No, not as you were applying it. I cited Lenski, you challenged my conclusions. Lenski did not create E. coli. There was already E. coli in existence, Lenski simply observed it evolving new traits. We are talking about the origins of those specific traits, not the origins of life itself.
Lets look at how the conversation went. It started with hooradmouth claiming that brainless tobacco plants displayed intelligence by adjusting their flowering times to twort catipllar attacks. (See post 270) And thereby threw a wrench in my whole apc concept. To which I pointed out that the changes did not take place within the same generation, but through the natural selection process of choosing alleles that probably already existed in the population but were just not dominant. (See post 278)
My comment was that creationists argue that these alleles were likely designed into the species for just such a purpose, from creation (their origins). To that you commented:
We know that alleles are based on DNA sequences. We know that DNA mutates. We know that mutations in the DNA affect changes in these alleles. We know that these changes include functional changes that allow the organism to independently develop new survival advantages. What more do we need to know here? We basically know that new alleles can be derived simply through the regular process of evolution.
You were obviously referring to Lenski's studies here because that was what you brought up when you were challenged. And you are also clearly using them as evidence to suggest that evolution is the explanation for the "origins" of these alleles. So again, the burden of proof falls directly upon the one using the studies in this manor.
That means it would be on the shoulders of the person using this as "evidence," to prove that the mutations did not occur at a rate that was too high for random mutations to produce.