Yes, you did give a few examples. However, it is not easy for me to evaluate your examples. The only thing I can tell is that your examples do not represent the normal situation.
What "normal situation". If it happens in nature, it is normal.
Then, the classification scheme issue came. We found that species, genus, class etc. are NOT the same thing used on bacteria and on animals.
No, what I showed was that assignments to a certain clade (genus, family etc) is arbitrary in
all organisms. In that way, bacteria do not differ from animals, since even amongst animals these classifications are not used consistently either. The only naturally occurring clade is the species, the rest is arbitrary.
So my definition of evolution (speciation) may not apply to bacteria either (progress and learning to me).
Speciation does apply to bacteria. Sex is the exchange of genetic material, speciation the point where this exchange is no longer possible. This exchange of genetic material happens between bacteria and can be impossible if the genetic distance between bacteria is too large, just as in animals. It is not the only criterium for designating a different species (neither in bacteria, nor in animals or plants), but as we have seen in this thread, it is one of the criteria used.
Obviously, we need to use an entirely "different" criteria (genetic) to evaluate the changes happened to bacteria.
To evaluate the changes that happened to animals, we need the exact same criterium. Of course, we can also use morphology to determine what happened with bacteria, another thing that you continuously keep ignoring. Not all bacteria look alike, for from it.
While I agree that evolution "can be" defined as change with time, it is not the one underlain the OP.
I couldn't care less. Learn some biology.
In the evolution/creation debate, the default definition of evolution is the species evolution happened to plants/animals.
No, the default definition is the one applied in biology, change in allele frequency over time in a population. That is the only rigorous definition of biology, no matter how much you deny it.
And as I and others have already shown in this thread, speciation also happens within bacteria.
It seems that we can agree now that this definition does not apply to bacteria.
No, we cannot. If you want to apply the same definition of speciation across all animals and plants consistently, the definition you need to use is the stop of the exchange of genetic material between two populations. This happens in bacteria just as it happens in animals, plants and fungi.
Now, a vague or an improperly defined term does not eliminate the problem. Bacteria, one of the earliest form of life appeared on the earth, are still dramatically different from megascopic form of lives in their mechanism of evolution.
Animals are also dramatically different from each other. If you don't think it's a problem for animals to be dramatically different, if you want to be consistent there is no problem in bacteria being just as different.
With this understanding or modification, the question in the OP STILL STANDS. All the debates happened so far only served to clarify the question of the OP.
The question in the OP was answered in the first few pages. Which part do you deem unanswered?