Natural selection of genetic variation.
Your quibbles about “gain” and “loss” of information are semantic dodges. The “information” in DNA is changed in an adaptive response that “gains” information, in that it no longer can be killed by an antibiotic.
You have proposed no scientific mechanism whereby antibiotic resistance can be gained by a bacteria, thus if one wishes to EXPLAIN how antibiotic resistance to a novel antibiotic is acquired one is either left looking like a slack jawed moron, or one can utilize the theory that explains it.
You can call it “micro” all you want.
The only scientific explanation you are able to put forth to explain it is the one proposed by Darwin.
Natural selection of genetic variation.
Even “answers in genesis” uses natural selection of genetic variation to explain differences in human populations.
What scientific explanation do you have for skin color differences in human populations again?
And why would a bacteria have an error prone DNA polymerase with controlled expression during stress?
Has the environment (presence of antibiotics) stressed the bacteria population killing many of them? Yes
Do bacteria mutate? Yes.
Do some mutations make bacteria immune to some of these antibiotics? Yes
Has the genetic code been modified? Yes
Do other bacteria “descend” from these modified bacteria? Yes
Do they survive in the same environment? Yes
Could we say that this is descent with modification? Yes
Can the mutated gene still carry out its original function? Possibly, but probably (and in most instances) not as well
Are these mutations on the road to developing new genes for more complex biological functions? No - at least the ones we know about.
Are these bacteria on the road to ever being anything other than bacteria? No, not that we can tell.
Do these bacteria, with their mutations, environmental selection, descent with modification, prove that this mechanism can lead to greater biological complexity? No
Does this prove that uni-cellular organisms can evolve into multi-cellular organisms? No. Is this mechanism proven out to the point that we can say it is the mechanism whereby cold blooded creatures can modify and descend into warm blooded creatures; flightless creatures can modify and descend into winged creatures; creatures with gills can modify and descend into creatures with lungs; sightless creatures can modify and descend into the creatures with sight - complete with the brain functionality to interpret what they “see”; etc, etc. No.
The chasm is large. Time doesn’t help when there is no mechanism to result in the change needed.
The mechanism of mutation, selection, descent with modification has been proven for bacteria gaining immunity but has not demonstrated that it can lead to more complex biological functions, it is assumed that this mechanism can cross the chasm but never demonstrated. And to many of us, it seems a very poor, shaky assumption. — and this is the gist of the matter, semantics aside. The only thing we have seen descended from bacteria, fruit flys, and people are more bacteria, fruit flys, and people, whether changed, unchanged, mutated, adapted, “evolved”, etc.
I somehow am beginning to doubt whether you know the difference between a discussion and exchange with hysterics (and the appropriate usage of words like “delusional”).
I am trying to have a civil conversation with you without getting personal but unfortunately, you want to make it personal. WHY ?
Gain or Loss of information are NOT semantic dodges. They are CRITICAL to the Darwinian Evolution. If apes evolved to men, there clearly is a GAIN in cognitive ability. If as Richard Dawkins conjectures, winged like animals might have evolved in the Darwinian sense because certain animals needed to gain the ability to jump higher to acquire food from tall trees, then the wings are GAINS of abilities, and hence INFORMATION.
Now, if an antibiotic is no longer killed by an antibiotic and question is this -— is it because it evolved in the Darwinian sense, or is there a pre-existing ability to adapt?
THAT has always been the question.
The fact that there is not currently a clear and unambigous explanation for this does not then argue unambigously for the Darwinian explanation.
BTW, There is no theory requiring mutations to lose information. I can easily imagine mutations that gain information. The simplest example is what is known as a back mutation. A back mutation undoes the effect of a previous mutation. If the change of a single base pair in the genome were to change to another and lose information, then a subsequent mutation back to the previous condition would regain the lost information. Since these mutations are known to occur, they form a counterexample to any conjecture that random mutations must lose information. An important point I make , and which needs emphasis here, is that, as far as I know, no mutations observed so far qualify as examples of the kind of mutations required for Darwinian Evolution.
In each case in which the molecular change was known, not one could serve as a prototype for the mutations required by Darwinian Evolution.
In all the cases I’ve read about, it was the LOSS of information that prevented the mutation from serving as a prototype of those required by Darwinian Evolution.
The back mutation likewise cannot serve as a prototype of the Darwinian-required mutations. Here, the reason is not that it loses information—it actually gains information.
But the information it gains is ALREADY IN the biocosm and the mutation contributes NOTHING NEW ( an important requirement for Darwinian Evolution ).
DarwinianEvolution is not accounted for if the only information gain was by back mutations.
Suppose a mutation causes a protein to become more adaptive in a particular environment.
Then by the Darwinian thesis, it is already so well evolved that something is always likely to be lost when a modified, mutated protein becomes prevalent in the face of a new selective pressure.
Darwinists imply that the loss is one of information, because that’s the context of this discussion. But then, according to you, after that modification, it is again well evolved, so the next time it undergoes an adaptive mutation, it must again lose something. Continuing the process, the protein will continue to lose something.
You have just consigned the evolutionary process to a dead end!
You have tried to argue that a combination of gene duplication, random mutation, and natural selection, can add information to the collective genome of the biocosm which then proves Darwinian Evolution.
Unfortunately, this is nothing more that offering possible scenarios—it is argument by just-so-stories.
But the argument against Darwinian Evolution does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it.
The telling blow against Darwinian Theory is that examples of INFORMATION ADDITION ( not those that are already pre-existing) have never been exhibited. The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution. It is actually evidence against evolution because if Darwin were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many.
Please note again, this is not to say that Darwin’s theory is false. It is simply to say that the Scientific requirement for it to be considered true in the case of bacterial resistance REQUIRES BETTER EVIDENCE than what you have presented and insisted so far.
But then, let’s get back to thre original point I make -— you don’t have to appeal to Darwin to understand the mechanism of antibiotic resistance. Many competent scientists are also sceptics.