I simply mean change over time. That is the definition of evolution. Evolution is not constrained to Darwinism or even biology. Technology evolves, philosophy evolves, society evolves, your own thoughts and ideas on subjects evolve. Life changes over time, so life evolves. It's not even a debate that life evolves, it does, we have clearly seen change, especially within microbiology and virology where they have rapid generations we see changes and new strains of once familiar viruses, like Coronavirus, this is a novel strain of a virus that causes common colds.
The only debate is HOW it evolves, I believe it is an act of God, a naturalist believes it happens entirely on its own without God, and strict creationists just hate the word evolution so bad because of the naturalists laying claim to it that they will want to use any other word for the same process aside from evolution, or they are completely ignorant and don't acknowledge that life changes at all.
as far as macroevolution goes I believe in somewhat of a middle ground. I believe that God created biological families, and that within those biological families they spread out, breeding after their kind. I don't believe that God created Horse, Zebra, Donkey, but rather God created the Equidae family, and from that original Equidae species we got Horse, Zebra, and Donkey, I believe that God was the ultimate cause of what made Horse from the original Equidae species it came from, but it is still breeding after their kind. A big part of the reason I believe that way rather than kind = species is because #1 some species are so closely related that they can interbreed, like Horse and Donkey can make mules, and Tigers and Lions can interbreed to make Ligers, and #2. there are over 1.3 million species that we've identified, and there may be many more that we've never encountered. That is one busting at the seams Ark. However there are only about 20000 taxonomic families. That's a lot easier to keep safe on an Ark, especially if all the marine life is not on the ark, and all the plants are not on the Ark, now you have a reasonable number of representatives aboard the Ark from which to repopulate the world.
"It's not even a debate that life evolves, it does, we have clearly seen change, especially within microbiology and virology where they have rapid generations we see changes and new strains of once familiar viruses, like Coronavirus, this is a novel strain of a virus that causes common colds."
BACTERIAL RESISTANCE??
So, I’ll just debunk this nonsense. The bacterium that become resistant to the antibiotic is not the result of a mutation increasing information to the genome as Evolutionism predicts, but rather a loss of sensitivity or less fitness in another way.
This happens due to a point mutation that changes the site of the ribosome so the drug molecule cannot attach to it therefore, it prevents the drug molecule attaching to the sites of the ribosome and interfering with the making of the proteins. Any one of several changes in the attachment site on the ribosomal site is enough to spoil its match with the mycin, this means that change in any one of several DNA nucleotides in the corresponding gene can confer resistance for the bacterium.
As a result, the ribosome loses specificity of the protein. Even though resistance is gained, it's gained not by adding something, but by losing something in exchange for the resistance. Another mechanism in which the bacterium can be resistant to the drug is by sacrificing enzymes (also loses or degrades genetic information due to the loss of catalyst for biochemical reactions) that alter the drug from being active and thus making the bacterium practically less fit in some other way.
Here’s an article from nature supporting what I say about adaptation though loss-of-function mutations.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v14/n9/full/nrg3557.html
What about E.colI and its new ability to take citrate?.
The citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. And E.coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation.
This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. This suite of genes (operon) is usually only activated under anaerobic conditions. So, an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. The transporter gene lost the ability to regulate when it was going to let the citrate inside of the cell
And at last, let me refute the lie that the darwinists feed us... which is nylon-eating bacteria.
This was also a lost of specificity similar to E.coli that happened due to a frame-shift mutation. Nylonase usually breaks down a very similar substance that is composed of multiple strings of carbon based molecules, the basic components used to make nylon come from coal and oil, which originally come from decayed carbon rich organic matter, and many molecules in living things are long strings of carbon based molecules as well, this means that with a lost of a specificity (frame-shift mutation), it could also allow nylon. This is what happened and the mutations was passed along through plasmids. In fact, Nylonase now takes different molecules that cause it to degenerate because it has lost its specificity. This is really bad for the bacterium because the ability of the enzyme to allow it to filer out the molecules that caused it to degenerate is now LOST
This is from the Journal of Biological Chemistry. “ 6-Aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase (EII), responsible for the degradation of nylon-6 industry by-products, and its analogous enzyme (EII′) that has only ∼0.5% of the specific activity toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer, are encoded on plasmid pOAD2 of Arthrobacter sp. (formerly Flavobacterium sp.) KI72.”
X-ray Crystallographic Analysis of 6-Aminohexanoate-Dimer Hydrolase
In conclusion, ALL mutations are degradative or neutral in the genome. They do NOT add anything new function to it which is why Darwinian evolution FAILS.
"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."
(Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")
"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins
