against antibiotics, and the immunity that some insects develop
against DDT are evidence for evolution. They claim that these are
examples of acquired resistance and immunity, brought about by
mutations thattook place in the living things exposed to these
substances.
In both bacteria and insects, these characteristics are not properties
that were subsequently acquired against DDT or antibiotics as a result
of mutations. Some of these living things possessed these
characteristics beforethe population as a whole was subjected to
antibiotics or DDT. Although considered a pro-evolutionistperiodical,
Scientific American, makes the following confession in its March 1998
issue: "Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before
commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly
why these genes evolved and were maintained."
As may be seen, genetic information that procures resistance had
existed prior to exposure to antibiotics and cannot be explained by
evolutionists; this proves the falsity of their claim.
The fact that resistant bacteria were present years before the
discovery of antibiotics is expressed inMedical Tribune, itself a
remarkable scientific publication, in its December 29, 1998 issue. The
article is concerned with an interesting event: In a study carried out
in 1986, the corpses of some sailors who fell sick and died during a
polar expedition in 1845 were found preserved in ice. Some common
19thcentury bacteria types were found in the corpses and when they
were tested, researchers were surprised to find that they were
resistant to many modern antibiotics that were not developed until the
20thcentury Ce.
It is a well-known fact in medical circles that this sort of
resistance was present in many bacteria populations prior to the
discovery of penicillin. Therefore, it is absolutely deceptive to
postulate the resistance of bacteria as an evolutionary development.
How, then, does the so-called process of "bacterialacquisition of
immunity" take place?
Resistance of Bacteria to Antibiotics
Bacteria have numerous variations within their types. Some of these
variations harbour the genetic information to be resistant to
different drugs, chemicals or other substances. When the bacteria as a
whole group are exposed to a certain type of drug, those that are not
resistant to that drug are destroyed whereas those that areresistant
survive and get the chance to reproduce more. The non-resistant
bacteria soon disappear from the population and are replaced by those
that are resistant, which then rapidly reproduce. Eventually we end up
with a bacterial colony made up only of individuals that are resistant
to that particular antibiotic and from then on, that particular
antibiotic becomes ineffective against this bacteria type. The crucial
point is that the bacteria are still the same bacteria and the species
is still the same species.
It is important to note here that, contrary to the claims of
evolutionists, there is no evolutionary process taking placein which
non-resistant bacteria mutate and convert into resistantbacteria
strains by being exposedto antibiotics and thus acquire new genetic
information. What istaking place is only a weeding-out of particular
bacteria variations from a population of resistant and non-resistant
variations that co-existed from the very beginning. This does not mark
the emergence of a new bacteria species: it is not "evolution". On the
contrary, one or more of the existing variationsdisappear, which is
quite the reverse process since genetic information is being lost.
Immunity of Insects to DDT
Another issue that evolutionists seek to distort and offer as evidence
for evolution is the seemingly "acquired" immunity of insects of DDT
that we mentioned earlier. This immunitydevelops in the same manner as
bacterial resistance does to antibiotics. Immunity to DDT can by no
means be said to have been"acquired" by individual members of the
insect population. Some of the insects were already immune to DDT.
After the discovery of DDT, insectsthat were exposed to this chemical
but did not have this inherent immunity were eliminated from the
population, which is to say, they became extinct. Those that were
immune-- and originally these were relatively few in the population --
increased in time. Eventually, the entire insect species became a
population whose members were all immune. When that happened, DDT
ceased to be effective against this species of insect. This phenomenon
is commonly, but misleadingly, referred to as "insects' acquisition of
immunity to DDT".
Evolutionist biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact by saying:
"The genetic variants required forresistance to the most diverse kinds
of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations
exposed to these man-made compounds."
Being well aware that the majority of people do not have anopportunity
to learn about microbiology nor do researches in it, evolutionists
employ plain deceit where the issues of resistance and immunity are
concerned. They frequently bring up these examples as very important
evidence for evolution.It should be clear by now, that neither the
resistance of bacteria to antibiotics nor the immunity of insects to
DDT provides evidence for evolution. What theydo provide, are good
examples ofthe distortion and hoodwinking methods that evolutionists
have recoursed to in order to justify their theory.
To conclude, one clearly sees the falsehood the evolutionists are upon
and this leads to the fact that Allaah is the Creator of all things
and not evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment