The only way this could uniquely favor evolution over creation is if you contend that God would not create life with a broad ability to adapt using mechanisms that are built-in from the start. But that's a philosophical position based on logical fallacy, not a scientific one.
"The error prone DNA polymerase is itself part of the bacterial genome. When error prone DNA polymerase reproduces the genome of the bacteria, the mechanism that induces the error prone DNA polymerase, as well as the gene itself, is subject to change, thus subject to evolution adaptation."
How is the change I made wrong? You like to use the 'evolution' word as though it is the only possibility. How would your exact statement have become false after changing only one word? Without using logical fallacies please.
"It matters not if the original mechanism was derived via evolution, or from nothing directly by God.
Actually, the difference is night and day.
"Either way, from that time onward this was a mechanism of evolution adaptation, and subject to evolution adaptation."
Again, exchanging only the word 'evolution' for the word 'adaptation'; how is the revised statement now false?
"It need not have been derived via evolution adaptation to be a mechanism to INCREASE evolution adaptation. So why would a bacteria increase its rate of evolution adaptation in response to stress?
Again, changing only the word 'evolution' for the word 'adaptation'; how does the statement become false?
"Saying that such is part of the creationist model is ludicrous, as creationists deny that evolution can derive novel biological solutions to environmental stresses."
Ah, projecting emotionally-charged terms again. That seems to be a large part of your 'argument'. Couple that with erecting strawmen about what 'creationists' say without addressing what I say and one could infer that you only have prepared remarks against specific strawman arguments from your evolutionary tracts.
"But I guess creationists accept evolution when it is convenient to them; like when explaining how all modern species could have derived within the last few thousand years from what few species could fit on a boat of specific dimensions."
Keep setting that strawman up and keep knocking him down. I'm sure that is impressing somebody.
"So no, evolution doesn't result in speciation, the creationist says. Except when we need it to!"
Just keep setting that strawman up and keep knocking him down. That's bound to impress the little evolutionist lurkers.
Evolution is adaptation through change in the DNA of a population in response to environmental stress. If you want to use the term “adaptation” instead of “evolution” that is fine.
In which case it becomes Darwin’s theory of ADAPTATION through natural selection of genetic variation.
Semantics doesn’t change a thing.
So yes, God did create life with the broad ability to adapt through natural selection of genetic variation just as Darwin’s theory proposes.
So now that you admit that selective pressure on genetic variation leads to beneficial adaptation; (quite an admission, why it is as if you are giving away half the creationist store!) what is going to prevent this variation from accumulating in different populations such that a 0.01% DNA difference accumulates, or a 0.1% difference, or a 1% or 2% difference?