This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
9-8-11 newwaytotarg

Secular Scientist Disprove Key Proof of Evolution

Posted on

For nearly thirty years, one of the key evidences used as proof of evolution being true is antibiotic resistance.  Evolutionists continually point to bacteria that evolve a resistance to an antibiotic as strong evidence for evolution.  And because bacteria so readily evolve new genetic code to make them resistant to various antibiotics, they warn against the over use of these antibiotics.


On the opposite side, creationists have long contended that some bacteria have always had a resistance to the antibiotic.  Those bacteria that didn’t have a resistance are killed off leaving only those with a natural resistance to survive.  Now all of the bacteria left are resistant.  Instead of being evidence for evolution, it is actually evidence of a reduction in genetic variation which fits into a creationist model of origins and life.


And as usual, most evolutionists just blow off the creationist argument and claim we don’t know what we’re talking about.


This may all be resolved by a team of mostly Canadian scientists who have been studying bacteria recovered from permafrost in theYukon.  The bacteria are reportedly 30,000 years old.  Whether 30,000 or 1,000 years old, there is no doubt that the bacteria in question predate modern antibiotics.


Dr. Gerard D. Wright of McMaster University in Ontario and his team recovered the bacteria from a layer of mud 20 feet below the permafrost.  They went this deep to avoid any possibility of contamination.  When they studied the DNA of the bacteria, Dr. Wright and his team discovered that the bacteria contained all of the major genes allowing them to be resistant to antibiotics.


According to Martin J. Blaser, a microbiologist from New York University:


The fact that the genes for resistance are so ancient and widespread means there is no easy solution to the problem of resistance — we will never invent a super-antibiotic that clears everything up.


It’s always gratifying when secular scientists publish research that confirms what creationists have been saying for years.




Wade, Nicholas.  Researchers Find Antibiotic Resistance in Ancient DNA, New York Times, Aug. 31, 2011.

Fearfully & Wonderfully Made (DVD)

When does life begin?

Take a journey from conception to birth with Dr. David Menton, former professor of anatomy at the prestigious Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.  Dr. Menton provides both a biblical and scientific answer to the question of when life begins.

Taken from one of Dr. Menton’s lectures, this video will reveal the wondrous design of the womb along with the numerous miracles involved along every step of the development of the unborn child.

Following the tragic starvation induced death of Terry Schiavo, Dr. Menton clearly shows the value and sanctity of human life.

With grace and sensitivity Dr. Menton concludes with a salvation message and explanation of the second birth process as described in John 3.

Print Friendly and PDF

This entry was posted in Apologetics, Biology, Cell Biology, Chemistry, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Dating Methods, Design, Environment, Ethics, Evolution, Genetics, Health, Human Biology, Medicine, Microbiology, Origins, Philosophy, Theology, Worldviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Joe Martin

    I wonder how many of your readers actually bother to read the reference articles from which you so blatantly quote mine. Those who do will be rewarded with the knowledge that antibiotic resistance has long been known by science to be a natural genetic attribute of most bacteria. Microbiology theory has been suggesting for years that this resistance went far back in evolutionary time. The last two sentences of the referenced article sum it up nicely.

    “Resistance to antibiotics is a defense that bacteria have developed in an arms race that has gone on for a billion years.

    ‘Our use and overuse of antibiotics is amplifying the phenomena dramatically,’ Dr. Blaser said.”

    Interesting that the author of this article failed to mention that. Evil creationists agenda, anyone?

    • Bob

      Joe, I read the reference. Nowhere do they back up their statements, their claims, about how resistance to antibiotics will be amplified by over use. No data, no facts to support their contention.
      However, the Yukon study is exactly that – data and facts – which show that show the resistance is part of the population long BEFORE we used them. You seem to miss the point completely.

      All we are doing is shifting populations with a given characteristic (in this case, it’s not size or color of a creature but it’s resistance to a disease).

      No mutation, no evolution has been shown to occur, selection pressures just changed which individuals are likely to survive, thus shift population.
      Darwin is almost certainly proven wrong by this new, basic finding.

      • Joe Martin

        Please re-read my comment, Bob. I said, “…antibiotic resistance has long been known by science to be a natural genetic attribute of most bacteria. Microbiology theory has been suggesting for years that this resistance went far back in evolutionary time.” So I get the point that bacteria have had natural antibiotic resistance since long before man came along.

        Concerning the lack of data provided in Wade’s article, I would hardly expect an article by a NY Times science writer to follow the rigorous steps involved in publishing a scholarly work in a scientific journal. But, since you insist on data, which I’m sure most creationists will promptly ignore, I’ll do a little research and see what I can find for you.

  • Jack Parker

    Nothing in any of all this verbiage supports creationism. Creationism is based on the existence of a non existent “God” and therefore must be false. Ergo, “whatever is left, must be true.” Hence Evolution is a verified fact. Creationists, get used to it.

    • Tim shimeall

      Jack, where are your citable facts in support of your claims? Without them, you are only contributing noise, not content.

    • Pathfinder

      Jack Parker : You assume that there is no God and then you use this assumption to “prove” evolution. Your arguement is entirely circular. If this is the best atheists can offer as “logic”; then it is no wonder you fail to notice the holes in Darwinian theories. In order to accept Darwinism, I must accept violation of known and proven scientific LAWS; namely, the second law of thermodynamics, andd the law of biogenesis. Therefore, darwinian evolution never happened and life on earth IS the product of special creation. Your pet theory is wrong. YOU GET USED TO IT !!!

      • Joe Martin

        No matter how many times it’s repeated, it ALWAYS is ignored, but here it is AGAIN!: 1) Evolution does NOT violate the second Law of Thermodynamics because 2LOT applies to closed systems. While the universe as a whole is a closed system, there are pockets of local “open” systems, such as our solar system, where the constant input of energy from the sun makes life on earth possible. 2) Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADDRESS how life got started, only how it became more diverse and complex AFTER life got started.

        You may now continue to ignore the facts.

        • Flip

          “1) Evolution does NOT violate the second Law of Thermodynamics because 2LOT applies to closed systems. While the universe as a whole is a closed system, there are pockets of local “open” systems, such as our solar system, where the constant input of energy from the sun makes life on earth possible.”

          The problem here is that energy is destructive. Even if the earth is an open system, without a mechanism to harness the suns energy, that energy would destroy life. Photosynthesis is not a good example because it would have to evolve, thereby requiring another mechanism.

          “2) Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory because evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADDRESS how life got started, only how it became more diverse and complex AFTER life got started.”

          This is simply a cop-out. Abiogenesis is relevant to evolution because in order to explain how life evolved, you have to explain how life got started. Another point to consider is if abiogenesis is not relevant, then why are so many evolutionist trying to prove it to be true? Consider this: if life evolved by natural means, than it stands to reason that life arose by natural means. That is a logical conclusion. If life can’t get here by natural means in the first place, than how can it evolve?

          • Joe Martin

            I understand that compartmentalization of concepts is a difficult task for religious people who prefer to lump everything under “goddidit”, but let’s try it this way … You wouldn’t expect a plumber to know how to remove your appendix, would you? No. So why would you expect a theory that explains what happened AFTER life formed to explain what happened BEFORE life formed? That is not evolutions job, it’s abiogenesis’s job. So, abiogenesis created life, then evolution took over and diversified it. It’s a simple concept. Put your underwear on first, then your pants.

            Back to point # 1: Yes, photosynthesis had to evolve. Where did it evolve from? From non-photosynthetic organisms that until then had not found the mutation that allowed them to extract food from the sun’s energy. Such organisms exist today in deep ocean hydrothermal vents. Photosynthesis is not and was not the ONLY way to convert energy to food. Just because energy conversion wasn’t being taken DIRECTLY from the sun until processes such as photosynthesis came along doesn’t mean there was no life at all. They just used different means to extract their food.

  • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJZ6xiQoOYCLQoE3EBpuaMA Christopher Alex Jones

    You know what? You are 100% correct. That is EXACTLY how bacteria gains resistance. :)

    However, there is one small hiccup in this article. What you just described is the FIRST step in evolutionary theory, in fact, this is known to be the case for every single evolutionist out there. The Sheer fact that you consider this proof against Evolution goes to show the fact that you don’t even understand the most basic concepts of evolution.

    So, this is step 1, a bacterial colony is introduced to a new antibiotic and those who can survive do, and those who can’t survive don’t. Ok, so here’s your population (B= not immune, b= immune)


    Ok, so there is your population prior to the antibiotic, and here is your population after the introduction of the antibiotic:

    bbbbbb (Population B)

    This group is resistant, and as such the antibiotic is ineffective, so they begin to reproduce. Suddenly you have a population that is resistant to the drug (evolution is all about populations, and not individual organisms, at this point the population has evolved – albeit slightly)

    bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb (Population B)

    Now, this new population is completely resistant to antibiotic A, so humans make antibiotic B to kill these guys off. That would totally work, right? No, because within population A and B there are bacteria resistant to this new antibiotic (we’ll call these guys “c”)

    bbbbbbbbbbcbbbbbbbbbbcbbbbbbbbbbcbbbbbbbbbbcbbbbbbbbbbcbbbbbbbbbbbcbbb (still population B)

    These guys didn’t just pop up out of nowhere, they’ve been there the entire time (However, new mutations actually happen all the time, but I will get to that in a minute)

    so, here is this population after the introduction of the new antibiotic

    ccccc (population C)

    Then reproduction

    cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc (population C)

    Now we have a population that is completely resistant to 2 drugs from natural causes (Haven’t gotten to mutations)

    Now, I know it’s a common creationist practice to say there are no positive mutations, but that is completely untrue. Lactose tolerance is a positive mutation, and it is very specific to people of European descent.

    Here is a map showing lactose tolerance in the eastern Hemisphere: lactose-and-tolerant-530×376.jpg

    As you can see, it’s actually a relatively uncommon thing – that’s because it’s not part of our standard make-up. It is a mutation, and those with that mutation survived in England because they were more equipped to get Vitamin D from cow’s milk. We also know for a fact that mutations exist and happen fairly often – Red Hair is a mutation, purple eyes are a mutation, Down’s Syndrome is a mutation, etc. So we have established the existence of mutation, and – more importantly – the existence of positive mutations.

    So, here is population C with mutants shown:


    c= normal bacteria resistant to antibiotics A and B

    y= Bacteria with a negative mutation that will ultimately kill them

    n= Bacteria with a positive mutation that will make them resistant to Antibiotic C

    So, Antibiotic C is created and kills off all the cs and ys (remember, Y is not resistant, so not only did they have a mutation that was going to kill them, but they also had the introduction of the new Antibiotic)

    So, population D is


    Suddenly we have a population that has “natural” resistance to antibiotics A and B and a “mutated” resistance to antibiotic C. n was a very small population, but they are now the entire population meaning that when they reproduce Population D becomes


    Evolution has happened. It’s still very small-scale evolution, but if you Keep piling on the these mutations and the pruning of the non-resistant and you will eventually have a strain that is genetically completely different than where you started.

    Now, this is a WAY oversimplification of the evolutionary process. This doesn’t even begin to show ALL the different natural resistances and mutations that would be present within an actual bacterial population. This also doesn’t account for the fact that if Antibiotic C had been something different, it would have killed c,y, and n. However within that population would be f or g or u or p or t or o or r etc which would be resistant to Antibiotic C.

    Also, something that should be noted, these resistances are still mutations regardless. Genetic diversity wouldn’t exist without mutation. I mean, yes, God created all the different animals and plants and such and that is easily explainable in that way. I’m talking about genetic variation within a population. The fact that b even existed is due to some ancient mutation that persisted until this day when it finally became useful.

    And not only that, but it is important to note that this is all from A-sexual reproduction. What that means is that genetic variation is even more unlikely that it is in organisms that reproduce sexually (like you and me). The very fact that there is ANY genetic variation within individual bacterial populations is a testament to how old the earth actually is and how Evolution most certainly exists.

    Mutation is FAR more common in sexual populations, and you can easily see in within one generation. Autism is a prime example, red hair is another.

Proudly built by WPDevelopers