In the case of your first giant blue font selection, it describes a model of duplication mutation contraindicated by their study. Note that other models are indicated. Your other grouping looks like a big Tah-dah on "nonrandom." Many processes in nature, e.g natural selection, are nonrandom. Please show where it says either "Evolution does not occur" or "God operates here."
I understand it, you obviously don't. You apparently support jennyp's argument that a neutral duplication will inevitably be fixed. That is the one contraindicated. As to the random are you now disavowing the Darwinian random mutation foundation?
He understands the article perfectly. It is you who did not bother to read it that does not understand it. The article showed the opposite of what you were trying to show. You really need to read and understand what you post before you post it.