Proof of evolution shaky

Research shows the same conclusion with respect to antibiotic resistance. In 1990 scientists at the University of Alberta revived bacteria from the bodies of members of the ill-fated Franklin expedition to the Artic nearly 165 years ago. Of the six strains revived, three of them had resistance to the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin. Thus it appears that the genetic variants are already present. No new genetic information is needed.
However there are genetic changes that occur in mutations that can also cause resistance. In these instances research shows that it is a loss of genetic information that causes the resistance. A good example is the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, not a friend to humans. An infection can be treated with an antibiotic, and when things work properly the bacterium has the genetic information to make an enzyme which reacts with the antibiotic converting it into a poison, thus killing the bacterium. But due to a mutation (an abnormal change occurring in the genetic information due usually to radiation or chemicals) some H. pylori cannot produce the enzyme that changes the antibiotic to a poison. These fortunate mutants get to live and reproduce, thus causing the patient to need a different antibiotic and the same thing eventually occurs with the new antibiotic. We are asked by the evolutionist to place our faith in their pronouncement that given enough time the bacteria will become a biologist.
My sentiments are more with the explanation of Dr. Lee Spetner, who has spent years in the study of information theory and how it applies to evolution. In his book, Not by Chance, he says, "...there is no evidence that genetic information can build up through a series of small steps of microevolution. Mutations needed for these small steps have never been observed. By far, most mutations have been harmful to the organism. We have seen that there are some point mutations that, under the right circumstances, do give the organism an advantage. ... But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. ...Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume."
Until the evolutionists come up with a legitimate source for the genetic information to get from non-living matter to all life forms that we see around us and in the fossil record, they are just blowing smoke. http://www.thedailycitizen.com­/articles/2005/06/30/news/opin­ion/opini...