Replies

Wrong.

From your link:

Now, what about those experiments where some bacteria developed a resistance to substances over time due to mutations in their genes? Such mutations, which are mistakes in the genes, result from a loss of information (such as the loss of a control gene which regulates the pumping of the substance into the cell). Again, this is the opposite of evolution, which requires an increase in information if it were to occur.

Like all too many things from Answers-in-Genesis -- and from anti-evolution sources in general -- this is a gross misrepresentation, and is better described as no-holds-barred propaganda than anything resembling actual reality.

It's flat wrong when it says that resistance-enhancing mutations are a "loss of information", it's being grossly dishonest when it tries to imply that the loss of cellular transport is the only kind of functional change which has been observed bringing about an increased resistanced to antibiotics, and it's just lying when it tries to convince the reader that there's anything different between these kinds of mutations and evolutionary processes, because there's not. The rest of the linked page is severely flawed as well.

In short, it's easily recognized as a load of crap by anyone familiar with the actual field. But of course, propagandists like AiG and other anti-evolution sources count on the fact that most readers won't be able to spot how badly they're being snowed.

This isn't the appropriate thread for it, so instead of posting detailed support for the things I've said in that critique, I'll just direct you here, to a post I wrote covering a lot of the same ground.

Trying to "learn" about science from anti-evolution creationist sources is as big a mistake as trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore, and for exactly the same reasons.