Evolution - recent examples?

quote:

---

In laboratory experiments with antibiodics and bacteria, it isn't really evolution though. The bacteria are killed off that aren't resistant, but aren't the resistant bacteria usually much weaker than the bacteria that weren't resistant?

---

Why are the antibiotic bacteria weaker? If they were weaker, then the antibiotic should have killed them off and the "stronger" bacteria should have survived. The mistake you are making is taking the bacteria out of the environment to which they are adapted. In the presence of antibiotic, the resistant bacteria are the strongest. It is within that environment that the bacteria evolved. It is like taking a fish out of water and claiming that all fish are weak.

quote:

---

It is also my favorite example, as it shows an entire new family being created, and is thus harder to discount as being an example of macroevolution.

---

It fits within the scientific definition of macroevolution, no doubt there. However, as I am sure you already figured out, it will never be deemed macroevolution among creationists. This is the beauty, if you will, of creationists never defining what constitutes macroevolution. Instead, they apply it in an ad hoc nature which allows them to deny macroevolution no matter what. You would think that a unicellular organism becoming multicellular would be classified as macroevolution, but I would bet that none of the creationist would agree.

quote:

---

You can't really blame them though. Most of them lack the education background to even know the significance and differences between unicellular and multicellular life forms.

---

I can blame them, though. They (creos on debate boards) claim that they have enough scientific knowledge to overturn one of the longest standing and most well supported theories in biology. If they claim to have such an understanding, then they have opened the door for critiques of their understanding and an in-depth criticism of their evidence. They bring this onto themselves by trumpeting their supposed superior reasoning over what they claim are misguided materialistic athiests. Too often they bite off more than they can chew, but that doesn't seem to stop them. Given the average creationists understanding of both scienctific evidence and scientific methodology, I am relieved that creationists make up such a small minority of practicing scientists. Creationists are to science what kindergarten finger painters are to Art.