It is a mutation or variation of an existing strain. Slapping a label on a run of the mill change does not make the case for large scale changes needed to develop a new cellular system or change from one species to a new one.
FYI, there has been enough DNA change in the last 100,000 generations--about 2,000,000 years--for Homo habilis to morph into H. erectus, then into H. heidelbergensis, then into archaic H. sapiens, then into modern H. sapiens (about 200,000 years ago).
Funny how the only thing you can quantify are speculative looks into the past. I am talking about actually seeing the same scale of changes that you speculate in man over the last 100,000 generations take place in bacteria over 20 years (100,000 generations). I only know about variations within a species that are probably just selection of genes already present by the use of antibiotics.
A mutation is, by definition, a change in DNA. DNA change is inevitable and continuous.
Evolution occurs through the process of accumulations of changes in DNA. Evolution is, therefore, inevitable and continuous.
The idea that evolution can only happen if a whole new biological system appears fully formed and functional is a literal creationist straw man. That particular straw man does, however, sound suspiciously like that Genesis story--you know, the one where, suddenly and simultaneously, every single plant and animal species sprang out of the mud, fully formed and functional.
I find it ironic that literal creationists try to discredit evolution by saying it acts just like creation (which pretty much convinces me that they don't literally believe the creation story, either).
Funny how the only thing you can quantify are speculative looks into the past. I am talking about actually seeing the same scale of changes that you speculate in man over the last 100,000 generations take place in bacteria over 20 years (100,000 generations). I only know about variations within a species that are probably just selection of genes already present by the use of antibiotics.
So fossils are imaginary? You feel that all science is just a matter of belief--that the radioisotope dating methods are just peculiar religious rituals, akin to saying the Lord's Prayer in church? I guess, in your mind, physics, geology, astronomy, and chemistry are *all* just alternate religions. Those are *all* components of the evolutionary process...
I see that your math skills are as strong as your science skills--100,000 bacterial generations takes:
> 100,000 generations x 20 minutes/generation = 2,000,000 minutes
> (2,000,000 minutes) / (60 minutes/hour) = 33,333.33 hours
> (33,333.33 hours) / (24 hours/day) = 1,389 days
> (1,389 days) / (365 days/year) = 3.8 years
Considering the lengths I go to to avoid the effects of evolution in my bacterial experiments--I try to do the whole experiment within about 60 generations, or about 18 hours--and even within that time, I can see enough mutation (aka evolution) to adversely effect my experiments--I would say that if I were to keep a bacterial culture growing for nearly 4 years, the bacteria at the end would be enough different that they could be considered a different species.
BTW, using antibiotics to select bacteria allows bacteria with certain mutations to survive, while killing off the unmutated bacteria. By definition, the bacteria remaining after the selection have evolved. In a relatively short time, by applying selective pressures, I can end up with bacteria that, by any *scientific* criteria, are not the same species as the starting bacteria.