I just picked your last one - it doesn't back up the claims you made.6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work. The headlines are not a misrepresentation of the data found before story telling is applied.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Not a word of the above has been successfully refuted.
It's an update on the state of affairs in discussion mutation rates. It doesn't talk about hoaxes, falsifications or anything that you falsely claim above.
Here's a quote from the middle of it:
"Geneticists have previously estimated mutation rates by comparing the human genome with the sequences of other primates. On the basis of species-divergence dates gleaned — ironically — from fossil evidence, they concluded that in human DNA, each letter mutates once every billion years.“It’s a suspiciously round number,” says Linda Vigilant, a molecular anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The suspicion turned out to be justified."
In other words, you made false, unsupported claims. Since you're a creationist, and given that creationists lie constantly, it's pretty tempting to conclude you did this on purpose. I'm not sure why you would, though, so I'll assume you just misread the article. Now that you know it doesn't back up your claim, we can reject your conclusion.