But apog, if you understood evolution you would know that response, be it mechanical or via thought is not how evolution works.
I said 'intent' because that was the context of SM argument. But if we change it to mechanical, it is still wrong if you have a basic understanding of evolution. The antibiotics do NOTHING to contribute to the formation of the RANDOM mutation.
The antibiotics are relevant to the natural selection of that mutation, because the antibiotic use is now a factor in the enviroment. To explain, Natural selection is a term that came from Darwin seeing human selective breeding on farms, mate two fat pigs and you get very fat piglets. Natural selection just means the enviroment, nature itself, does the selecting, instead of the farmer. So the antibiotic use is an alteration in the enviroment that makes the randomly mutated genes a useful thing, or a useless thing.
The important point the 'textbook' is making is that..... in no way is the DNA responding to the enviroment i.e. antibiotic use.
Imagine if I made a computer program to randomly type out letters continuously on a screen. Now, unbeknown to the computer program, everytime it randomly forms a word whilst randomly outputting letters, I will note down the word formed and keep a list of all the words made.Any words formed by the computer are formed at random still, they are in no way responding to me looking for them to exist.
Do you see the analogy?