Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

That bacteria then died when reintroduced to its surroundings.That bacteria being the Nylon bug or bacteria which develop immunity to antibiotics? When did I mention bacteria being taken out of it's surroundings? Antibiotic-resistant bacteria do not die out as a result of the genetic mutation, to the contrary, they multiply - this is why any doctor will tell you to complete a course of antibiotics; so that no bacteria survives to develop an immunity and multiplies, making future treatment more difficult. (Forgive me if I've missed your point - I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at with this sentence...)Where did DNA come from?I'm not sure whether this is a general question concerning the origin of DNA or a more specific question regarding where the new DNA has come from in a productive (positive) mutation - so I'll answer both:As you doubtless know, DNA consists largely of phosphorous and nitrogen. A reaction between phosphorous and nitrogen and other trace elements (elements produced through nuclear fusion within stars if you really want to trace it back) would have produced nucleotides and the bases (A,T,C,G) - the monomers for the DNA molecule. This is an incredibly simplified brief description and obviously misses out many many steps. If you are particularly interested in the evolution of DNA here's a useful link:http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html During a productive mutation new genetic information is created when a section of DNA is displaced by one or more nucleotides, altering the codons (the set of three bases which code for one amino acid). As a result, different amino acids are formed in a different order resulting in the synthesis of different proteins and so on. The displacement is often caused, as creationists agree, by the deletion of a nucleotide (a destructive mutation) but also by the insertion of a new nucleotide (a positive mutation). New nucleotides and their bases are formed within the nucleus of all cells that divide (GCSE examples being meiosis and mitosis); a process I can describe if you wish. Amino acids are not lifeVery true, but they do form proteins, and proteins are the building blocks of life. Stick enough proteins together and you have a fully functioning living cell (again, I've simplified the process - though I'd like to think I've captured the essence). I'm not going to claim that we have observed the creation of brand new life, we have merely seen evidence that strongly indicates the process I've described did happen. Remember, it only needed to happen once and the universe gave it a long time to happen - we are not talking about protein synthesis overnight, we are talking over 2 billion years (the Earth is estimated to be 4 billion years old if I remember rightly). There is still no proof of that common ancestor.Again - the existence of ubiquitous genes strongly suggests that all life descended from one common ancestor. There is no reason for all life to carry the same protein sequence if various other sequences would be just as efficient and effective. The similarity in our genetic make up with other apes also indicates we are related. Homologous skeletons across the animal kingdom again suggests kinship. I could go on...Repetition is good for memoryI'll give you that one ; )Finally - it is clear that there exists now life that did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs. No human (or contemporary animal) remains have ever been found in a layer of rock that does not match their time period, or with dinosaur bones. So either life evolved or God intermittently creates new life forms... the latter is somewhat unlikely.