I'm thinking perhaps you are confused in some of your terminology. Bacteria do not have rhizomes, although they do sometimes infect the rhizomes of organisms that do have them. Perhaps you meant ribosomes (aka RNA)? Bacteria do have ribosomes, as do all living cells. I'm not a biologist, so just to double check my feeble knowledge I ran your post by someone with a bachelor's degree in biology. They too could not make any sense of the above.
If you want to argue that evolution is not responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria there are much better ways to do it. One particularly persuasive essay I read argued that bacterial resistance to antibiotics comes not from random mutations conferring an advantage to the bacteria, but due to existing differences in genetics among the population of bacteria. When antibiotics are introduced those bacteria with a genetic makeup that helps them survive the assault will survive and those that don't will die. The survivors reproduce and thrive. How the genetic differences between the bacteria occurred in the first place to provide those surviving bacteria, that are the same species as those that died, with different genes is anybody's guess. Since bacteria reproduce asexually by the process of mitosis each offspring is essentially a genetic clone. Absent random mutation or genetic damage due to radiation the only other explanation would be "when God made the Earth 6000 years ago he made all these different bacteria -- tens of thousands of variants of the same species -- exactly then as they are now". If that works for you, that's cool.
After thinking some more I thought it good to point out that animals don't have to have mutation to "evolve" by selective pressure. Selective pressure can simply favor animals with a particular attribute over others of the same species that don't share it. Maybe a horsey type thing has a slightly longer neck than his brothers and can reach higher in the trees and this helps. He reproduces better and his children have slightly longer necks too. They inbreed and the trait is amplified. A thousand years later maybe you have a giraffe.
If that seems crazy, look at what humans have done with dogs in the thousands of years we have been selectively inbreeding them to enhance particular traits. All domestic dogs are descended from gray wolves. And now we have everything from Great Danes to Chihuahua's to Dachshunds. They are vastly different critters - each forcibly evolved by artificial selective pressure at the hands of man to serve a particular purpose.
I have read of those things and they are quite interesting. They don't explain why we don't find any antelope skeletons very far back in the geologic record. Of all of the thousands of species on the planet today, virtually none of them are found in the same layers as prehistoric fossils. Finding a single unexplainable example doesn't solve the mystery of why it isn't pervasive. If they have all been here since day one it is quite strange.
Equally strange is the premise that according to the bible humans and dinosaurs cohabited the planet at the same time, yet we have no cave drawings of t-rex or triceratops or velociraptors. We have some drawings of mammoths, and even saber tooth cats, but that makes sense because the evidence available to us says Neanderthals did live at the same time as those animals. Sure there's the mention of Behemoth in Job but even if you buy that as a dinosaur reference that's a pretty damn paltry blip in the historical radar for something that should have been a pretty big deal to our ancestors and been drawn and written about extensively.
I never mentioned geologic columns or made any claims about how many layers are where. I did talk about what is and isn't found in some of those layers though. Don't get me wrong, I don't know where all these animals came from either. I don't know of any proof that they got here by evolution, or by any other means. I just think that saying it all got here by magic is sort of pulling an intellectual escape hatch.