome is the product of a fusion.

>>16763042
>Like all of the other claimed evidence for evolution, once you dig into it, you see how all of it is misstated
Aside from the fact there are bacteria that can degrade nylon? So rather than dishonest, you are just misinformed like all other creationists
>Did we not discuss multiple enzymes?
You discussed just EII and EII’ which is the wild form of the same enzyme
>Which do you have in mind?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964830507000194
>For the evolutionary story to work we need new enzymes to be able to form through random mutation that do what no enzyme could do before them
It doesn’t have to do what no enzyme could do before. It just has to be a new function like what happened here. If an amylase turned into a protease through a mutation that wouldn’t mean it’s not evolution because proteases already exist, those are other enzymes
>not through a random frameshift mutation like the popular story goes
According to you, directly contradicting what your own source says
>>16763054
>It's obviously not a frameshift mutation like the story goes since it already has an enzyme that can do this
That doesn’t mean it’s not the result of a mutation. Even if we pretend that the wild type was able to degrade nylon just fine that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mutation. A mutation can increase the effectiveness of an already existing function, thats also something the paper discusses. Did you not read it? The wild type plasmid is well documented. The mutation that occurred in the nylon eating one has been fully mapped. You are in denial
>It's as if you found our immune systems fighting a new virus and called the notion that they didn't acquire the ability to do so by a frameshift mutation "speculation"
Except we know how our immune systems develop an immune response. You are just speculating based on a paper that literally states they don’t know the molecular change that allowed P. aeruginosa to degrade dimer

>>16752042
Apes and monkeys have white skin with fur over it.

>>16763545
Depends on species

>>16763454
>Aside from the fact there are bacteria that can degrade nylon?
What do you mean by "degrade", exactly? This is becoming a much broader claim than "a random mutation gave them a new enzyme that can digest this material". I can "degrade" nylon organically with my body by, say, soaking it in my urine over a long period of time, but this is very different from me having a nylonase enzyme, and radically different from me mutating a nylonase enzyme. You've moved way, way beyond the claim and are trying to equivocate.

>You discussed just EII and EII’ which is the wild form of the same enzyme
Yes, because EII is the enzyme that was claimed to have recently evolved a novel ability to digest nylon by a random mutation, supposedly proving evolution of a new protein. That's the origin of your claim, is it not?

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964830507000194
What does this have to do with your claim? Do you have any evidence for any of this being caused by a recently-mutated enzyme? The paper claims no such thing. It doesn't even claim that any of this is happening because of a nylonase. For instance it talks about how "Although Fig. 6 is taken from literature for the degradation of nylon 6 in the presence of white rot fungi (Deguchi et al., 1997), since similar functional groups are observed in our study, one could conclude that the degradation mechanism follows the same path. The methylene group adjacent to the nitrogen atom in the polymer is attacked probably first by the peroxidase enzyme and subsequently the reaction proceeds through autoxidation. [Some scientists] have reported that they observed the degradation of nylon 66 with white rot fungus strain IZU 154 with the formation of CHO, NHCHO, CH2 and CONH2 and, the main enzyme in the mechanism was manganese peroxidase."

So how in the world is this evidence for a brand-new nylonase protein evolving that digests nylon? It's about general oxidative surface degradation.

>>16763454
>It doesn’t have to do what no enzyme could do before
Unless you believe that the very first organism came already packed with a chitinase, lactase, and every other sort of enzyme then yes, evolution absolutely requires that random mutation be able to make completely new enzymes that have never existed before. Something we have never ever seen. I have almost exclusively heard nylonase from evolutionists for two decades now, almost nothing else, and you see how frail an example it really is.

>It just has to be a new function like what happened here.
It doesn't have a new function. Ell' already digests this substance. If you expose these bacteria to huge quantities of it, they will almost automatically start producing a version of EII' that hones in on this ability. A frameshift doing it would be a vanishingly rare event, but you can simply induce the change by making this a rich food source. Same as you induce an immune response with a germ.

>If an amylase turned into a protease through a mutation that wouldn’t mean it’s not evolution because proteases already exist, those are other enzymes
I agree. But in this case an enzyme that can digest 6-aminohexanoic acid turned into...an enzyme that can digest 6-aminohexanoic acid. And it isn't from random mutation.

>they don’t know
Evolutionists might not, but us creationists sure do. Once you let go of a belief that evolution must be true, you can find many truths in biology you'd otherwise be blind to.

>>16763623
>You've moved way, way beyond the claim and are trying to equivocate
No I haven’t. Not using the same word twice in a row doesn’t mean the facts changed. The bacteria can use nylon and nylon byproducts as a substrate, degrading them with enzymes and digesting them. I haven’t said otherwise. You are putting words in my mouth
>EII is the enzyme that recently evolved a novel ability to digest nylon by a random mutation, proving evolution of a new protein
That’s what happened
>What does this have to do with your claim? Do you have any evidence for any of this being caused by a recently-mutated enzyme? The paper claims no such thing
That’s not why I posted it genius. The paper is about bacteria that can degrade nylon-6 and nylon-66, I linked it in response to you asking what bacteria I had in mind that could degrade nylon and not just nylon byproducts. That is why I quoted you. And before you say that’s not enzymatic interaction you might want to read a little more about Paenarthrobacter before making incorrect sweeping statements in full confidence

>>16763710
>Unless you believe that the very first organism came already packed with a chitinase, lactase, and every other sort of enzyme then yes, evolution absolutely requires that random mutation be able to make completely new enzymes that have never existed before
It can create new enzymes. You missed the point entirely. The point was that it isn’t only evolution if the type of enzyme produced has never existed before, one enzyme being changed into another with a different function is still evolution even if unrelated enzymes possess the same function
>I have almost exclusively heard nylonase from evolutionists for two decades now, almost nothing else
The fact that you say this with such confidence really does confirm that you only learn what you want to argue about
>It doesn't have a new function. Ell' already digests this substance
The paper you’re using as a source says otherwise. 1/200th of efficiency is not enough to be specific enzymatic activity, nor is it enough to sustain the bacterium long term on a nylon substrate without changing. That’s just enzymatic promiscuity
>If you expose these bacteria to huge quantities of it, they will almost automatically start producing a version of EII' that hones in on this ability
And the honing in is caused by what molecular pathway exactly?
>A frameshift doing it would be a vanishingly rare event
Not that rare
>Same as you induce an immune response with a germ
That is an entirely different interaction
>But in this case an enzyme that can digest 6-aminohexanoic acid turned into...an enzyme that can digest 6-aminohexanoic acid. And it isn't from random mutation
This won’t become true even if you say it a hundred times. The specific mutation responsible is documented
>Evolutionists might not, but us creationists sure do. Once you let go of a belief that evolution must be true, you can find many truths in biology you'd otherwise be blind to
Ironic

File: 5023.jpg (220 KB, 1536x1173)

220 KB JPG

>>16763394
>we know there’s a mutation of this gene in a bacteria that eats nylon
>and we know that regular bacteria are able to eat nylon if we replicate that mutation through genetic modification
>oh but it’s not caused by the mutation. It’s because of some other thing I can’t describe properly
mfw

>>16751729
can you get off the science board, i don't feel like being your science tutor

>>16764141
...what? This doesn't bear even the most remote resemblance to a word I've been saying about that topic. I can't even call it a strawman since a strawman at least resembles a man in some way.

>>16764572
Are you retarded or did you just not read the papers you’re citing?

>>16764117
>No I haven’t.
The claim was "A strain of Paenarthrobacter has evolved three novel enzymes to digest nylon, a material that didn’t exist before 1935. These enzymes are nylon specific". But the latest paper isn't even in the same world as this claim.

>The bacteria can use nylon and nylon byproducts as a substrate
You seem to be under the impression that if something can effect nylon in some way that it must have evolved a new protein to do so. That's not what the paper is about, or saying, at all. According to the paper, what's likely going on is oxidative damage to the material. Like, say, pouring hydrogen peroxide that you can buy from the store on it over and over. It'll damage the material, right?

What's being observed is akin to seeing, say, mold grow on a metal surface and damage it over time. That doesn't imply that the mold can actually consume the material and has developed an enzyme to do so, right?

>That’s what happened
The existence of Ell', which is by all appearances a natural enzyme always found in this organism, which already does what Ell does, completely disproves this. It was not a random mutation making a new enzyme with a new function. The organism has always possessed an enzyme that does this. If there's a lot of this stuff around to eat, it makes a version that focuses on that ability specifically. It does this when you just put them together in a lab, removing any notion that it's a chance frameshift mutation like the evolutionary story goes.

>The paper is about bacteria that can degrade nylon-6 and nylon-66
Through, most likely, oxidative damage. As said, by this standard humans are perfectly capable of naturally degrading nylon too since our urine will do more or less this same thing. That is very different from being able to eat the nylon, which requires a nylonase enzyme.

And let's say all of them did have a nylonase like Ell (no evidence of this). What of it? Natural enzymes can already do this, as proven by Ell'.

>>16764586
Same pattern as usual. Empty bluster and insults without the slightest hint of engagement with a word I've said or any actual demonstration of any of your points.

This is always the case with anything attempting to support evolution. Once you really dig in, get to the surface level, you see nothing but a vacuous hole.

So far I've been consistently quoting published scientific research and talking about the base-level chemistry of reactions. So far you have been throwing around slurs. I think anyone can see, at this point, which side the science is really on.

>>16764619
>But the latest paper isn't even in the same world as this claim
Again that is not why I posted that paper but go off
>You seem to be under the impression that if something can effect nylon in some way that it must have evolved a new protein to do so. That's not what the paper is about, or saying, at all
No that’s what literally every other paper posted is about. The point was that there are bacteria that can degrade nylon itself which you said none could do
>That is very different from being able to eat the nylon, which requires a nylonase enzyme
Which also exists. EIII can digest aliphatic nylons. You are just demonstrating that you don’t know as much about the topic as you pretend to
>The existence of Ell', which is by all appearances a natural enzyme always found in this organism, which already does what Ell does
Again that’s not what it does. Read the paper
>It was not a random mutation making a new enzyme with a new function. The organism has always possessed an enzyme that does this
They identified the mutation responsible.
>The organism has always possessed an enzyme that does this. If there's a lot of this stuff around to eat, it makes a version that focuses on that ability specifically
Then why can they make EII’ nearly as efficient as EII just by inducing a mutation? Also a mutation can be responsible for increased activity of the same enzyme, so even if we pretend EII’ already had the same function I’m not sure why you think that means it’s impossible a mutation was responsible. It’s becoming increasingly apparent you didn’t read the paper

>>16765269
>The point was that there are bacteria that can degrade nylon itself
You claimed there are bacteria that can, I quote, "digest aliphatic nylons themselves". Your paper has nothing to do with digesting nylon. As I said, "degrade" is so vague that it could refer to things humans can easily do like apply urine to nylon or mechanically wear it.

>that’s not what it does
True or false: this organism, in its native wild form, has enzymes that can digest 6-aminohexanoic acid.

True, yes? So yes, this organism has always had an enzyme that digests 6-aminohexanoic acid. The enzyme does other things but can do that. The organism can produce a version that hones in on that aspect of this when its useful. You are not developing something new if you can already do it.

>They identified the mutation responsible.
You seem to be having some sort of misunderstanding; as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutation describes, the basic definition of a mutation is "a relatively permanent change in hereditary material that involves...a change in the nucleotide sequence of a gene...". By definition whatever change happened to do this is a mutation. Pointing out that it's a mutation amounts to nothing more than saying "this genetic change was a genetic change".

My point is that it is not a *random* mutation, with *random* being the key word. Like we looked at earlier, this is happening through a similar process to the manner in which your immune system fights new germs. It's deliberate self-modification of the genetic code by the organism in order to draw out an ability.

>Then why can they make EII’ nearly as efficient as EII just by inducing a mutation?
Can you re-phrase this question? You seem to basically be asking "why can you change the product of this gene by changing this gene"?

>>16767058
>Your paper has nothing to do with digesting nylon. As I said, "degrade" is so vague that it could refer to things humans can easily do like apply urine to nylon or mechanically wear it.
And as I said that’s not why I posted it. I posted it because you said there weren’t any that can degrade nylon. Also I used a different example because you seemed to be under the impression that the first bacteria discussed can’t digest nylon, which it can
>True or false: this organism, in its native wild form, has enzymes that can digest 6-aminohexanoic acid.
False. As stated before 0.5% of activity is not enough to be considered specific, that is just enzymatic promiscuity. You are disagreeing with the papers you are citing as evidence
>The organism can produce a version that hones in on that aspect of this when its useful.
You still can’t seem to actually say what causes this honing in
>By definition whatever change happened to do this is a mutation. Pointing out that it's a mutation amounts to nothing more than saying "this genetic change was a genetic change"
Except the change is responsible for the change in enzymatic activity. It’s not “this genetic change was a genetic change” but rather “this genetic change iswas a genetic change that allows bacteria to eat nylon”
>You seem to basically be asking "why can you change the product of this gene by changing this gene"?
I’m asking why you think it’s impossible for a mutation to be responsible for the enzyme’s new function. The papers you yourself linked demonstrate that a mutation occurred, and demonstrated that replicating this mutation in the wild type bacteria allow them to also consume nylon oligomers. You can’t articulate why a mutation couldn’t be the reason and how the magical “honing in” is responsible instead

File: Trog.jpg (383 KB, 1701x2200)

383 KB JPG

Better question home come we can transfer organs with pigs? It always subconsciously felt like cannibalism to eat them. Pic very related.

>>16767175
>>>/x/ is that way

>>16763394
The centromere is directly observed buddy. It's not a matter of interpretation. The mutation leading to a new enzyme is observed. It's not a matter of interpretation.
You've been disproved and you not accepting this is not an argument.

I've never seen one piece of strong evidence for macroevolution founded on the principles of modern synthesis (i.e. random mutations + natural selection being the primary drivers of evolution). Not one. I think the narrative in academia is to undermine all teleology and purpose in the world by implying evolution is in of itself a series of meaningless events as a form of social engineering.

>>16762461
>bird with different color feathers, and no other differences
>this is a completely different subspecies

>human ethnicity with a laundry list of differences from other ethnicities
>THERE ARE NO HUMAN SUBSPECIES CHUD

Humans speciate. That human subspecies are largely similar and even reproductively compatible is meaningless, this is common in the animal (and plant) kingdom.

>>16767175
>All religions blame women for the downfall of man. In the next section we, will explore the reasons why. It will clarify many of to-day's movements towards UNI(one)SEX.
Wtf, I feel like I wasn't meant to learn about this.

>>16767633
More bluster with no engagement whatsoever. I've made very detailed posts in this thread absolutely disproving the second centromere and "newly evolved nylon protein" myths. Care to actually respond to any points, or are you just going to plug your ears and keep repeating yourself?

>>16768095
>I've made very detailed posts in this thread absolutely disproving the second centromere and "newly evolved nylon protein" myths
You’ve made very detailed posts proving you don’t know shit
>Care to actually respond to any points, or are you just going to plug your ears and keep repeating yourself?
You mean like how you refuse to explain how enzymes develop this ability to hone in on a new substrate? Or why it’s impossible a mutation is what caused the bacteria to gain the ability to eat nylon? You just keep repeating those but can’t articulate why it’s wrong

>>16768115
>You’ve made very detailed posts proving you don’t know shit
Got an argument to go with this?

>You mean like how you refuse to explain how enzymes develop this ability to hone in on a new substrate?
D e t a i l e d four-parter on this. It isn't even new, they have a wild-type enzyme that does this.

>Or why it’s impossible a mutation is what caused the bacteria to gain the ability to eat nylon?
I've already thoroughly described how:
A) They do not "eat nylon"
B) Any genetic change is a "mutation"
C) This change is intentional, not random, much like our immune system using somatic hypermutation to hone in on a new germ


>can’t articulate why it’s wrong
Did you miss my four-parter explaining every facet of how this is wrong? Starts at >>16761841

>>16768186
>It isn't even new, they have a wild-type enzyme that does this
Wrong
>They do not "eat nylon"
>Nylon hydrolase (NylC) is one of the three enzymes responsible for the endo-type degradation of the by-products of nylon-6 manufacture (cyclic and linear oligomers of 6-aminohexanoate (Ahx) with a degree of polymerization greater than three) and various aliphatic nylons (e.g., nylon-6 and nylon-66)
Wrong
>Any genetic change is a "mutation"
Depends on what you mean by genetic change
>This change is intentional, not random
Wrong
>much like our immune system using somatic hypermutation to hone in on a new germ
Not like this at all
>Did you miss my four-parter
Oh I saw it. It’s full of misinterpretation and misinformation

>>16768205
Looks like all I can expect here is more of the same completely empty non-responses. No explanations, no depth. Just "nuh-uh" along with slurs and insults repeated again and again.

Hope things go well for you, anon.

>>16764120

>>16764120
>one enzyme being changed into another with a different function
It isn't a "different" function. Ell' can already digest these. That is something it does. The bacteria focus on that ability where it is beneficial.

>The fact that you say this with such confidence
Well it's a claim about my own experience so of course I'm confident in it, I was there you know! In terms of claims about proteins getting truly new functions this is pretty much the only game in town. This is both Pepsi and Coke and all other examples combined are RC Cola in terms of how often you see them.

>The paper you’re using as a source says otherwise. 1/200th of efficiency
To be frank I find these two sentences together baffling. 1/200th the efficiency at what? At digesting this substance! So yes, it does digest this substance. Usually that's not important but if there's a ton of it around the bacteria go "alright let's focus on this one here guys, get to work plasmids" and hones in on that ability.

The evolutionary story needs brand-new proteins to form from completely random mutations to do things no protein has ever done before. The first organism would have had nothing even vaguely resembling a chitinase or a lactase or any other digestive enzyme, to say nothing of massively more complex proteins with other functions like an ATP synthase. It has to completely blindly stumble on the protein sequences to do all of these. The evolutionist reply to the mathematical impossibly of this is almost always "well...it happened with nylon", which is completely and absolutely false.

>And the honing in is caused by what molecular path
way exactly?
Starvation and stress signals that stimultate transposition/recombination in the plasmid.

>>16764120
>Not that rare
Frameshifts completely scramble genes to a degree no other mutation does. It's often compared with keeping the same number of letters in each word but shifting the frame of the sentence. Like taking:

"Twist the knob to the right"
And replacing it with
"ZzxTw ist thek no bto theri"

Completely scrambles whatever information was present, getting you what functions essentially the way a completely random sequence would.

The story from evolutionists was originally that the so-called nylonase came from a mutation like this. A full de novo emerging from a complete scrambling. Ashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria says, "EIII was originally thought to be completely novel. Susumu Ohno proposed that it had come about from the combination of a gene-duplication event with a frameshift mutation" and in the very entry for frameshift mutations athttps://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/frameshift-mutation it says "frameshift mutation has been used to make certain bacteria capable of producing nylonase, an enzyme that can degrade nylon",

But of course, as you and I have seen, this is absurdity.

>That is an entirely different interaction
Is it? Organisms have built-in ways to perform genetic engineering on themselves to hone in on abilities they possess. Our immune system is one such example. So-called nylonase is another.

>This won’t become true even if you say it a hundred times. The specific mutation responsible is documented
We seem to be having some sort of disconnect on this specific point. Can you explain your perspective here more fully?

>>16767097
> I posted it because you said there weren’t any that can degrade nylon.
You claimed there are bacteria that can, I quote, "digest aliphatic nylons themselves". Do you understand the difference between degrading something (which most any physical action can do eventually) and digesting something in this context?

>False
Earlier we directly saw the paper state that it has catalytic activity toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer. Directly.

>is not enough to be considered specific, that is just enzymatic promiscuity
Obviously its specific function isn't this - it didn't come with an enzyme specifically for a substance that wasn't yet around. Rather one of its natural enzymes could do so. So where this is a good food source, it hones in on that ability. Its nothing we don't see life doing in tons of other cases, most prominently the immune system, except in this case eating a food source better instead of fighting a germ better.

>You still can’t seem to actually say what causes this honing in
Didn't we go into a great deal of detail on its plasmids having this sort of function? And that's triggered by stress signals from things like a lack of food. So when it's only getting just a bit of food from the small amount of digestion it can do naturally with this substance, it starts engaging in a form of self-genetic engineering and cranks out the version of the enzyme that focuses on this ability.

>but rather “this genetic change iswas a genetic change that allows bacteria to eat nylon”
As we've covered time and time again, they aren't eating nylon, and what they are doing they already had the ability to do. The native version of this enzyme is a so-called "nylonase". Chemically it can digest this same substance.

>You can’t articulate why a mutation couldn’t be the reason
Don't you remember me talking about somatic hyper*mutation* as an analogy here?

>>16764120
>>16764120
>>16767097
>>16768945
>>16768946
>>16768950
Forgot to have my name on but the replies were posted by me

>>16768945
>It isn't a "different" function. Ell' can already digest these. That is something it does
You keep saying this, it’s not true. The paper you’re citing even shows it. It’s enzymatic promiscuity, not specific activity
>In terms of claims about proteins getting truly new functions this is pretty much the only game in town
It’s not though, which again tells me you don’t know as much as you think. See citrine digestion in E. coli for example
>Usually that's not important but if there's a ton of it around the bacteria go "alright let's focus on this one here guys, get to work plasmids" and hones in on that ability
Something that hasn’t been demonstrated
>Starvation and stress signals that stimultate transposition/recombination in the plasmid
And where are you getting that from? Literally none of your sources found this
>>16768946
>But of course, as you and I have seen, this is absurdity
Except the frameshift mutation on EII has been mapped
>Can you explain your perspective here more fully?
Exactly what I said. You keep saying a mutation isn’t responsible even though it’s been directly observed and reproduced for the same results in a wild strain
>You claimed there are bacteria that can, I quote, "digest aliphatic nylons themselves"
There are
>Do you understand the difference between degrading something (which most any physical action can do eventually) and digesting something in this context?
Yes, and as I said I gave you a different example because you ignored the one about actual enzymatic activity in the first bacteria discussed
>Earlier we directly saw the paper state that it has catalytic activity
You didn’t read the paper if you’re still making this misinterpretation
>So where this is a good food source, it hones in on that ability
See above
>they aren't eating nylon
They can though. I just quoted about EIII digesting aliphatic nylons
>Don't you remember me talking about somatic hyper*mutation* as an analogy here?
I do, it’s wrong

>>16758924
They will never recover from this

>>16758924
Creationfags on suicide watch

>>16768937
>Looks like all I can expect here is more of the same completely empty non-responses. No explanations, no depth. Just "nuh-uh" along with slurs and insults repeated again and again.
What you have gotten wrong has been explained to you in painstaking detail multiple times. You just continue to repeat the same things right after people explain why it’s wrong. You just don’t want to listen, nor do you want to dig into the subject further than what grants you ammunition for an argument. That is why you keep getting these things wrong

>>16769185
>It’s enzymatic promiscuity, not specific activity
Let's zoom in a bit. Anon: chemically, what specifically is one enzyme doing to the substance that the other isn't?

>It’s not though
I nearly never hear anything else. Always this.

>And where are you getting that from?
The mechanisms for it in this specific organism haven't been directly studied, but in e. coli nutritional stress activates their transposase: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.04794.x#b4

>Something that hasn’t been demonstrated
It has! Like we saw from those experiments discussed earlier, the bacteria start doing this essentially automatically whenever you give them lots and lots of this material to eat and they do it quick. It isn't a one in a quadrillion random frameshift.

>Except the frameshift mutation on EII has been mapped
That's simply not so. What source told you this? We can take a deeper look and see that they're misleading you.

>There are...I gave you a different example
That second paper was emphatically not a demonstration of the digestion of nylon by those organisms.
Let me ask this since explaining it myself didn't appear to work. According to the paper, what is the likely mechanisms by which those organisms damaged the nylon?

>You didn’t read the paper if you’re still making this misinterpretation
It directly says "low catalytic activity (1/200 of EII activity) toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer (Ald)".

This is a direct statement that there is catalytic activity

>I just quoted about EIII digesting aliphatic nylons
I think you might be misunderstanding either what I'm saying or what "aliphatic" means. It digests a byproduct of nylon production. If you want to call this "nylon" it would be like saying that because we can use the iron in our food that we can eat iron ingots.

>>16771495
>what specifically is one enzyme doing to the substance that the other isn't?
Catalysing it at more than an incidental rate?
>I nearly never hear anything else. Always this
I literally just gave you another and you ignored it
>The mechanisms for it in this specific organism haven't been directly studied
So you’re speculating
>Like we saw from those experiments discussed earlier, the bacteria start doing this essentially automatically whenever you give them lots and lots of this material to eat and they do it quick
So you just want to assume that’s the mechanism without actually knowing?
>That second paper was emphatically not a demonstration of the digestion of nylon by those organisms
Which again is not why I posted it. You ignored the other example that does involve enzymatic activity
>I think you might be misunderstanding either what I'm saying or what "aliphatic" means. It digests a byproduct of nylon production
You are the one misunderstanding. Aliphatic nylons are linear nylon, not cyclic dimer. This includes nylon-6 and nylon-66 which are not by products
>If you want to call this "nylon"
That is literally nylon

>>16771497
>incidental rate
And what in the world is an "incidental rate"? When it comes to digesting a substance with a protein there is not and can be no "incidental", this is an extremely difficult thing to be able to do with a protein and requires very specifically built molecular machinery. The vast vast vast majority of possible proteins will do absolutely nothing to anything.

This is like saying that a car "incidentally" has a reverse gear because that gear is slower than the others!

>I literally just gave you another
That misses the point I was making. There are other claimed examples, as I said. But my point was that far and away, the vast majority of the time an evolutionist attempts to make this argument, this will be their example.

>So you’re speculating
Are you of the opinion that nutrient stress DOESN'T activate transposase in these organisms? The feature whose entire purpose is to help them adapt to stressful conditions? Which we have it directly demonstrated is activated in other bacteria by nutrient stress?

>Which again is not why I posted it.
You said:
"there are multiple bacteria that can digest aliphatic nylons themselves, not just nylon by products"
I replied:
"Which do you have in mind?"
And you replied with "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964830507000194"


>You ignored the other example that does involve enzymatic activity
I may have accidentally missed it, could you share it once more?

>You are the one misunderstanding.
Their enzymes work onoligomers that are a byproduct of its production, not on the polymer that we call nylon. If you put them with something made of nylon they will not be able to eat it.

>That is literally nylon
Very misleading label in this context. Again it's like posting a picture of an iron ingot and saying "humans can eat this". You're not making a completely false statement but it very much fails to capture the reality in terms of what most people will think is being said.

>>16771530
>And what in the world is an "incidental rate"?
It’s the same thing as enzymatic promiscuity
>When it comes to digesting a substance with a protein there is not and can be no "incidental", this is an extremely difficult thing to be able to do with a protein and requires very specifically built molecular machinery
That’s not what incidental means in this context but enzymes in general react through random interaction with their substrate. They don’t actively seek out their substrate of choice. The complexity of the protein doesn’t change that. Wtf do you mean there can be no incidental? It’s all incidental if you look at it that way
>the vast majority of the time an evolutionist attempts to make this argument, this will be their example
Probably because it’s a good example regardless of how you try spin it
>The feature whose entire purpose is to help them adapt to stressful conditions?
The waste water is non toxic and not otherwise devoid of nutrition. Where’s the stress?
>Which we have it directly demonstrated is activated in other bacteria by nutrient stress?
Which you haven’t demonstrated is what’s occurring here. Meanwhile it has been demonstrated that a frameshift mutation occurred and replicating that mutation in wild type strains gives them similar enzymatic function, yet you want to pretend the mutation has nothing to do with it
>I may have accidentally missed it, could you share it once more?
>Nylon hydrolase (NylC) is one of the three enzymes responsible for the endo-type degradation of the by-products of nylon-6 manufacture (…) and various aliphatic nylons (e.g., nylon-6 and nylon-66)
This is referring to an enzyme belonging to the same bacteria first discussed
>Their enzymes work onoligomers that are a byproduct of its production, not on the polymer that we call nylon
See above
>Very misleading label in this context
How? Nylon-6 and 66 are the most commonly manufactured nylons

>>16771649
>It’s the same thing as enzymatic promiscuity...It’s all incidental

Enzymes and other functional proteins are incredibly complex molecular machines that must be very precisely built to do anything they do.

Let's go back to chitinase as an example. Human chitinase is purpose‑built piece of nanomachinery for cutting chitin's β‑1,4 links. It needs extremely precise construction to do this.

First it grips a single chitin chain inside a deep, aromatic‑lined groove and flat rings from tryptophan/tyrosine side chains clamp several sugars into ordered subsites, centering the bond to be cut.

The sugar sitting at −1 is then forced out of what might be compared chemically to a comfy chair shape into a strained, transition‑state‑like conformation which prepares the bond for chemical action.

Next the catalytic D‑x‑D‑x‑E motif goes to work: the Glu acts as a general acid, protonating the glycosidic oxygen so the +1 sugar can depart. In the same instant, the carbonyl oxygen of the −1 sugar's own 2‑acetamido group, precisely oriented and polarized by the neighboring Asp residues, attacks the anomeric carbon, forming an oxazolinium intermediate.

Next, that same Glu switches to a general base, activates a tightly positioned water, and the resulting hydroxide strikes C1, collapsing the intermediate and finishing the cut. A tiny product sugar diffuses out; the remaining polymer (or a newly bound segment) is positioned for the next cycle along the same aromatic track.

Every move depends on angstrom‑level distances and angles: the acids must be close enough to hand off protons on cue, the -1 pocket must impose exactly the right distortion, the catalytic water must sit at the right spot and approach from the right angle, etc.

This is a customized machine. This is as absolutely and hopelessly impossible for a random protein sequence to hope to just happen upon as a microchip with 4chan's source code in silicon and copper ores.

>>16773736
Cool. Nearly all of that has no bearing on what was said

>>16773947
It seems to have everything to do with it. You seem to be saying that it's just some coincidence that the natural enzyme happened to be able to digest this substance. But chemically, a protein doing something like this can never be coincidental. It requires molecular machinery to actively process the chemical. Your talk of this enzyme somehow happening to also be compatible and that not having any significance only makes sense if you're perhaps viewing enzymes as simple chemical reactions, like peroxide or alcohol.

This organism has always had machinery that can process this type of substance. This was not the acquisition of any sort of new mechanical ability.

Look how precise and complex chitinase there (which is a good example since it's pretty well-studied and not unusual for an enzyme) must be to process chitin. All enzymes are like this, including what's called nylonase.

If an enzyme is doing something to a substance, there's some part of that substance compatible with its machinery and what that machinery is physically doing. The natural "nylonase", which existed before nylon, could always process chemicals like these nylon by-products. So doing so is not, and cannot be, an illustration of how random mutations can produce what are, for all practical intents and purposes, nanomachines with brand-new functions.

>>16774004
It doesn’t though. Again that’s not what incidental means in that context. Incidental doesn’t mean simple or imprecise
>So doing so is not, and cannot be, an illustration of how random mutations can produce what are, for all practical intents and purposes, nanomachines with brand-new functions
Except when the mutation happens and we can reproduce similar enzymatic function by inducing that mutation in wild strains in a lab

>16774143
Can you explain what you do mean by it? I previously asked:
"And what in the world is an 'incidental rate'?"
And you replied:
"It’s the same thing as enzymatic promiscuity"

The impression I got was that your point was that it's somehow accidental and irrelevant that the natural version of the enzyme is able to process this substance. As if it were like peroxide or alcohol and had a simple chemical reaction with most anything, instead of needing to be a precisely nanomachine that in a very real sense mechanically processes this material.

>Except when the mutation happens
What do you mean by "the mutation happens"? No mutation gave it the ability to digest this substance. It could already do so.

>and we can reproduce similar enzymatic function by inducing that mutation in wild strains in a lab
What experiment are you referring to, exactly? That might help me follow what you're looking to say. You seem to be referring to something you earlier said about:
"Meanwhile it has been demonstrated that a frameshift mutation occurred and replicating that mutation in wild type strains gives them similar enzymatic function"

So what experiment was this that you've got in mind? Though I emphasize again that it's not possible for a recent mutation to give them the ability to digest nylon by-products since the wild-type enzyme already possesses this ability.

>>16774288
>it's somehow accidental and irrelevant that the natural version of the enzyme is able to process this substance
It is. That’s literally what enzymatic promiscuity is. You are talking about the complexity of an enzyme which is irrelevant. Enzymes bind to things they really shouldn’t normally all the time
>No mutation gave it the ability to digest this substance. It could already do so
You keep saying this but it doesn’t get any more true. Enzymatic promiscuity does not translate to already having the ability to eat nylon. Your own sources say this. 1/200th of activity vs the mutated strain is not specific enzymatic activity. Any nutrition the bacteria can derive from that much reaction is so minute it’s meaningless. Also that’s only for EII, not EI and EIII
>What experiment are you referring to, exactly? That might help me follow what you're looking to say. You seem to be referring to something you earlier said
>So what experiment was this that you've got in mind?
It’s in a paper that you yourself linked. You would know this if you read it

>>16774353
I think that once again we need to look at the direct physical mechanisms of what's going on here with the Ell. Let's walk through what this enzyme actually physically does.

Based on the article at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17512009/, the first step involves binding and locking between the enzyme and this material. First what we can call nylon for convenience but really isn't (the nylon‑6 by‑product 6‑aminohexanoate linear dimer) binds to an open cleft in the enzyme. Binding triggers a motion: Tyr170 rotates and the loop shifts (by about ten angstroms), closing the cleft around the scissile amide.

Then, based on https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26274473/, next you have acylation. Lys115 deprotonates Ser112, which attacks the amide carbonyl, forming a tetrahedral intermediate; Tyr215 protonates the leaving –NH to collapse the intermediate into an acyl‑enzyme.

Then, following this, based on https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17512009/ next you have deacylation. The enzyme returns to the open form, a water is base‑activated by Lys115, and it attacks to deacylate and regenerate Ser112 for the next turnover.

And lastly then the cleft reopens for the next turnover.

Now, how's this different from Ell'? Based on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6320516_Nylon-oligomer_Degrading_EnzymeSubstrate_Complex_Catalytic_Mechanism_of_6-Aminohexanoate-dimer_Hydrolase andhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19476493/ to get Ell from Ell' you have two key substitutions in the binding cleft:

1. Gly181 is switched for Asp (G181D) which introduces a negatively charged carboxylate that electrostatically grips the nylon by-product's –NH3+

2.His266 gets switched for Asn (H266N), which fine‑tunes the H‑bonding geometry and cooperates with Asp181 to improve the nylon by-product's positioning.

And there you have it, you've got Ell from Ell' and are set to digest you some "nylon".".(With some other proteins involved)

>>16774353
>>16775854
Now I go into all of that to illustrate what's going on here. Like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26274473/ discusses, the enzyme has a beta-lactamase protein fold. It is this protein fold that is responsible for the ability of Ell to work with one substance and Ell' with another. "Fold" is a deceptively simple term for what it really is, almost like "circuit" is deceptively simple for modern computers if someone is thinking of something like the circus maximus where it's just a simple loop.

But this beta-lactamase fold is the essence of the enzyme. That is the root of the function. Must as an immune cell's machinery is how it can handle germs and it only needs to tweak itself slightly to fight new threats, similarly this beta-lactamase fold for the enzyme is what enables it to perform the precise nano-scale machining of these materials.

As can be seen with how Ell' can already function as a nylonase, having this fold (again I emphasize: a protein fold is more akin to saying "having these circuits programmed with this code" than a fold in a shirt) is what the physical essence of enzyme function is.

Does that help clear up what I'm saying? When you look at how this nanomachine works, saying "it can be tweaked to handle one substance better than it was before" is akin to saying you've made something new if you shift your car from forwards to reverse. It's an activity that was being done very poorly before the change (maybe you could only slowly roll back) but the machine can be tweaked to do it really well. Once you look at the actual mechanism, however, it's the same machine going forwards or backwards.

>Enzymatic promiscuity does not translate to already having the ability to eat nylon.
Can you tell me what you're saying here in objective terms at the bare chemistry level?

>It’s in a paper that you yourself linked.
Wait are you referring to http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf? Can you quote the specific bit?

>>16752042
We need a new snow globe earth

>>16775854
>>16775869
>As can be seen with how Ell' can already function as a nylonase, having this fold (again I emphasize: a protein fold is more akin to saying "having these circuits programmed with this code" than a fold in a shirt) is what the physical essence of enzyme function is
Nobody said that there’s no binding site or that it can’t bind to nylon dimer. I already get what you’re saying. My point is this is not carefully designed molecular machinery for digesting dimer. The activity of EII’ on nylon by products is enzymatic promiscuity, it is not a pre-existing function for the specific purpose of interacting with a substrate that had never existed in the bacteria’s entire history until now
>Can you tell me what you're saying here in objective terms at the bare chemistry level? I mean exactly what I said
>Wait are you referring to http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/5/2020.pdf?
No
>Can you quote the specific bit?
Go back and actually read the papers you linked. It is not my job to do your homework for you

>>16775907
>My point is this is not carefully designed molecular machinery for digesting dimer. The activity of EII’ on nylon by products is enzymatic promiscuity, it is not a pre-existing function for the specific purpose of interacting with a substrate that had never existed in the bacteria’s entire history until now
I think this is somewhat misunderstanding what an enzyme really is, in its core mechanical essence. The essence of Ell and Ell' both is the beta-lactamase protein fold. What that specifically is is a serine‑hydrolase scaffold that catalyzes acyl‑bond cleavage via acylation–deacylation using a Ser–Lys core (plus Tyr or Glu, depending on the specific class), an oxyanion hole, and cleft/loop geometry.

Based on https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6902449/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17512009/ a substrate compatible with a serine (not all of these are, so just to be specific) beta‑lactamase‑like fold is one which presents a hydrolyzable acyl carbonyl (amide/lactam/ester) and a protonatable leaving group, and can be held in the cleft so the enzyme’s Ser‑based acylation/deacylation machinery (plus class‑specific acid/base) can act.

That is what this enzyme is for. Most any chemical that does this it can act on. It's this specific chemical structure, and then various substrates fit it to various degrees. Beta‑lactams fit this exceptionally well due to ring strain, hence the name for this type of protein fold. "Nylon" oligomers fit when pocket electrostatics/sterics are tuned right.

So this enzyme was always going to work on something like the nylon by-products. They have the molecular feature that it is for.

A protein with this kind of fold works when and only when you have all three of:

1. a hydrolyzable acyl carbonyl (amide/lactam/ester)

2. a protonatable leaving group

3. the ability to fit and align in the cleft for in‑line attack/oxyanion‑hole stabilization.

>>16775907
>>16776236
So if we had, at the time, known all the details of this enzyme and of the nylon by-products, there would have been no surprise. In a way, both "nylonase" and (serine) "beta-lactamase" are shorthand for "acyl‑bond cleavage via acylation–deacylation using a Ser–Lys core (or Tyr or Glu, depending on the specific class), an oxyanion hole, and cleft/loop geometry on molecules with a hydrolyzable acyl carbonyl with a protonatable leaving group and the ability to fit and align in the aforementioned cleft for in‑line attack/oxyanion‑hole stabilization
"-er. It's less about the specific chemical, exactly, and more about this specific molecular feature.

It's like how, say, Phillips-head screwdriver would work on boats or on cars or on toys to disassemble them so long as they used Philips-head screws. It's compatible with that specific type of screw head and what that screw head is on exactly isn't really relevant to what the tool is actually doing once you look closely.

>Go back and actually read the papers you linked. It is not my job to do your homework for you
I assure you that none of them were experiments where a frameshift mutation was directly induced and nylonase resulted. The actual experiment where nylonase production was induced did it by giving the bacteria lots of it, which was my point: by all appearances the bacteria automatically do it themselves rather than it being the result of a random lucky frameshift mutation. Their genes are actively seeking a solution to the problem much like our immune system would with a new pathogen.

File: evolution dog human.jpg (771 KB, 1926x1926)

771 KB JPG

Aliens could have selectively bred us, just like what we did with the wolves.

>>16751743
Good question

>>16776236
>>16776265
>I assure you that none of them were experiments where a frameshift mutation was directly induced and nylonase resulted
>We have found that of the 46 amino acid alterations that differed between the EII and EII′ proteins, two amino acid replacements in the EII′ protein (i.e. Gly to Asp (EII-type) at position 181 (G181D) and His to Asn (EII-type) at position 266 (H266N)) are sufficient to increase the Ald-hydrolytic activity back to the level of the parental EII enzyme. The other 44 amino acid alterations have no significant effect on the increase of the activity (41). Moreover, we confirmed that a single alteration in Hyb-24 from Gly181 located at H9 to Asp increased the Ald-hydrolytic activity 11 times.
>To examine the effects of mutation at position 181 in the wild-type EII enzyme, we replaced Asp181 with Asn, Glu, His, and Lys by site-directed mutagenesis and fused the mutated genes downstream of the His-tagged region in a vector plasmid pQE-80L. After purification on a nickel-nitrilotriacetic acid-agarose column, the purity of the enzymes was confirmed by SDS-PAGE. To examine the enzyme function, enzyme activity toward a nylon oligomer (Ald) and carboxyl esters was assayed (TABLE TWO). A single amino acid substitution at position 181 resulted in the drastic decrease in the Ald-hydrolytic activity, especially in the Lys181 mutant (<0.003% of the activity of the EII enzyme). The enzyme activity on p-nitrophenyl esters varied only in the range from 33 to 205% (p-nitrophenylacetate (C2)) and from 18 to 135% (p-nitrophenylbutyrate (C4)) among the mutant enzymes (TABLE TWO). Thus, the significant difference in the activity profiles raised a question as to how the EII enzyme discriminates between the esterolytic and nylon oligomer hydrolytic activity.
Uh huh

>>16751729
because humans liked to keep them around because theyre funny :)

>>16777650
Well exactly. Doesn't this absolutely confirm what I'm saying? You only need to substitute two amino acids. This isn't a frameshift mutation.

>>16751729
Nothing found them delicious enough to eat them to extinction

File: nmin.jpg (68 KB, 436x703)

68 KB JPG

selective breeding and evolution are something we do ourselves based on what is most useful like being attractive for sex or more strong or stupid enough to have a girlfriend
neanderthals still exist they have light skin theyre just in the minority
i saw different neanderthals before they were doing tourism with their human wives
fun fact we actually make cyclops babies the same as we make down syndrome babies but the nurses are briefed about cyclops babies special
cyclops get killed as soon as possible before or after birth pretty much as soon as the medical team notices its a cyclops
why are there still ox and boars if we made cows and pigs out of them anon why do we still have crocodiles and tortoise anon and rhinos anon theyre from dinosaur times its pretty much just going to be like that

>>16751729
Why do Europeans still exist when America does? Populations diverge and become isolated. And in the era before easy travel the fastest you got around was riding some animal or walking.

File: 1738276214900348.png (49 KB, 500x500)

49 KB PNG

>>16758065
I heckin love ring species.

>>16751729
why are there still children if we grew up from them

>>16777822
>You only need to substitute two amino acids. This isn't a frameshift mutation
Please at least look up what a frameshift mutation is before saying something so wrong

>>16777822
Frameshift or not, you said that the change was intentional rather than random and that it
>is not, and cannot be, an illustration of how random mutations can produce what are, for all practical intents and purposes, nanomachines with brand-new functions
which is bullshit

>>16763059
an appropriate level of melatonin for your environment usually just means you get a good night's sleep

>>16751729
>Literally and genuinely why are there still apes if we evolved from them?
Humans exist.
Human are apes.
Apes exist (there are still apes).
Basic logic, anon.

>>16778536
I'm well aware of what a frameshift mutation is. Frameshift means the reading frame of the DNA is shifted by an insertion or a deletion, scrambling the downstream sequence. It's the equivalent of starting out with a totally random sequence. This has been the story behind nylonase since the original paper discussing it. This would be an argument for your position since it would mean there was a brand-new protein fold (which again I emphasize is the mechanical essence of what a protein does) formed from this random sequence.

But now that we have detailed knowledge of the genes this story is dead. But Ell and Ell' (also called NylB and NylB′) align almost codon for codon minus the relevant differences, ashttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2776954/ states that "nucleotide sequencing revealed that NylB and a carboxylesterase (NylB′) that has 88% amino acid sequence identity to NylB are encoded on a plasmid".

If it were a frameshift then almost by very definition the amino acid sequences would be totally different, right? So since we see them being 9/10 the same, we know it wasn't a frameshift. That story they promulgated everywhere wasn't true.

The people who told you "the frameshift mutation on EII has been mapped" as you said earlier? They were lying to you. This is what you'll always find the more you dig into all of the claimed evidence for evolution that they have been telling you: exaggerations, misunderstandings, and outright lies.

>>16778654
>you said that the change was intentional
It is, remember >>16771495 and >>16761849? They deliberately start modifying their DNA in response to things like nutrient stress, much as we do in response to stress from new pathogens. Including on the plasmid where these genes are!

>which is bullshit
Would you care to offer some more substantive commentary? They already have the protein fold that does this, and they're programmed to hone it to go from stress to non-stress when necessary.

>>16779023
>If it were a frameshift then almost by very definition the amino acid sequences would be totally different, right? So since we see them being 9/10 the same, we know it wasn't a frameshift. That story they promulgated everywhere wasn't true
That’s a pretty massive assumption. If it’s the result of only a couple substitutions then it wouldn’t have changed by over 10% either. You seem to make assumptions like this often and then just treat them as fact
>They deliberately start modifying their DNA in response to things like nutrient stress, much as we do in response to stress from new pathogens. Including on the plasmid where these genes are!
this isn’t what happened. You keep saying this with no evidence to demonstrate that this is what happened. All you’ve done is point to entirely unrelated examples while denying that a mutation could be responsible for the new enzymatic activity

>>16752361
That's grandpa watching over you.

File: courbeevolutionOrangoutan.png (87 KB, 600x400)

87 KB PNG

>>16751729
We aren't quite done out-competing them, but don't worry, it'll take another century or two at most.

>>16751729
because you cant evolve out of a clade, evolution is constantly branching in different directions, and because human have taken the hyper intelligent biped niche and are blocking anything else from taking it, along with the circumstances that shaped humans being long gone

>>16778917
...d'oh, stupid typo. (I suppose it was just muscle memory- I have sleep issues, so I have reason to use the word "melatonin" more often than "melanin".)

>>16751729
We didn't evolve from apes. Something some racist slave owner came up with.

>>16780529
You're retarded

File: ANI040-00512.jpg (399 KB, 2000x3005)

399 KB JPG

>>16752097
That’s the thing that people get wrong. Both God and evolution can be real at the same time. God implemented evolution as a way of concealing His existence.

>>16781300
>My fairy tale creature is real but it's actually trying very hard to stay hidden because that's the only explanation for there being no evidence for it
Wow, good job you moron.

>>16781305
Think about it. If you were a God and wanted to conceal yourself what would you have done? The humans eventually will ask themselves “where did we come from?” and the evolution system works well to “fool” them.

>>16781320
I'm sure if you try harder you can come up with more creative excuses for your fairy tale than that

>>16781300
I'd argue that it's actually the opposite, if you consider the existence of humans cosmically/spiritually significant. Creating humans ex nihilo is something that could theoretically be done with Sufficiently Advanced Technology but setting up the initial conditions of the universe so that humans would evolve would require a truly omniscient being.

>>16779386
>That’s a pretty massive assumption.
Let's do a little exercise. And I really mean this, not some gotcha. Can you give me a short hypothetical frameshift that would leave 90% of the amino acids unchanged? You can try it with a small example, say 10 or 20 amino acids.

You'll quite quickly see that no assumption is made here: it isn't possible.

>If it’s the result of only a couple substitutions
But you yourself said as much in >>16777650, remember? I didn't say it was exclusively the result of two, but as you yourself pointed out there, two amino acid substitutions do get you pretty much what we see.

>You keep saying this with no evidence to demonstrate that this is what happened.
Let's walk through it step by step. Step 1: these organisms activate cellular machinery responsible for encouraging change to their DNA when under stress. Right?

>while denying that a mutation could be responsible for the new enzymatic activity
Didn't we already talk about this in >>16767058?

>>16783129
>Can you give me a short hypothetical frameshift that would leave 90% of the amino acids unchanged?
Can you do the same for a few substitutions? This is a complete non argument. You are speculating about the homology of two sequences without actually looking at them or reading what the authors found
>But you yourself said as much in >>16777650 (You), remember?
Do you struggle with the word “if”?
>Step 1: these organisms activate cellular machinery responsible for encouraging change to their DNA when under stress
What stress? You are describing lab environments devoid of outside nutrition, these are waste water ponds we’re talking about

>>16781300
>>16781320
>I can figure out where God's hiding
>he can't fool me
there has to be a psychological description of this phenomenon

File: a shit existence.png (332 KB, 415x518)

332 KB PNG

>>16751729
Evolution is a difference engine solving for survival and successful reproduction. Humans, apes and everything else not extinct, are all acceptable solutions.

>>16752042
Hilariously there's a lot of nutritional data indicating they are pretty well screwed from living in northern latitudes, yeah. It's not just theoretical the prevalence of vit d deffiency and related symptoms is very high for them. They quite literally need to go back to Africa to be healthy.

>>16785586
Can't they just take a vitamin D supplement?

>>16783176
>Can you do the same for a few substitutions?
Well yes, of course, easily. Say we had the following DNA sequence:
ATG GCT GGT TCT AAA CTG GTT ACT CCT GAT GAA TAT CAT AAT TGT TTT CAA CGT ATT TGG

This would produce the following amino acids:

Methionine, Alanine, Glycine, Serine, Lysine, Leucine, Valine, Threonine, Proline, Aspartic acid, Glutamic acid, Tyrosine, Histidine, Asparagine, Cysteine, Phenylalanine, Glutamine, Arginine, Isoleucine, Tryptophan

Let's have two substitutions:

The fifth codon, AAA has a substitution to AGA, and the eleventh codon GAA becomes GAC.

We now have:
Methionine, Alanine, Glycine, Serine, Arginine, Leucine, Valine, Threonine, Proline, Aspartic acid, Aspartic acid, Tyrosine, Histidine, Asparagine, Cysteine, Phenylalanine, Glutamine, Arginine, Isoleucine, Tryptophan

So two amino acids out of 20. 90% with two substitutions.

Now, can you do the same with a frameshift to this example sequence?

>Do you struggle with the word “if”?
What I'm struggling with is understanding your exact point and what specifically you're saying is incorrect. It seems like you're denying something that you yourself said earlier. You said "If it’s the result of only a couple substitutions then it wouldn’t", as if to challenge that it is the result of a couple of substitutions, but earlier you yourself quoted "two amino acid replacements in the EII′ protein (i.e. Gly to Asp (EII-type) at position 181 (G181D) and His to Asn (EII-type) at position 266 (H266N)) are sufficient to increase the Ald-hydrolytic activity back to the level of the parental EII enzyme".

>You are describing lab environments devoid of outside nutrition
Well of course, isn't that where the experiments I cited took place?

>these are waste water ponds we’re talking
The wastewater pond of a factory polluted with industrial runoff doesn't strike you as an environment that will often be stressful? Especially for bacteria, who are always competing with millions for food?

File: Cynthiacetus.jpg (28 KB, 678x453)

28 KB JPG

>>16787738
Ignore him, there are whales with legs at large

>>16787741
No whales that I'm aware of have legs. Those are pelvic bones. They have pelvic bones that aren't connected to their spines and which serve to anchor organs. Some reconstructions of skeletons like in your image or that you see on display have them close to the other bones for illustration purposes, which I think might be where your confusion comes from. But these are not legs.

File: BasilosaurusHindlimb.jpg (25 KB, 528x581)

25 KB JPG

>>16787832
>Those are pelvic bones
They are external legs with feet and toes, not pelvic bones
>Some reconstructions
They are preserved material, not reconstructions
Whaleswithmuhfukkinlegsmayn

>>16787833
>hey are external legs with feet and toes, not pelvic bones
Your picture was labeled "cynthiacetus". It is not claimed to have had legs.

>They are preserved material, not reconstructions
I was referring to how those are arranged in some displays.

>Whaleswithmuhfukkinlegs
Your next image is labeled basilosaurus. Those are barely a foot long on a fifty-foot animal. Like http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lb/Bejder%20and%20Hall.pdf says, "A 16-m-long Basilosaurus isis
from Egypt had a hindlimb skeleton of some 35 cm in length
...which would not have been robust enough
to support the body mass of such a large creature...The absence of any articulation with the
vertebral column makes a locomotory function for the hind-
limbs unlikely or inefficient. The limbs may have served a
grasping function during copulation". They are not legs.

>>16787845
>Those are barely a foot long on a fifty-foot animal
>...which would not have been robust enough
to support the body mass of such a large creature
You’re so close to getting it
>The limbs may have served a grasping function during copulation". They are not legs
Uhhhh what do you think a limb is?

>>16787848
>Uhhhh what do you think a limb is?
All limbs aren't legs anon

File: Leggers.jpg (32 KB, 590x519)

32 KB JPG

>>16787853
>attached to a pelvis
>have knees
>have feet
>have toes
These ones are tho

File: PColossus.jpg (306 KB, 1599x1226)

306 KB JPG

The GOVERNMENT is hiding the fact that WHALES have legs from YOU.
>WE MUST RISE UP
They WILL NOT be able to STOP the PEOPLE

>>16787855
Bat wings and dolphin fins have analogous structures to our "fingers" as well. Sea, land, or air they are useful in different forms. You see commonalities in life because all life forms share a common designer. You're presenting evidence for monotheism, not for evolution.

>>16787858
It’s because they have a common ancestor. If they were perfectly designed then they wouldn’t have had back legs that disappeared over time

>>16787862
You see the impasse. The fact of similarity, in of itself and taken in a vacuum, doesn't provide evidence for either a common ancestor or a common designer over the other proposal. We would see similarities either way, so we have to look at other evidence. All it disproves are multiple unrelated ancestors (multiple abiogenesis events) or multiple independent designers (polytheism).

>If they were perfectly designed then they wouldn’t have had back legs
That's why they didn't. As just demonstrated, these are not legs.

File: 3115849344.jpg (310 KB, 1536x994)

310 KB JPG

>Truly there is no creature as godless as the dolphin. Their defiance of the divine is plainly evident in their smooth visage. Nothing but the purest malice reflecting back from their dark, beady eyes. Whether the almighty played no role in the creation of such a vile affront to the natural order or if he is truly capable of such a grave mistake I am unsure. What is certain though is that this fiend revels in the putrid nature of its own existence. They enjoy their place as a blight on the earth, their shrill whistles an assault on all those around

File: 1133732.jpg (44 KB, 486x631)

44 KB JPG

>>16787870
>similarity
Not mere similarity, but homology
>All it disproves are multiple unrelated ancestors (multiple abiogenesis events) or multiple independent designers (polytheism)
If you say that it was just god making similar things then why can’t it be multiple gods doing the same? That doesn’t disprove polytheism
>As just demonstrated, these are not legs
As just demonstrated, they are. The common name you want to call them does not change the structure
becausethewhalesgotmauhfakkinleygs

File: atavism.jpg (348 KB, 1341x1997)

348 KB JPG

>>16787872
The antichrist

>>16787877
>Not mere similarity, but homology
To be frank you're sounding like an elementary schooler throwing around big words to sound smart. Homology is just similarity.

>If you say that it was just god making similar things then why can’t it be multiple gods doing the same? That doesn’t disprove polytheism
"Why do you say eukaryotes and prokaryotes descend from a common ancestor? Why can't it be multiple abiogenesis events doing the same?"

>As just demonstrated, they are.
By that standard a bat's wing and a dolphin's fin are "legs".

These structures could not be used for walking.

>>16787884
>Homology is just similarity
This is hilariously wrong. The wings of a butterfly are similar in function to the wings of a bat, but they are not homologous. The wings of a bat are very different to the arms of a human in function, but they are homologous
>Why can't it be multiple abiogenesis events doing the same
Because there is evidence to the contrary, look it up you might find it interesting
>By that standard a bat's wing and a dolphin's fin are "legs"
They are
>These structures could not be used for walking
So flightless birds don’t have wings?

File: Basilosaurus.jpg (45 KB, 640x480)

45 KB JPG

Truly awful creatures

File: Leggiestwhale.jpg (27 KB, 614x500)

27 KB JPG

ISTHATAFUCKINGWHALEWITHLEGSIMGOINGINSANEAAAAAA

File: images-3.jpg (21 KB, 225x350)

21 KB JPG

>>16751729
because darwin wanted to get back at the creator for not protecting his wife and daughter from death

File: kakapo.jpg (263 KB, 1200x900)

263 KB JPG

>>16787893
>So flightless birds don’t have wings
These are merely unrelated structures for stabilisation during sex hmm yes

>>16787893
>but they are homologous
And how is homology determined, anon?

>Because there is evidence to the contrary
Consisting of what, in your view?

>They are
In that case this is simply a semantic question of labeling rather than a question of any actual objective biological facts.

So let's move past labels. In what specific way do these structures provide evidence for evolution?

>>16751729
>why are their still monkeys if apes evolved from them

>>16762470
Whatever the CHLCA looked like, it was probably closer to a chimp than a human, and could easily be classified as an extinct species of ape if we found the fossils.

>>16787738
>Well yes, of course, easily. Say we had the following DNA sequence:
Did you forget that the DNA in question is a circular strand?

>>16788635
Can you elaborate your point?

File: basilosaurus-hip.jpg (339 KB, 1023x948)

339 KB JPG

>>16788646
There’s no time to elaborate the fucking whales have legs we need to act

File: Dorudon.jpg (33 KB, 1024x299)

33 KB JPG

>>16788330
>And how is homology determined
Lots of ways. Like if two structures develop from the same groups of cells during development
>Consisting of what, in your view
The existence of endosymbionts and the fact everything uses the same genetic bases
>In that case this is simply a semantic question of labeling rather than a question of any actual objective biological facts
Arguing whether or not something is a leg based on function is semantics. Bat wings and human arms and whale flippers being homologous is objective biological fact
>In what specific way do these structures provide evidence for evolution
Think really hard on what you said about basilosaurus having teeny tiny legs and not being able to walk. You’re close to getting it
>gay whales have kegs

File: Pakicetus.jpg (1.03 MB, 3648x2736)

1.03 MB JPG

>>16788538
The monkeys can wait, there are whales at large

File: 1706763617459157.png (513 KB, 1080x1379)

513 KB PNG

You sure you don't want to learn 1+1=2, bro?
>ya im good, dw about it, you have fun tho
You sure man? Not even basic geometry? Seems like it could be pretty useful stuff.
>circles and triangles? na, just gotta climb tree get fruit bro, why make things more complicated?

So on and so forth. Every bad decision obligates a new division, a new species, one superior in its simplicity, one superior in its creative and destructive potential.

You sure you don't want to learn to be an astronaut, earther? Seems like being able to travel to other suns could be pretty useful stuff.

>>16788714
>Lots of ways. Like if two structures develop from the same
So you're saying it comes down to... similarity?

>The existence of endosymbionts and the fact everything uses the same genetic bases
Not really following you on the former but for the latter yes that's a good example - wouldn't this favor a single designer for life, as well, if life is designed? The fact that everything is ultimately the same stuff is a strong argument for monotheism. There's no need for, say, a water god and an air god since both water and air are made of atoms just the same - even both made up in large part by oxygen.

The reason we see everything being fundamentally similar is because it was all made by the same being. That's as true for animals as it is for materials

>Bat wings and human arms and whale flippers being homologous is objective biological fact
M-hm, and it attests to our common designer. We can see that bats weren't made by Hades and whales by Poseidon and humans by Zeus, they all bear the marks of one single designer.

>Think really hard on what you said about basilosaurus having teeny tiny legs
I guess this is a sticking point. They are not legs. They serve no locomotive support purpose. There is no evidence that they ever were legs.

>>16751729
Chimpanzees are superior beings to humans btw.

>>16788746
>So you're saying it comes down to... similarity?
That’s not what was said. If the only argument you have is to misquote and put words in someone’s mouth then you’re not doing a good job
>The fact that everything is ultimately the same stuff is a strong argument for monotheism
If you want to attribute that to intelligent design and not common descent then that’s fine as your faith
>They serve no locomotive support purpose. There is no evidence that they ever were legs
Except for how more primitive Archaeocetes like >>16788721 did have legs for walking and these are the same structure with the same bones just smaller
>tldr whales have legs

File: Coronodon.jpg (24 KB, 412x550)

24 KB JPG

>goes back to the water
>immediately starts bullying the sharks
>tfw those fuckass fish thought they were chilling after the mosasaurs got rocked

>>16787914
>>16788746
>They are not wings. They serve no aerial movement purpose. There is no evidence that they ever were wings
Now this is semantics

>>16788761
>That’s not what was said
You denied that it was the same thing as similarity, then came saying it's about "if two structures develop from the same". Homology is just similarity.

>Except for how more primitive Archaeocetes like >>16788721 # did have legs for walking
Because it's a regular animal. It isn't a whale. It's basically a hippo.

>and these are the same structure with the same bones just smaller
How do you figure?

>>16788785
Are you defining any structure towards the back of animal whatsoever as a "leg"? What distinguishes a leg from a non-leg, on your view?

>>16788829
>You denied that it was the same thing as similarity, then came saying it's about "if two structures develop from the same”
From the same group of cells during development. Finish the sentence instead of deliberately misquoting it. Those don’t mean the same thing at all
>It isn't a whale
It’s an archaeocete… which are whales
>How do you figure?
Because they’re the same bones? Femur, phalanges, etc
>Are you defining any structure towards the back of animal whatsoever as a "leg"?
Leg in this case is referring to the hind limbs. What you want to call them makes no difference, they’re the same structure. Cope, seethe, etc. The whales got legs

File: Pakicetidae.wiki.jpg (25 KB, 639x270)

25 KB JPG

>noooo don’t evolve aquatic adaptations ur so sexy ahaha

File: Aegicetus.jpg (133 KB, 1536x346)

133 KB JPG

>lacks a solid sacroiliac joint in your path

>>16751729
This is no longer an ape thread