[Junior]

1) You have been shown time and again on these threads the way evolution explains the fossil record (that morphological changes describe evolution). Your inability to absorb or even remember this is a testament to your cognitive abilities. Now, how do you explain the fossil record? Oh, I forgot -- you can't. You have nothing. You can only sit and carp while science passes you by. So, put up or shut up and be relegated to my "ignore file."

2) Your article does not indicate that DNA evidence refutes evolution. It does indicate a couple of researchers have found flaws in another researcher's work. That is science, as if you'd know. The creos haven't done any actual research because they know what they'll find.

[gore3000]

1) You have been shown time and again on these threads the way evolution explains the fossil record.

And I completely reject the silly explanations that have been given. There is no satisfactory explanation for the Cambrian and for the lack of intermediate fossils in all important places that is why you do not wish to discuss it.

2) Your article does not indicate that DNA evidence refutes evolution.

Of course it does. To create a new gene ab novo is almost impossible. Even a small gene with some 300 codons is an impossibly hard thing to happen since the chances are 22^300 (an average gene has some 300 codons). A single one of these new genes would be an almost miraculous event but it would be possible, however since duplicate genes only serve functions to the original, for evolution to be true you would need millions of totally new genes to account for all the differences between the millions of species in existence.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I thought you'd given up on g3? ;)