Faith,
You are correct in your assumption that the AB resistant TB did not necessarily arise as a result of mutation. What probably happened is as you described, a small portion of the global TB population was ALREADY AB resistant. All that happened was the non AB ones died to be replaced by the AB variety. This is natural selection at its finest. For evolution to have happened, a mutation would have to have occurred, that mutation THEN being tested by natural selection. NOTE. given rates of mutability, is is highly likely that many mutations took place. It just can't be shown that any affected restistance to ABs.
I'm glad you posted this. I come from the science side of the argument & groan when I see people claim instances where evolution actually occurred, when "all" were seeing is natural selection. It was Darwin who gave us natural selection, NOT evolution, as is commonly thought. Evolution existed as an idea before Darwin, particularly Lamarck. Darwinistic Natural Selection is alive & well & you have now seen it for yourself.
I ask you to consider, given that evolutionary change in species is random mutation being given up to non-random natural selection, & that both of these events/processes have been observed. Why do creationists still hold out? Surely a well supported theory where the two driving processes are fact (shudder), is better than a God hypothesis that is based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, a triumph of hope over expectation?
In my opinion this is the crux of creationism. What mindset allows the destruction of other peoples ideas that are to a greater or lesser extent supported by observation, by pointing out that there are gaps still requiring evidence in said idea. When the defended creationist notion (& I choose my words carefully)itself is entirely without evidential merit?
What sort of FUBAR logic is going on here?
A Jokey example follows........
If a creationist drove up to a road junction & there were lots of cars & lorries smashed into the back of each other. Twisted metal & plastic abounds, no survivors, all burnt beyond recognition. He would therefore, on the basis that no living human witnessed what science laughably describes as a "traffic accident", that God did it. Going further, the vehicles were probably deposited in the Flood. Because not only was radioactive decay & light speed different back then, but so was the rate that motor vehicles rust. Clearly this "traffic accident" is evidence for the Flood, & therefore evidence for God.
Why DO they do that?
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-02-2001]