Adaptation within a species is evolution by definition.
It might help if you knew you were arguing against “common descent” and not “evolution”, but you obviously don't know enough about the subject to differentiate the two.
New species arise not by the genetic changes within an individual; but from the changes and selective pressures within an entire interbreeding population; much as the selective pressure of living in Europe led to pale skin in the populations that lived there.
So where does this variation that you and other creationists propose happens thousands of times faster than any evolutionary biologist proposed COME FROM? Did you not understand the question the first time, or are you trying to avoid it?
“New species arise not by the genetic changes within an individual; but from the changes and selective pressures”
Now there’s a pile of crap with no scientific support!
Just how are are these oh so carefully defined “changes and selective pressures” passed to the next generation, if not gentically?
You make no distinction between macro and micro evolution. There is a big difference!
Evolutionist alternate the terms and blur the meaning to give support to the theory that one species can evolve into another.
Microevolution is something that we belive in and can be observed. It proves that there is variation within a kind. It comes from genetics. The information was already there in the genetic code of the parents. Selective breeding or enviromental factors may play a role but they did not CREATE the information.
For example, my daughter has curly hair. No one in our family has curly hair. Somewhere in our genetics their was the code for curly hair. It was somehow selected.
That is microevolution. It does not prove or even lend support to macroevolution (one species developing into another over time) But evolutionist like to say “Oh look bacteria became drug resistant, they change (micro) so humans can evolve from a ape like ancestor (macro). That is a logical fallacy.