A question about evolution on a sunny Sunday morning

I know that I have some readers that do not believe in evolution.

How do you explain this?

In June 2008 the popular science magazine New Scientist printed a story about Professor Richard Lenski's twenty-year project examining the evolution of E. coli.[1] They reported that, as a result of several beneficial mutations, 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.
It is also important to notice that before acquiring this ability the bacteria acquired a previous potentiating mutation which, although it was not clearly beneficial at the time, subsequently allowed the descendants of that potentiated group the ability to process citrate after a further mutation. Furthermore frozen descendants of that group, and only the frozen descendants of that group, retained the ability to re-evolve that favorable trait.
His group did not use genetic engineering to modify the organism (to design it), it was produced entirely by the evolutionary process.

If you say, "they are still the same KIND of thing (a bacteria)" then you have to explain in detail what you mean by the word KIND.

if you  say "well that is micro-evolution and not macro-evolution" then you have to explain in detail where the dividing line between the two concepts lies.

Vague hand-waving will not suffice for either of these two things.

If you cite someone, please include a link to a description of their work and a simple Google search on their name with the word "debunked" added to the end shouldn't bring up thousands of hits.

I will talk about any answers I get in a subsequent post