1) He ignored the list of links that are catalogued in Part 19, and when I tried to go into further depth about the links as displayed there, he then deleted the thread and created a new one, something even the selection of Christian and Creationist mods couldn't ignore.
2) Even worse, there's precisely what I exposed about a comment of his later on in the debate:
No. You said -"The beneficial mutation is that his organisms had acquired the ability to metabolize citrate - or more correctly an ability to transport it through the cell wall prior to metabolizing it. This was an entirely new ability for this species - an increase in complexity provided by a beneficial mutation. This beneficial trait was then fixed in the population by natural selection."
To which, I posted papers showing:"E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell." www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.f
So I'm not sure of what "wordy version" you're speaking of.
Methyl Uno, you're a liar. The quoted passage appears absolutely nowhere in your cited link. When I did a Google search for the exact phrasing, what I found wasn't that website, but instead Creation.com and a whole number of other websites that presuppose Biblical Inerrancy. You are not being honest in this debate at all. The absence of that quote in the link clearly shows that you were willing to resort to falsehoods and deception in order to try and make your point. Anything from a bunch of biblical presuppositionalists (which comprises more or less *everyone* that you tout as a source for your anti-evolution pro-YEC and pro-ID claims), along with all not evidenced claims can pretty much be dismissed without evidence as per the famous quote by Christopher Hitchens. This essentially means that the rest of what you say:And why should it if e.coli normally use citrate?
You haven't thought this one through, have you?
No. It shows the exact opposite. Lenski himself called the utility, "normal".
You really need to refer to data instead of your delusion, for concept validity.
Jon, why does this surprise you when the e.coli in an original population can adapt to metabolise citrate? Adaptation is a key feature of design and does not suppose evolution at all. This is the same nonsense put forward, as see in with nylon enzyme, nylonase.
Is rendered invalid because you didn't actually quote from the study. You quoted from a Creation.com analysis of the study, a website notorious for their anti-evolution stance even in spite of the overwhelming scientific consensus where 99.9% of the world's scientists accept evolution.Present some evidence for evolution or admit you have none.
I've fulfilled my burden of proof many times over, providing you both recommended books and sites that actually properly talk about how evolution works. You have done no such thing, and have proven that you are willing to sink to any depth - including USING A QUOTE DOESN'T APPEAR AT ALL IN THE STUDY THAT YOU LINK TO - in order to try and win the argument.
You've not only lost, but you've completely embarassed yourself in the process.
I feel very pleased about that outcome. Methyl spend the rest of that thread completely trolling and refusing to answer questions, and even attributed more Creation.com quotes to respected studies. He completely fell apart, and man was it ever a glorious demise.