I have not misinterpreted anything at all. The majority of the research articles I can present are peer reviewed research, including the one on the deteriorating human genome. You have flown from that and resorted again to hubris and opinion.Congratulations Mav, you misinterpreted another article. And what is that supposed to prove?
The writers of that paper clearly do not believe what you believe so why do you think that it supports you in any way?
All you have offered to date is a mixture of articles that you did not understand and misinterpreted. eaily debunkable sources, and the rare fringe article of dubious veracity.
And this last article is from a bit of a questionable source. Due to economics open access journals are less reliable than regular peer reviewed journals. The peer review of your article is a bit dubious to say the least.
My argument on arch still stands that it is a feathered dinosaur and nothing more with a reversed hallux predating it by 60my.
You bombed out on junk dna and cannot wipe that egg off your face nor can you refute that creos have had a prediction validated whilst you could not even make one.
Your choice to handwave the above away does not make it go away.
So again you are full of hubris and scratch around trying to score useless points and offer gibberish.
You evotards wanted peer reviewed research and you got it. Now you are still quacking, when you basically present nothing more than your twoddly opinion and stuff all peer reviewed research of your own. Hypocrites!. You ridicule peer reviewed research on the back of your uneducated opinion when it suits you.
Evos look better when they are chasing their tails in philosophy. That way no one can easily tell how ignorant some are.