Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Highly virulent strain of Shiga-toxin producing E. coli continues to wreak havoc. Bacterial strains do not have to “evolve” resistance to antibiotics; they just have to survive when their non-resistant neighbors get killed off.
Antibiotic resistance has long been a problem. Pathogens resistant to antibiotics survive and take over, causing many difficult-to-treat infections. Many claim that antibiotic resistance is the observable proof of evolution. But are bacteria really evolving?
Public school textbooks claim that bacteria’s sophisticated capacity to change—which appears to be built into their systems—supports the claim that molecules can change into completely different kinds of creatures—despite the fact that these changes require the addition of completely different kinds of genetic information.
The ability to predict how bacteria will respond to new drugs is exciting science, but to say scientists are “predicting evolutionary potential” is sadly misleading. The ability of bacteria to survive in hostile environments points to pre-existing information and mechanisms that God put in the genes of bacteria in the first place.
We have seen a changing profile from HA-MRSA to CA-MRSA. This is potentially dangerous because the new strains are more virulent and aggressive.PDF Download
New methodology may help combat what some consider a modern evolutionary nightmare.
Traditional “hit early and hit hard” approach to treating severe infections may increase antibiotic resistance.
Although we may not often think of it, none of us are ever alone—we all have bacteria both on and in our bodies that, among other things, help us to digest food. But is this evidence for evolution?
A new strain of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has arrived in America from travelers to South Asia.
According to one scientist, it’s “one of the best demonstrations of evolution ever carried out in a laboratory.” So just what is it, and is he right?
New research into how microbial resistance to antibiotics comes about sheds light on the process that is frequently called “evolution.” Will creationists have to change their tune?
Can more research into “evolutionary medicine” result in saved lives?
In her final installment discussing a recent conference on medicine and Darwin, Dr. Georgia Purdom, AiG–U.S., reveals how confused one presenter was about natural selection and evolution.
Methicillin-resistant Staph bacteria cause more deaths than AIDS and resist most antibiotics. How do “superbugs” fit within a creation framework?
Although bacteria have been mainly recognized as disease causing agents, there are abundant scientific evidences that bacterial pathogenicity is not the major biological function of bacteria.PDF Download
Has E. coli evolved in front of our very eyes? A recent report in New Scientist claims that it has—and is a poke in the eye for creationists. But when we take a look at the facts, is this actually the case? Or is this another example of the emperor trying on new clothes?
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria.
Researchers at Cornell University’s Boyce Thompson Institute have been studying how the bacterium Pseudomonas syringae “infects tomatoes by injecting a special protein into the plant’s cells and undermines the plant’s defense system.”
Scientists have discovered the number of genes necessary to make what is believed to be the simplest living thing: a bacterium.
Influenza virus strain "develops" resistance to drugs preemptively.
Only 10% of bacteria are “bad” or pathogenic (disease-causing) while the other 90% are “good” or non-pathogenic. In fact, they are necessary components for human life.
A discussion of evolution compared with selection, as it relates to bacterial resistance.
Scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. What did they really see?
Are the mechanisms avian influenza utilizes to propagate and evade annihilation considered evolution?
Scientists have supposedly forced the evolution of an adeno-associated virus (AAV) commonly used in gene therapy. However, a belief in evolution/millions of years is not needed to initiate this resear
Sunday’s “Doonesbury” editorial comic strip in US papers once again ventured into the creation/evolution debate
Not one example can be put forth of the need for evolution (or belief in its tenets) in order to practice modern medicine.
We are showing you a letter to the editor that appeared in one of AiG-US's hometown newspapers, "The Cincinnati Post".
At the time of writing (February 2004), a deadly respiratory “flu” is racing with unprecedented speed through fowl populations in Asia and other parts of the world.
A specialist in ‘molecular evolution’ says that he has successfully mimicked natural evolution in his laboratory.
If you’ve read any of AiG’s materials for long, you’ve probably come across the expression ‘molecules-to-man’ evolution, or ‘goo-to-you’ evolution, or some similar expression.
Professors at the University of Kentucky in Lexington—only about 70 miles south of AiG’s headquarters near Cincinnati—have been increasingly vocal in their opposition to creationist beliefs
Dr John R. Howitt, a personal friend of mine ... wrote to appropriate professors in nine leading universities, asking, “Do you consider that the Hebrew word yom (day), as used in Genesis 1...