RE: Ten Amusing Questions Creationists Mistakenly Believe Science Has No Answers For

[mattclarke]

Worked for me. I may have copied/pasted poorly as I'm on my phone.
http://creation.com/does-the-acquisition-of-antibiotic-and-pesticide-resistance-provide-evidence-for-evolution
I've fixed the original, thanks for that.

Comments

[alexbeyman]

"A literature review found that most examples of the acquisition of resistance are not due to mutations, but in nearly all cases are a result of complex, built-in genetic and molecular biological defence systems."

I am going to bet "literature review" means "review by creationists". That was not in fact the conclusion of the biologists who performed the study, nor any non-creationist scientists who reviewed their work.

The extant literature indicates that those few examples that are due to mutations are in all cases so far due to loss mutations and do not result in a gain of genetic information.

This is false. Whoever wrote this is a liar. Which should come as no surprise given that when creationist arguments were actually dissected in court, during Kitzmiller vs. Dover, it was found that indeed they deliberately lied about many things (for example about the existence of less complete versions of the bacterial flagellum, and the prior wording of the textbook Pandas and People).

If creationist websites are your only source of information about evolution (so far you've only referenced creationist websites) and you deeply trust that they're being honest, it would go a long way towards explaining the difference between our views on this matter.