It was obviously NOT in the original population. They DNA sequenced the e.coli that gave rise to the twelve populations that they then let develop independently. The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations.
So where did it come from?
Are you ready to admit reality? Are you ready to admit that it was NOT in the original population?
The supposition that all useful variations were created from the beginning CAN be tested. It was tested - it FAILED that test. But I guess asking a creationist to accept evidence that contradicts their presuppositions is, evidently, asking WAY too much!
And accepting that e.coli can develop useful variations that did not previously exist in their direct ancestry is in no way “Godless” - but it is illustrative of why you have a major roadblock to accepting evidence that runs contrary to what you think about God, and thus why you have failed to actually learn anything about a subject you have discussed for years.
But I have ALREADY ADMITTED the possibility that "The useful variations that arose in those twelve populations were NOT in the original e.coli that gave rise to those twelve populations."
I have no dispute whatsoever that Nature constantly "reconfigures" herself.
The question is: By what means, and to what end???
I do not believe in the least that Darwin has proposed any "rational" solution to this problem. I.e., the problem of biological speciation, let alone origin.
FWIW.