Proving that evolution can occur, does not disprove creation.
In most cases what has been claimed as evolution is nothing more than selecting for genetic potential. No different than breeding a new kind of dog.
Bacteria are poisoned and the few that survive are touted as having a new capability. Wrong it’s not new, it was there all along. It’s just instead of being rare in the population it’s now predominant. Existing genetic potential has been selected for.
That or a mutation causes a loss of function or specificity, and that is claimed as a new function. An example is sicle cell anemia. Because half a person’s red blood cells are deformed and deficient, they have better immunity to a virus that attacks red blood cells. It’s like saying a man born without legs has evolved because he is immune to toenail fungus. It’s hardly a positive development.
How is that argument relevant to the experiment under discussion?