EB, can you please identify the source of your information?  You have a tendency not to do that, and it would be very helpful if you would.  I did not represent Lenski's results without referring to a source.

That statement is true only for anoxic conditions.  E coli cannot metabolize it under oxic conditions, and the odds were astronomical that it could do that.  Hence, as the original Lenski article pointed out, "E. coli cells cannot grow on citrate under oxic conditions, and that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species."  Note the expression defining characteristic.  Lenski conducted 12 longitudinal studies, but only one of his populations evolved the trait, and that population had an interesting history.  You ought to actually read the original article instead of anti-evolution screeds on the internet.

In fact, it appears that almost all of what you wrote was lifted from Purdom's article.  In the future, it would be a good idea to cite the reference up front.  I consider it a good thing that you actually went out of your way to uncover that information.  I read her article and Gerlach's rebuttal.  I leave it to you to read his rebuttal.

I don't pretend to understand all of the biology or chemistry in Lenski's article, and I think that you are also out of your league when you start talking about the catabalization of citrates, much of which was uncredited cut-and-paste or attempts to paraphrase from Purdom.  I don't think that you intended so much to deceive as I think that you were deliberately being coy in order to impress readers with your understanding of biology. 

Having been a teacher, I've seen that sort of plagiarization before in students, and it is pretty easy to spot.

The idea that laboratories are intelligently created should not be confused with a laboratory experiment that demonstrates unguided evolution in a species of bacteria.

Sometimes you do try to paraphrase what you read, but you don't do a very good job.  Having the source material often helps me to understand the point you are trying to make.  For example, I now have a better grasp of where you are coming from with your frequent references to the loss and gain of genetic information.  I thought that you were trying to paraphrase Dembski, but it now seems more likely that you were likely refencing Werner Gitt's somewhat discredited ideas on information theory.  Gitt has some background in information theory, but he makes some basic mistakes, not the least of which is his confused notion that information always implies intelligent design.  In fact, information theory is more about signal processing than semantics.  In any case, as I've made clear in the past, the claims about increases and decreases in genetic information are simply irrelevant.  Evolution theory makes no claims one way or the other about information.

I'll just reiterate that I often have trouble understanding the point you are trying to get across because it is garbled either by failure to proofread what you wrote or an imperfect grasp of the material you are trying to paraphrase.  The discussion in this thread was a case in point.  Your comments became much clearer once I had access to the source material.

You can attempt to treat your behavior as inconsequential, but it really weakens your argument when you are caught trying to use the work of others to puff up your own image.

You have already been caught cutting and pasting material under your name without citing its source.  It is less serious (i.e. actually legal) to paraphrase the material of others, but it is still intellectually dishonest to pass off the arguments of others as purely you own thoughts on a subject.  The whole point of writing papers in school is not just to teach critical thinking, but to teach you how to make a well-structured argument.  You aren't required to do a term paper here, but you are expected to make honest, coherent arguments.

Again, you aren't making a coherent argument here.  An experiment is always "guided" in the sense that conditions are controlled in order to eliminate extraneous factors.  Are you claiming that Lenski somehow caused the evolutionary mutation by some kind of dishonest manipulation?  How do you think that the laboratory conditions biased the data or the conclusions?