Invited responses to my nylonase research and the question of “New Proteins Without God’s Help”

Susumo Ohno (who coined the term “junkDNA”) published a paper in 1984 through the National Academy of Sciences that was used by the NCSE, Ken Miller and Dennis Venema to claim “proteins can evolve without God’s help”. At the request of John Sanford, a courtesy associate research professor at Cornell, I was recruited to write a paper to refute Ohno’s evolutionary hypothesis on nylonases. I wrote it under John’s guidance based on his intuitions about genetics, his life-long specialty of 40 years and for which he became famous as attested by the fact he is one of the few geneticists who had their work featured in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.

The actual paper is now in review, but it is not intended to be published in any journal, but will be released in a variety of channels shortly. It is hoped the material can be used by others to actually create papers that enter peer review. The motivation for releasing the paper in this way is to counter Venema’s book while it is still hot off the press.

The paper is being also published in this way so as to invite discussion since it isn’t intended to be considered a completely vetted product but one that welcomes improvement. That said, the sentiment among IDists and creationists who’ve seen the drafts is that paper has utterly discredited Ohno’s claims and thus the claims of the NCSE, Ken Miller and Dennis Venema connected to Ohno’s hypothesis of nylonase evolution.

Because the draft paper is a massive VJTorley-sized paper (15 pages in the main section and almost 80 pages of supplemental material) I’m establishing this thread at TSZ to invite review of the some of the themes from the paper that I’m releasing on the nylonase.XYZ website piece by piece in a format adapted for a website.

As I release each webpage, I’ll post in the comment section at TSZ a link to the newly constructed page so as to invite commentary on that page. Thank you in advance to all those willing to participate in this public review of my research on nylonase evolution.


1. “proteins can evolve without God’s help” is a paraphrase of the title of an NCSE article New Proteins Without God’s Help. Thwaites at the NCSE basically framed the debate over nylonase evolution in this way:

We’ve been trying to explain all this to the protein “experts” at ICR for the last seven years. We have told them that new proteins could indeed form from the random ordering of amino acids. We have warned them that their calculations were based on faulty assumptions and soon someone would document the natural formation of a new protein from the random association of amino acids.

Now it has happened! Not one, but two, new proteins have been discovered. In all probability new proteins are forming by this process all the time, but this seems to be the first documentation of this phenomenon. The newly discovered proteins are enzymes that break down some of the byproducts produced during nylon manufacture. Since nylon first came into commercial production in 1940, we know that the new enzymes have formed since that time.

2. The nylonase.XYZ website is under construction, so don’t click around the website too much yet. In the comment section at TSZ I will link to individual pages of the website that can be reviewed individually.

3. The first comments by me at TSZ will be more technical, not for the beginners regarding Ohno’s work. The beginner and introductory stuff will be added later to the website.

152 thoughts on “Invited responses to my nylonase research and the question of “New Proteins Without God’s Help”

  1. I don’t know what to make of this except that Banks seem to be predatory lenders toward African Americans especially. Now, bankers have notoriously been left wingers in contrast to small business owners who are generally right wingers. The so called subprime mortgages were an instrument supposedly to help poor black families. It turns out they’ve been a mechanism to pillage and enslave and plunder black families. Left-wing “charity” and “affirmative action” and “racial equality” shows it’s true colors again:

    As the wealthiest black-majority county in the United States, Prince George’s has long represented the pinnacle of black success. The county’s median household income is 73,568—a full20,000 more than the median household income of the United States as a whole. Only 7.1 percent of U.S. firms are black-owned, but in Prince George’s that number stands at a whopping 54.5 percent.

    A full 29.5 percent of people over the age of 25 hold bachelor’s degrees—slightly higher than the 28.5 percent rate for all persons in the United States. Known colloquially as just P.G., the county is filled with lawyers, entrepreneurs, teachers, and federal employees. In popular lore, Prince George’s was proof that, while blacks still lagged behind in education, wealth and employment, the black community was finally catching up.

    But in 2007, the bursting of the housing bubble triggered an economic recession that rippled throughout the global economy. For years, the housing market had been booming; in 2007 the U.S. median price for a house hit a record high of 247,900. By 2009, though, that number had fallen to216,700. For Prince George’s County, however, the decline was much more stark. In 2009 the median price for a house dropped by nearly 100,000, from343,000 to just $245,000.

    Although the foreclosure crisis left no part of the country untouched, in the Washington, D.C., area—which, overall, weathered the crisis well—Prince George’s County bore the brunt. The reason? Subprime lending.

    Specifically targeted for subprime loans among the minority demographic were black women. Women of color are the most likely to receive subprime loans while white men are the least likely; the disparity grows with income levels. Compared to white men earning the same level of income, black women earning less than the area median income are two and a half times more likely to receive subprime. Upper-income black women were nearly five times more likely to receive subprime purchase mortgages than upper-income white men.

    From 2005 to 2009, the net worth of black households declined by 53 percent while the net worth of white households declined by 16 percent, according to Social & Demographic Trends researchers at the Pew Research Center. At the peak of the housing boom, 49 percent of blacks owned homes while the same measure for whites hovered around 75 percent.

    Historically, the wealth gap between whites and blacks can be traced back to the ability to own land; for a number of years blacks were prohibited from owning land, and once homeownership became the primary way to own property black people were often barred from that, too.

    Now who is the Piece of Doodoo who advocated pushing subprime mortgages on Black Americans. Well, look here:

    With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

    President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

    Well done, champion of Black America, Barrack Obama.

Leave a Reply