[Southack]

"You're wrong here, and I could show it wrong with a highschool experiment. You isolate a bacteria, let it multiply, test for an antibiotic that will kill it, let it grow into a large colony, and then incrementally add the antibiotic to the colony. ... As we started out with one bacteria, and the end result has accuired a new property, it's very much evolution."

No, and no.

No, the bacteria didn't acquire a new property, and no, mere natural selection (without mutation) is not Evolution.

Consider, if you applied an antibiotic to which no member of a colony was immune, the entire colony would *either* have to die or else instantaneously mutate.

Instantaneous mutation never happens in real life. Instead, some existing members of said bacteria colony will already have a trait that makes them resistant to the applied antibiotic. They will then thrive and multiply (no more competition from their now-dead peers, for instance).

Thus, a colony that isn't wiped out soon returns with a widespread resistance to the original antibiotic.

But that effect is due only to Natural Selection, not instantaneous mutation.

[anguish]

No, and no.

Yes, and yes. I've done this myself.

if you applied an antibiotic to which no member of a colony was immune, the entire colony would *either* have to die or else instantaneously mutate.

Oh please! "incrementally add the antibiotic to the colony" - you don't drown the colony in antibiotics from start. If one is in a real hurry (as you seem to be) add a mutagen.

[js1138]

Consider, if you applied an antibiotic to which no member of a colony was immune...

You seem to have trouble reading. The size of the original colony is one individual.