Sanford on Nylonase: Falsified?

LOL! Sure you did Sal. You’re a legend in your own…mind. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Depends on Ohno’s claim. If we suppose that his claim is that nylonase evolved by a frame-shift mutation quite recently, that’s obviously wrong based on the homologous sequences found in its neighborhood. Not everything Sal says is wrong, though I suppose it’s the way to bet.

I’d like to see the paper where Sal and Sanford supposedly falsified Ohno. Ann Gauger offered up a similar dismissal of Ohno back in May 2017, and other scientists (Seiji Negoro and team) have since 2005 been suggesting the mutation wasn’t a frame-shift. Sal does have quite a history of spinning things to puff himself up.

1 Like

The pre-print is below.

It has since been TOTALLY re-written with additions from biochemists and inputs from NIH staff, but that paper isn’t out yet.

The pre-print is 80% accurate, but 100% accurate that the frame-shift is not indicated in ANY database:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.0370v1.pdf

But, here’s a short cut, look at Yomo’s 1992 paper:

It shows I was merely affirming something that was published decades ago!

The distance between P-nyIB and F-nyIB (or F-nylB’) is much larger than that between F-nylB and F-nylB’. The time of the divergence of F-nylB and P-nylB is estimated to be at least 1.4 x 10^8 years ago, using a very high amino acid-substitution rate of 9 x 10-9 per site per year for the fibrinopeptide (13). Therefore, most of the amino acid substitutions from the ancestor of the nyiB gene family to its descendants of today might have occurred before the beginning of nylon manufacture .

So Venema apparently wasn’t aware that Ohno was refuted in 1992.

I’ll invite Dr. Harshman to explain to Timothy Horton why Yomo’s analysis shows the nylonase known as P-nylB likely pre-existed nylon manufacture minus a few amino acid changes at most, and there was no need of a frame shift.

1 Like

To Quote Dr. Harshman:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/when-did-nylon-eating-proteins-actually-evolve-the-ability-to-eat-nylon/comment-page-2/#comment-181256

As an aside, this overweening triumphalism is not one of your more attractive features. Venema was wrong. Leave it at that

Just so we don’t miss what evolutionary biologist Dr. Harshman had to say about Dennis Venema and Nylonases,

As an aside, this overweening triumphalism is not one of your more attractive features. Venema was wrong. Leave it at that

Dr. Harshman wasn’t saying I was wrong, but rather protesting at my celebration of being right.

You forgot to say “eminent and prestiguous evolutionary biologist Dr. Harshman”.

And you really should take that to heart. A little Christian humility would do you much good. When you’re right, and most expecially when you’re wrong too.

3 Likes

Apologies! Let me make amends.

Just so we don’t miss what the eminent and prestigious evolutionary biologist Dr. John Harshman had to say about Dennis Venema and Nylonases:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/when-did-nylon-eating-proteins-actually-evolve-the-ability-to-eat-nylon/comment-page-2/#comment-181256

As an aside, this overweening triumphalism is not one of your more attractive features. Venema was wrong. Leave it at that

As an aside, this overweening triumphalism is not one of your more attractive features.

“As an aside, this overweening triumphalism is not one of your more attractive features.”

You’re right, my net persona is kind of ugly at times. I won’t dispute that.

So it’s not new work at all, just your self-published calculations rehashing some 20 year old already known results. But of course your ego made you claim you and Sanford falsified Ohno. With that level of gas output be careful not so stand too close to open flames.

1 Like

Consider trying to modify it, then.

“So it’s not new work at all, just your self-published calculations rehashing some 20 year old already known results. But of course your ego made you claim you and Sanford falsified Ohno. With that level of gas output be careful not so stand too close to open flames.”

We falsified Ohno independently of Yomo and from a different angle, and we were also raising issues of the post-1935 gene duplication hypothesis.

But what this shows is that 110+ papers cite Ohno’s 1984 PNAS paper as gospel, including Arlin Stoltfuz in recent years. Ken Miller, the NCSE, Dennis Venema, Ian Musgrave, Dave Thomas, etc. etc. have been promoting it as gospel truth since 1992 refutation.

The new work we did solidified Yomo’s results to a level that is undeniable, to quote Doug Axe, “UNDENIABLE.”! Till then, Yomo’s results just sat in the cellar, and we independently falsified Ohno via a different route because the world now has more data than in 1992.

That’s an illustration of why I don’t trust most of evolutionary biology, it keeps promoting stuff that is demonstrably false even when some of their own have already called it out as wrong.

You try to mock me and Dr. Sanford, what about the list of people and the number of papers that should have noticed the 1992 paper? Aren’t you going to call them out on their error? Is someone from BioLogos going to say something to Venema, will he retract “his favorite example of evolution?” Will Ayala retract his pre-mature assessment of Alus (in his biologos article, which I also refuted)?

THAT’S one of the many reasons IDists and Creationists have a low regard for what goes on in evolutionary biology.

LOL! Sal if your gas filled ego got any bigger you’d have to write HINDENBURG on the side. Have you nominated yourself for the Nobel Prize yet?

When will you be calling out John Sanford for basing his “genetic entropy” claims on the scientifically impossible scenario humans were specially created 6000 years ago with a “perfect” genome? You wouldn’t want us to think you’re a hypocrite now would you?

I think it is great you are publishing. That is one thing I always liked about Sanford.