Oh please. I cut off nothing. I provided the first two paragraphs as an excerpt, and a link to the original article.
Funny, when I excerpt a paragraph and post a link I am accused of deception, but here you are following the practice I follow consistently and you claim it is perfectly legitimate. Well, on that I can agree with you, it is a legitmate way of posting on threads quite similar to what has been done in the academic world for centuries. However, that it was the first two paragraphs is not correct, but that is minutae and we can let it pass for more important things.
The important point, which you failed to address is that the scientific facts whose discovery is pointed out in the article are contrary to what evolutionists are saying. In fact you do not address anything I stated, to whit:
Now the fact that human retroviruses are different from those of monkeys can be scientifically established. That what the evolutionists once called 'junk DNA' is being put to use is also a scientifically verifiable and verified fact as the article tells us. However the part of the 'growing body of evidence' is total garbage and of course they do not mention the evidence. It is just evo gobbledygook which can in no way be scientifically verified. In other words it is story telling, not science.
Believe it or not, the article was placed there because of the scientific discoveries it showed, not because of the evolutionist rhetoric which is totally baseless. The opinions of those who wrote the article are irrelevant, it is the facts that count because science is about facts not rhetoric and that is why evolution is not science.
I think readers will make up their own minds.
I think the article speaks for itself. I recommend reading it.