I no longer personally subscribe to any science journals. I used to get over a dozen, including Nature, Science, and IEEE transactions on Information Theory; however, I no longer need 'personal' subscriptions as my company provides electronic subscriptions to hundreds of journals. (Some are one time fees and some I only get the abstracts for them and have to purchase text.)
OTOH, even when I had a lot of journals, I found that for the technical stuff, I had to spend many, many hours reading them to understand them. I very seldom read all of a journal. Usually, I could maybe make it through 4 - 8 articles in a month, depending on the difficulty.
Buying lots of journals isn't the same thing as buying understanding of them. The article doesn't refute evolution. You're exaggerating your case by using rhetorical techniques you accuse evolutionists of using.
It's *awful* curious that you quoted the same thing that the apologetics page quoted with the same alarmist admonitions - the same implication that somehow refutes evolution: despite the fact that no one in the article apparently believes it refutes evolution. In fact, in Forster's article in the Annals of Human Genetics doesn't indicate that this bodes ill for the theory of evolution.
Rather, there's some cleaning up to do. Evolutionists have discovered the problem. Evolutionists are fixing the problem. And the know-nothings at the various apologetics sites are crowing as if they had actually refuted something - because, as usual, they don't understand what they're reading and they're grasping at any straw they can find. As usual, creationists aren't contributing anything to understanding.
