Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Bacteria
Message-ID: <947@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:17:36 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.947
Posted: Fri Apr 19 16:17:36 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 01:30:39 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 62


> 	The following article appeared in the February issue of "Adhesives 
> Age", p. 60:
>                  	Bacteria Munch on Nylon

> 	Despite man's persistent efforts to create a substance that is imper-
> meable to time, the elements, and hungry critters, nature seems to be finding
> ways to prevail.
> 	According to a story in the *Atlanta Constitution*, a strain of 
> bacteria has evolved a taste for the man-made ingredients in nylon, suggesting
> that the stubborn substance may now be biodegradable.
> 	The strain of bacteria, called Flavorbacterium spK172, was first 
> discovered in 1972 in waste streams flowing from factories in Japan. These
> bacteria recently have evolved enzymes that allow them to live solely on the
> ingredients of the man-made plastics.
> 	Up to now, the man-made chemical components of plastics like nylon --
> chemicals that aren't found in nature -- have been resistant to metaboliza-
> tion by bacteria, fungi, or other living things. They have so resisted decay,
> in fact, that nondegradable plastics are a major waste control problem, taking
> up space in landfills and trash heaps and littering the landscape.
> 	According to Dr. Susumo Ohno, the enzymes' discoverer, the new      
> developments may be evidence that evolution sometimes occurs with incredible
> swiftness, instead of over billions of years. It is only 45 years since 
> nylon began entering the environment in large amounts.
> 	Panic not, wearers of pantyhose -- scientists have found no evidence
> that Flavorbacteria eat finished nylon or plastic products like stockings,
> fishing line, credit cards, or plush carpeting . . .yet.  

Well.  Ray Miller posted an article containing a report on a newspaper
story (from Pravda).  It was quickly and roundly rejected as irrelevant,
as Pravda is a newspaper and not a scientific journal.  Ok, fine.  (Not
really, but for the sake of argument.)  Now we have a report on a story
in the "Atlanta Constitution".

Does the same logic apply?

---

But let us accept the above article at face value.  It is stated that
the bacteria recently have evolved enzumes that allow them to
matabolize man-made plastics, and that the discoverer of the bacteria
feels this may be evidence of rapidly occurring evolution.

I guess the real question is whether the enzyme was present in 1972 or
not.  What does 'recently evolved' mean?  1985? or 1972?  If 1972,
then nothing has been shown, because one cannot say that the enzyme
wasn't present before (or that it was, of course), and in that case
the claim falls to the ground.

If it CAN be shown, then what sort of evolution does this constitute?
For example, is it substantially different than, say, production of a
"new" antibody in response to immunization?

---

Note that none of this is anti-science.  These are questions that ANY
scientist ought to think of.
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Danger signs, a creeping independence"                             |