Antibiotic-resistant bacteria:
Antibiotic resistance is commonly touted by evolutionists as evolution happening before our eyes. But we must keep in mind the difference between mutations that result in the loss of information and what their model actually requires (random mutations generating new information that did not previously exist).
Here's a good explanatory article.
There are several ways that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. First, there's the possibility that a mutation could result in the antibiotic's access route being restricted (such as a mutation in the bacterium that disables or hinders the pumps that normally would transport things into the cell, such as the antibiotic). Second, there are mutations that can make changes in (or sometimes even remove altogether) whatever the antibiotic reacts with (like if the antibiotic's modus operandi is to find a specific protein and react with it to create a poison to the bacterium, a change in or removal of that protein would make the antibiotic ineffective). Third, bacteria sometimes manufacture enzymes to fight the antibiotic (like penicillinase in Staphylococcus), and the production of this enzyme might be kept in check by a gene so that the bacterium doesn't expend too much of its resources on it. However, a mutation that disables this gene would stop the regulation of the enzyme's production, and the enzyme would be produced in greater quantities. The bacterium becomes resistant, though at the price of wasting resources that could be allocated better. You could compare it to a bad plan by the government. There's always the chance that it'll come in handy, but in all other circumstances, it's worthless.
One thing extremely important to note is that nowhere in all of this is there new information being introduced.
Nylon-eating bacteria:
Here's an interesting supposed "proof" of new information being generated by random mutation. I learned about this in a discussion with some evolutionists in a debate forum (which I eventually left, seeing that it was a waste of time and I was very badly outnumbered--everyone vs. me).
Here's a link to information on these bacteria.
Basically, evolutionists claim that the new gene for the enzyme that degrades nylon resulted from what's aclled a "frame shift mutation." However, this explanation doesn't quite fit the evidence. The article to which I provide a link above explains it far better than I could ever hope to, and thanks to Dr. Don Batten for taking the time to write an article explaining things to everyone. I've been greatly aided by it, and I hope that others have and will be also.
B-cell maturation:
Here's yet another "proof" of evolution and new information coming from random mutations.
Here's a link to information on this phenomenon.
The article to which I provide a link above explains this far better than I could ever hope to, and thanks to Dr. Royal Truman for taking the time to write an article explaining things to everyone. The article's quite technical, though, and I will attempt to summarize the main points. Basically, what happens is that mutation rates over a very small part of a B-cell's genome are accelerated about a millionfold over the span of a few days. This can only be called random in a superficial sense. Also, it can only be beneficial to the cell, and none of these mutations can be inherited, since they do not occur in germline cells. Evolution, however, requires that information-producing mutations take place in the germline so that they may be passed on.
Homology:
Here's a classic argument in favor of evolution, that of homology (the similarity between different living things, like in the bone pattern in forelimbs). This, say evolutionists, is proof that they all share a common ancestor. A problem with this is the discovery that homologous structures are sometimes produced by totally different genes. Structures themselves are not inherited, just the genes. So, in light of this, it seems more to be evidence of a common Designer.
With this homology argument, one could say that because the dolphins, fish, and whales all have such similar body shapes, they must be very closely related, but no evolutionist will claim this.
Even similarity in genetics is to be expected. Considering the number of functions we must all perform, the number of proteins we must process, and the environments we share, it should come as no surprise that a lot of basic genetic programming is the same. However, just 1% of a difference in DNA is an enormous amount of information, because DNA has a lot of information in it!
Vestigial organs:
Vestigial organs are organs that are supposedly no longer functional because they are leftover traces from evolutionary ancestors. However, vestigial organs would no demonstrate evolution, since they would be "on the way out," not "on the way in" (these would be called nascent organs). In addition, the list of vestigial organs has now dwindled away to nothing as functions have been discovered for them. In the 1960s, the thyroid and pituitary glands were listed as vestigial organs. The tailbone, claimed to be evidence of humans once having tails, is an attachment point for very important muscles. The appendix, also once thought to be useless, serves to help control bacteria entering the intestines, and it contains lymphatic tissue. It is not useless, though we can live without it. We can also live without eyes, ears, legs, and arms, but I personally would prefer to keep mine. How about you?
Double-click to keep reading Home