Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbesgerms that

over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective
than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benets, but which
must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.

One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms
evolved into plants and people?

As is frequently the case, we must rst distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of
existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits
(i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant
exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that
same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!

Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in
a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an
antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a
resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same
genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to
produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed,
genetic information was lost.

A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a
mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive
the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates
against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli
bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.

Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before
their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and
remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six
strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to
be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics,
including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be
an evolutionary development.**

Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are
not macroevolutionary changes.

Main Ideas
1. many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways
2. new line of research has produced good results
3. resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery
Supporting Details
1.When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die
2. when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby
increasing the odds that some will survive the stress
3. In 1945 a ship was on an ill fated expedition and some of the bacterias were found dormant in 1985 that
were brought back to life and were un affected against penicillin


Similarities in articles
In this and other articles I read say that many of these viruses and bacteria were found in people a long time
ago.