The answer was already given to you:
No they did not. The size of the genome was the same before and after the mutations. Further, as I quoted from your study the mutation was helpful only in the particular circumstance the ebg functioned worse in normal situations so as a matter of survivability, it was less prone to survive than before the mutation. This is nothing new. Breeding does the same thing, it makes the genome of the organism less adaptable, less efficient that is why pure-bred animals are less healthy than their wild counterparts.
BTW - this is similar to the case of the nylon bacteria. Nothing new here.
What a load of nonsense.
The bacteria survived far BETTER in the new environment. How they survive under previous conditions is irrelevant. Any reasonable person can see this example fulfills the definition of evolution. Novel mutations (in more than one gene) gave rise to the information to metabolize lactose. Period. Paragraph.
BTW - this is similar to the case of the nylon bacteria.
Yes this is evolution. The selection of mutations which give rise to novel traits. You must be a closet Darwinist.