Tags

, ,


BacteriaOne of the big arguments in favor of Darwinian Evolution comes from molecular biologists and pharmacists that state that they see evolution every day at work in basing treatment scenarios on the fact that bacteria evolve.  They go on to state that we are running out of antibiotics because bacteria are evolving to resist drugs.

What is interesting is that these scientists have never been taught the difference between micro- and macro-evolution because there is an underlying and misleading agenda to push an atheistic, humanistic belief in no Creator that we are accountable to.

Let me explain…

The gene that produces “penicillin killer” enzymes (TEM-1 Beta-lactamase) easily mutates into different forms that break down a variety of antibiotic molecules.  However, this is not macro-evolution or something more complex evolving from something simpler.  For microbes to be transformed into more complex, multi-celled organisms, something more is needed.

These changes in bacteria simply involve natural selection in which the least fit organisms die off and the ones who have already have the resistant factors survive and multiply.  Sometimes these factors are transferred from other organisms that already have them, but you can see that in both cases, whether in the first bacteria or in transfer of information, there is nothing “new” being created.  Let me say this clearly, Biblical creationists are firm believers in true natural selection, but contrary to the natural selection that a Darwinian evolutionist touts, it does not provide new information.

If one-celled organisms would change into other kinds (molecules to man thinking), it would require new genetic information, which is not what one seeing in the changes in bacteria (or anything else for that matter).  When a bacterium develops resistance where there previously was none in the population, it does so by mutation or a random copying mistake which changes or shuffles the existing genetic information.  What is important to see is that this change represents a loss of information, not a gaining of information.  I’ll say that again…it represents a loss of information, not a gaining of information.

resistance-cartoon1Mutations, interestingly enough, reduce specificity which means that the mutated enzyme is less effective in its primary function.  Therefore, the loss of information may show to have a consequence of breaking down an antibiotic, but there is a loss of information.  In no case have bacteria been observed to become resistant through a gain of information.

Therefore, this evidence as proof of Darwinian macro-evolution has big problems.  Bacteria only produces bacteria, just as an elephant will always produce an elephant, somehow just like the Bible says.

So if you have an evolutionist bringing up the bacteria evolving argument…simply explain the scientific understanding to them and hopefully they won’t develop some resistance.

Advertisements