[Agamemnon]

What you describe is not evidence of evolution but is evidence of an inherent ability of the micro-organism to adapt. The organism's ability to adapt is already there. Adaptation is seen in what evolutionist's term, "higher" organisms: e.g., moths, rabitts, chameleons, etc. Animals adapt to any number of external stimuli all the time without failing to reproduce after their kind.

[jennyp]

What you describe is not evidence of evolution but is evidence of an inherent ability of the micro-organism to adapt. The organism's ability to adapt is already there.

Ah, but bacteria that were cloned from a single initial bacterium also develop antibiotic resistance! IOW, if you take a single bacterium & place it into a nutrient solution that has first been sterilized in an autoclave, and let it split into a new colony of clones of itself, and then apply selective pressure to this colony over many generations, it will still eventually "adapt" to thrive in the new environment.

This is due to brand-new mutations appearing in the colony and getting selected for/against. The "inherent ability to adapt" in your sense was not there initially.

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.
Richard Harter, Are Mutations Harmful?, TalkOrigins