Adaptation through the natural selection of genetic variations is well supported. Some adaptation is certainly the result of artificial selection, aka breeding; albeit this probably represents a very small portion of the adaptation that can be observed or inferred. We may not know for certain if wolves and domesticated dogs became separate species first by natural selection or breeding. Perhaps it does not matter.
As far as the “theories of evolution” point you made, I think I need to ruminate on that a bit. I will admit after reviewing your summary of your collective posts, you have actually made a pretty good case for your use of terminology. But in bits and pieces it comes across as intentionally trying to talk over the head of whom (me, in this case) you are debating. But I will give it some serious consideration as well as do some further reading.
I think it is strange that you have no problem with the word “adaptation” being used in lieu of “evolution” because to you the word “evolution” is a loaded term while “adaptation” is not.
To me “evolution” just means change (etymology ‘unrolling’). In context of biological evolution it means change in living things - descent with modification. It is not nearly as loaded a term (to me) as “adaptation” which implies a useful change.
As I said before - not all evolution is useful change - and much of the non-adaptive evolution we observe is very useful in terms of tracking common descent - even within a species. How do we know that Native Americans are more closely related to East Asians than Polynesians or Europeans? From the non-adaptive evolution of the parts of their genome that doesn’t actually do anything and is thus “free” to change without consequence.
Anyway I found the difference in opinion about which was the loaded term illustrative and amusing.