Agree. Evolutionists have to deal with many stubborn facts. Such as the predominance of sexual reproduction. How would a successfully mutated individual advantage its offspring by mating with a non-mutated individual and diluting or eliminating its genetic advantage in that offspring?
I was thinking the other day about all of the distinct breeds of dogs that were -- yes -- designed by human intervention. What do you think would happen if all humans were suddenly removed and those dogs ran wild and interbred? It is most likely that you would soon end up with the conglomerated brown/gray mutt that you see hanging around in poor third world countries. In other words, the dogs that may have developed some survival "advantage" over the others would nonetheless copulate with the first hot bitch -- be it chihuahua or doberman -- that they found. That's what undirected randomness involves.
The hoaxers imagine that they get to decide what is "evidence" to support the hoax. They can't be questioned. People can't say "Rubbish! You have no authority, and you desereve no respect." The "molecular" pap and the "Look! These jawbones are similar! That proves common ancestry!" pap. That's a good thing, b/c hoaxers nasty enough and dishonest enough to try to support the evo hoax, could be causing trouble in other areas.