But what does Southack cite this literature to prove? That there in fact are no mutations. All alleles are "original."
SH gets a tenth of a point for finding a reference to the word "recessive" in a bacteria gene. He loses the match because the article he quotes specifically cites a mutation as necessary for the antibiotic resistance to become effective.
First of all, the study cited demonstrates only one instance of mutation conferring. South implies that this is always the way it works. There are, in fact, many known routes to antibiotic resistence, including single gene mutation, bacterial congegation and viral insertion.
Actually, Southack's argument works in favor of common descent, because genome length is not particularly correlated to the apparent complexity of organisms, and tiny mutations can enable huge differences is body plan, such as altering the number of legs.