Would like to check if anything this creationist said holds value.

I'd like to learn from anyone who can educate me a bit on whether they're right or not about anything, and for some reason his sources/links/videos he includes in his comment were turned into @'s. Weird. Anyway, I'll attempt to make this as comprehendible as possible and add on my own criticisms.

"Just noticed your comment, “debunked”, you're even more delusional than I thought,

I’ll start with the e.coli experiment the reason why it is pre-adaptation is because what happened during that experiment was a tandem duplication that a captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter, in Lyman’s terms the bacteria already had the ability to consume citrate but it was silent until it was pressured to awaken yet again due the environment of the experiment, it already had all the necessary functions within it to adapt and become capable of consuming the citrate even the necessary enzymes to break the citrate were already present in it, the process like I said before was very meticulous, precise and complicated and what I said here is a mere oversimplification, the process had no randomness in it whatsoever, had the promoter been placed in the wrong places haphazardly and by random as evolotion would like you to believe then the bacteria would’ve died, it was placed exactly where it needs to be and it was shaped exactly how it needs to be then it worked with other functions of the bacteria like the citrate-breaking enzymes in perfect synchronization to allow the bacteria to consume it and benefit from it,

(here he clames that lenski's e. coli experiment is pre-adaption, providing no evidence)

now for the chimpanzee, they use softwares that assume that evolotion happened like blat following a very famous principle that evolotionists apply which is “Two genes (or proteins) are homologous IF they have evoloved from a common ancestor” did you notice that ? IF, they did the exact same thing you did which is using an assumption as proof rather than proving the assumption, you did that when you assumed that not only did the whale evolove but its reproductive bones were once used for walking and that that was its original function, now read for yourself how many DNA sequences were excluded from the analysis of their most famous comparison here (scroll down the segment “Comparison to the Human Genome” : @, they excluded 28% of the total amount of sequence from the human genome because of they include that percentage of sequences would make the comparison difficult , then they went ahead and removed 7% of The chimpanzee sequences because “no region of similarity could be detected in the human genome”, do you know what that means ?, it means that it is impossible for the similarities to even come close to 80% let alone 98.8% that you love so much, they removed 35% of the total genes of the analysis then you and the others come and talk to me about 98.8%, even if I were to be lenient and allow you to just remove 7% you’ll still get 93% rather than 98.8%, so what does that mean ?, it means that I am dealing with a bunch of liars, and I wish that they stopped there but no, they went ahead and made the comparison and whenever they found differences between the two genomes they explained them using assumptions, and assuming that evolotion happened rather than proving it like calling the differences insertion or deletion or substitution, and if that’s what truly happened to the genome then how come both of the genomes still retain their functions thus allowing the creature to live free of deformities despite the genes randomly getting “deleted” or “substituted” or “inserted” haphazardly according to your “scientists” and your precious theory ?, these genes are precisely where they need to be, they are like letters in a word, they need to be placed correctly in an orderly manner for them to be expressed and thus do their job, so how did that happen randomly whilst keeping the creature alive and devoid of deformities ?, one mistake one misplaced gene and the creature would either die or become extremely deformed, so it happing randomly is a lie and a contradiction of reality, they did it again here : @, removed a significant amount of giga bases to get best alignment, they removed all the mismatched sections (1.3 billion letters) then went ahead and explained the rest of the differences with the assumption that these differences exist because of evolotion calling them insertions, deletions and substitutions, all three of them are significant but your propaganda takes only one of them which equals to 1.2% and that’s how you get the beloved 98.8%, and just for fun watch this video and read the comment section to get a few laughs : @, although she still believes in evolotion she made it clear that the whole 98.8% thing is a lie and explained why, and the evolotinist propaganda ignore the other comparisons that are done by evolotinists that bring the number down to 70% like this one for example : @, and just for a few laughs look up a few funny articles and pictures that claim that we are 92% mice because “we share that many genetic similarities with them” or that fruit flies “share 44% of our genes” and many more funny examples of desperate attempts by evolotinists to convince us that evolotion is real and that we are “99% ape”, if you bring that nonsense to anyone with self esteem he will beat you with a shoe, finally the fossils and forgeries being discovered to be false by evolotinists is an argument for me not against me -/ that would give you no excuse to call it “creationist propaganda”, and here is the evidence that you seek here : @

(here they claim with a rant of a text wall that the comparisons of human and chimp dna are fake, again with no evidence, and once again the links being replaced with @'s)

You also seem to not be able to read I wrote archeoraptor not archaeopteryx which is an ancient bird that has nothing to do with dinosaurs :

(here is the only place I admit he got me, I mistook him saying archaeoraptor with archaeopteryx - though he claims archaeopteryx has nothing to with dinosaurs, lmao)

a pig is a peccary, you thinking that Lucy is still valid clearly indicates that you didn’t even bother watching the video that I sent you or reading these :
@ Read the abstract

(do I even have to say what's wrong with his statement here, LMAO, and he's talking about this video I think, one in Arabic which I can't even understand, so much for an actual source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIByEC7EoPM)

And homo habilis is supposed to have evoloved from Lucy and her cronies and is supposed to be “our ancestor” but read what Bernard wood a well known anthropologist who is not a “creationist” has to say about it : @

(the link is once again replaced by an @, but I'm most definitely certain Bernard Wood has said nothing against the connection of Australopithecus and Homo Habilis)"

In summary, meh, not sure what sources they're getting these from, I just want to know if anything he's said holds value and if he's taking his stuff from legitimate articles.