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?
So the use of the term 'adaptation' didn't change the meaning of your statements at all, did it? The mechanism, then, is perfectly consistent with creation and there is no unanswered question that creationists need to provide you after all.
"In which case it becomes Darwin’s theory of ADAPTATION through natural selection of genetic variation. Semantics doesn’t change a thing."
Actually, it was the difference between night and day.
You admitted that the change didn't make a bit of difference in the science. You obviously still have a philosophical commitment to evolution, but that is supported by another logical fallacy; that of the negative proof fallacy as we will soon see.
You have just shown that evolution isn't science and that the science involved is just as consistent with creation as it is with evolution.
"So yes, God did create life with the broad ability to adapt through natural selection of genetic variation just as Darwin’s theory proposes."
OK, so God created life with the broad ability to adapt to different environments and your bacterial mechanism is perfectly consistent with creation. That's good progress.
Now given that and without engaging in the fallacy of negative proof, how is Darwin's theory different from created kinds splintering into various species through adaptation, simple inbreeding and/or genetic drift?
"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!)..."
Actually, you are the one who just admitted that the bacterial adaptive mechanism which you thought no creationist could answer for you was created by God. And a creationist explained it to you. My my.
"...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?"
Now see, I asked you not to engage in the negative proof fallacy time and again and here you are right back at it. You see, understanding logic and when you enter into logical fallacy really is much more important than you have ever imagined.