Quote:

Where I think they're getting the idea that this is evolution is at the line cultured at 42*.



Actually I think the interesting fact is that both lines - at lower and at higher temperature - were fitter than the 37° line. Apparently, different modifications to the DNA are necessary to adapt to lower, and to higher temperature.

Of course, this result can be explained both by natural selection and by mutation. In order to decide whether it's selection or mutation, you need to analyze the modified parts of the DNA. Once you find the mechanisms for both low-temperature tolerance and high-temperature tolerance you know whether it's mutation or just selection. If it's a real mutation we'll again have one more piece of evidence for evolution. And of course, again one more piece to be be ignored by creationists. If it's not mutation however, both mechanisms must have been already in place in the DNA, just deactivated.

There are hundreds of such examples. I find it hard to believe to explain all of this with just selection, and not evolution. It all comes down again to if we accept that a) selection exists and b) mutations happen, it's a matter of time and probability to get evolution. The question is just how great the probability is. You just need to do the math. An "it will never happen" approach is never a good scientific argument.