posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:59 PM
Creationists like to claim that while mutations do happen, they are always bad and never useful. In the event a mutation does seem to serve a useful
purpose, they will resort to the argument that it is really a loss of information rather than an increase. This is a safe position in general, since
the word 'information' can be redfined on the fly however they see fit.
Suppose we were to attempt a neutral definition for 'information' regarding DNA. Can we not agree that DNA that produces useful traits counts as
Here is a verifiable mutation, that is a net gain for the bug in question, as well as an increase in useful genetic material (increase in
Bacterial mutation metabolizes nylon
This mutation was not coaxed in a lab, but happened in nature. Nylon is a synthetic material that has never existed before in nature until men
invented it in the recent past.
Answersingenesis attempted to hand wave this away by claiming that since the information resided on a plasmid, it must have always been there:
Answers in genesis on the nylon bug
However, this is not a refutation at all. For the bacteria in question, the original and mutated plasmids are both well documented, and the mutated
plasmid resulted from a frame shift of a non-coding sequence (aka junk DNA). This is a new capability for this bacteria, not merely an adaptation of
some previous capability. Not only that, but it resuls from a mutation that increased genetic material. This mutation turned genetic garbage into
gold, exactly as evolution predicts, and gave this bacteria a food source without competition (nylon).