Is Antibiotic Resistance Proof of Evolution?

Remember when you were in high school or perhaps you are currently in high school as we speak where you have learned about antibiotic resistance? The teacher would allude to this being evolution in action. Certainly in debates this is often time alluded to as evidence for evolution.

In the medical field, antibiotic resistance in some areas have baffled some doctors because the bacteria would respond so quickly, sometimes within the first year or so. Was this evolution and is evolution moving more quickly than previously thought?

Creationists have debated for years that bacteria already have resistance built-in their systems, something has been also admitted by evolutionists…

 “One of the most common evidences used in textbooks to support evolution is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. However, the marvelous ability of bacteria to survive against antibiotics does not support the idea of progressiveevolution at all. Public school textbooks claim that bacteria’s sophisticated capacity to change—which appears to be built into their systems—supports the claim that molecules can change into completely different kinds of creatures, like mosquitoes, mushrooms, and men—despite the fact that these changes require the addition of completely different kinds of genetic information.”

The textbook authors recognize that the resistance is already present in the bacterial population (Fig. 15.5) and then claim that selection for resistant bacteria in a population is direct evidence for evolution. Selecting for something that is already present does not provide support for the information-gaining change required for evolution. Students are left with a confused understanding of evolution and are expected to equate observed changes in bacteria with the conversion of one kind into another.” –Answers in Genesis, May 2007 and January 2009. 

In 2012, antibiotic resistance was confirmed again as a ancient trait because it was discovered in bacteria from an isolated cave in New Mexico, many feet underground.

“A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. (*because it goes against what has been taught as evidence for evolution – *emphasis mine) We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard-wired in the microbial pangenome.”

Moreover there was research conducted recently which uncovered a tribe of humans known as Yanomami people who live in a remote region of Venezuela. These people haven’t been in contact with the outside world, yet…it was discovered that these people have bacteria that already had antibiotic resistance genes—including the ability to fight synthetic antibiotics!

In Science Magazine

“The medical team’s interviews with these Yanomami villagers found they were never given drugs or exposed to food or water with antibiotics. Instead, Dantas suggests that the Yanomami gut bacteria have evolved an armory of methods to fight a wide range of toxins that threaten them—just as our ancestors and other primates have done to fight dangerous microbes. For example, the Yanomami bacteria may already have encountered toxins that occur naturally in their environment that are similar in molecular structure to modern antibiotics, but have yet to be discovered by scientists. Or, gut bacteria in humans have evolved a generalized mechanism for detecting certain features shared by all antibiotics—including the synthetic ones designed by scientists—and so can mount a defense against new threats.”

The discovery is troubling because it suggests that “antibiotic resistance is ancient, diverse, and astonishingly widespread in nature—including within our own bodies,” says anthropologist Christina Warinner of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, who is not a co-author. “Such findings and their implications explain why antibiotic resistance was so quick to develop after the introduction of therapeutic antibiotics, and why we today should be very concerned about the proper use and management of antibiotics in both clinical and agricultural contexts.”

This may explain why bacteria reacts so quickly and undermines a basic premise about evolution. One thing to note however, bacteria is not all bad, in fact we couldn’t exist without most bacteria. While it benefits us, it benefits them as well. This was no discovery for evolution but increased knowledge on how bacteria works…:)

Evolutionists Lose Human Eye Debate

How many times have creationists heard this from sources like the USS Clueless...”Occasionally I see creationists point to the human eye as a miracle of design, as if this somehow is evidence of divine origin for the human form. Unfortunately, from an engineering perspective, the human eye is seriously suboptimal. It simply isn’t that good a design.” I would say, quite a number of times, especially from those like Kenneth Miller who is a Professor at Brown University who argues for signs of bad design which they say disproves creationism so they use the human eye as an example. Why? Because our eyes’ have photoreceptor cells which face away from incoming light and the optic nerve extends over them thus supposedly making it “suboptimal” (without showing how it could be improved) because it blocks some light.

What generally always happens with these arguments from evolutionists, they get shot down by advancements in science either by creationist scientists or by their own data or both. Sometimes it takes many years. The human eye debate has been written about and debated about for many years. Creationists as well as the modern intelligent design movement have been arguing for years that the human eye is well designed here are two examples the first one being from the modern intelligent design movement

“The photoreceptors in the human eye are oriented away from incoming light and placed behind nerves through which light must pass before reaching the photoreceptors. Why? A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity, and resolution. The inverse wiring does not affect speed. Nor does it affect resolution, except for a tiny blind spot in each eye. You don’t usually notice it because your brain’s visual harmonization system easily compensates for the blind spot. You need to do special exercises to discover it. What about sensitivity? Sensitivity requires an inverted retina. Retinal cells require the most oxygen of any cells in the human body, so they need lots of blood. But blood cells absorb light. In fact, if blood cells invade the retinal cells, irreversible blindness may result. By facing away from the light, retinal cells can be nourished by blood vessels that do not block the light. They can still be so sensitive that they respond to a single photon, the smallest unit of light.” -2008

The second one being strictly from ICR, one of the main websites that advocate creationism…

“Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the “inverted” design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a “verted” design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, theretinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.”

“The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a “steady stream of the vital molecule retinal” to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.”

As you know, evolutionists have been arguing that the human eye was designed poorly until now…Israel Institute of Technology, a think tank for evolution  says they have discovered why the human eye is wired backwards and it’s not because of a poor design…

“Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors…”

“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” Ribak added. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.”

Even before this research came out, their has been attempts to build image sensors that are base on its design of biological retinas. If retinas are really that poor in design, then why would engineers be trying to make image sensors that are based on the retinas design?    Since the research turned out to confirm creationism rather than evolution, researchers at Israel Institute of Technology has to bluff about its significance by claiming that “from a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye — a product of our evolutionary baggage — doesn’t make a lot of sense” is really confirmation of evolution…lol

Can you imagine if science came out with evidence of a bad design of the human eye and turned around and said, “Even though a bad design doesn’t make much sense, but this is a great product of creationism.” It wouldn’t be considered science right? Neither is the researchers view on evolution of the eye. These stories about evolution holds no scientific ground! We are blessed with amazingly designed eyes!

Schopf’s Explanation Is Another Puzzle

In the waters of Western Australia a form of bacteria was discovered which is considered by evolutionists to be two billion years old. It’s another falsification normally called a “puzzle” that gets solved by explaining it with another “puzzle”…Sounds complicated? Let me explain…

This so-called two billion organism hasn’t evolved. It’s now considered a puzzle. They compared it to the modern species and found no difference between the ancient species and the modern one. Fearing this could be interpreted as a falsification (especially by creation scientists), they did what any card player would do in this situation if his or her hand wasn’t that strong. And that is, hope that others would fold based on the cost to stay in the game and that is “bluff”.

Bill Schopf has discovered many organisms that have not supposedly evolved. So what is his explanation of his findings?

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf

One would think, this made up rule has been broken many times. Because for one, such animals as Crocodiles are considered virtually unchanged for 250 million assumed years by evolutionists. Crocodiles most certainly experienced changes in its environment, yet hardly any change ever happened within the 23 different variants. Crocodiles are considered a “living fossil” by evolutionists because of its lack of change.

Another example of that rule being broken would be, Fig Wasps which are considered “living fossils” as well because of little change over what they considered to be many tens of millions of years old. Now Fig Wasps also have encountered changes in its environment but yet no evolution to show for it and certainly doesn’t confirm what is to be believed as the rule of biology.

So here you have an explanation that is supposed to solve the first puzzle on why animals don’t evolve such as bacteria discovered in Western Australia and that explanation is a puzzle too because the rule of physical or biological environment changes has been broken with other animals. This isn’t a theory based on facts, it’s filling in the falsifications with more falsifications. It’s based on “bluffing” using words like this discovery is “further scientific proof for Darwin’s work. “It fits perfectly with his ideas…”

But when in fact, it’s not! They want the public to believe they have a royal flush when in fact, you don’t even have two of a kind :)

What Do Bats And Whales Have In Common?

Both mammals have a sophisticated sensing mechanism but how could that be in the evolutionary framework when both these animals grew up in completely different environments with different lineages and are vastly different in size. At the University at Southern Denmark, they write…

“Sperm whales weigh up to 50 tons, and the smallest bat barely reaches a gram. Nevertheless, the two species share the same success story: They both have developed the ability to use echolocation – a biological sonar – for hunting. Now Danish researchers show that the biosonar of toothed whales and bats share surprisingly many similaritieseven though they live in very different environments and vary extremely in size.”

“Researchers from the two Danish universities, Aarhus University and University of Southern Denmark, have now studied the acoustic properties of the technique behind echolocation in bats and whales in the wild. Previous studies of their abilities to locate and catch prey have primarily been based on laboratory tests, and the studies in the wild now provide a much more realistic picture of how the animals use echolocation.” 

What happens when evolution gets falsified in this manner, you invoke “convergent evolution” even though as it says in current biology…“the exact evolutionary relationship of bats to their closest mammalian relatives is poorly understood due to their unique morphological features associated with flight, a lack of intermediate forms, and a poor fossil record.” 

What do they mean by “poor fossil record”? Isn’t the fossil record assumed to be the best evidence for evolution? After all when the oldest bat fossils were found back in 2008, the likes of phys.org, BBC, and National Geographic made claims such as, “the fossils represent a breakthrough in the understanding of bat evolution!” and labeled as ” a missing link that “demonstrates that the animals evolved the ability to fly before they could echolocate.”

There has been a long debate among evolutionists on how a bat could evolve rather than if it really did evolved such as the development of the sonar system bats use to navigate and hunt their prey. Did the echolocation come first or did flight in the evolutionary story. Most evolutionists believe that echolocation came first then flight which these new discoveries of bat fossils falsifies that idea.

But these old fossils considered to be the current oldest discovered so far resembles modern bats that lack echolocation so what features made it primitive? Primitive in my book would be a lacking an advance design compared to a modern one. So the appearance lacks a primitive design which leads them to only one conclusion to build a whole theory around using circular reasoning and that is where the fossil was placed in the strata.

There is also confirmation about creationism in this discovery. This supposed oldest primitive bat is still what? Answer:100 percent bat which even resembles a modern one! There are no transitions of bats with all their specialized adaptations in the fossil record and nothing related to the bat has ever been found in the fossil record and yet evolutionists have this story about bats evolving into other animals. The second quote from danish researchers is operational science, the study on how something works which is clearly real science not a made up story about how it evolved!