The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

That was an unimpressive Gish Gallop.

All claimed contrary evidence is never presented by ID/creationists.

And yet you can never tell us what these flaws are. We do know what happened. We have the evidence.

I can prove it, beyond any reasonable doubt. 1. Those skulls are arranged by their age, as determined by radiometric dating. That you see a transitional series when they are arranged by their age says a lot.2. A marmoset skull is not a marmoset skull because of its size. If you think all that matters is size then you don't know squat about paleontology or biology.3. If those skulls are not transitional, then please tell us what features these skulls are missing that a real transitional skull would have.

You have just proven that you don't know what a nested hierarchy is. You have to have at least three organisms to have a nested hierarchy.Just like the vast majority of ID/creationists, you have no idea what the evidence is or how biology works. You also can't seem to understand that it was a creationist who discovered the nested heirarchy.

Dawkins is also saying that the gaps are not real. He plainly states that the gaps are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Thank you for agreeing with us.

Depends on the organism. For humans and most mammals, somewhere around 90-95% of the genome is junk. That number varies quite a bit amongst vertebrates and eukaryotes in general. For example, there are fish genomes that are about the fifth the size of the human genome but has about the same amount of functional DNA. A recently sequenced crustacean genome is about 15 times larger than the human genome is mostly junk. The bladderwort genome is about 1/40th the size of the human genome and only ~5% of that genome is junk. Bacterial genomes have very little junk, and viral genomes have almost no junk DNA at all.If we are talking about the human genome, scientists use sequence conservation to measure the amount of junk DNA. If DNA is functional then deleterious mutations will occur in that DNA which will be selected against. As it stands, more than 90% of the human genome is not being conserved.

Sure. Invoking Satan is the way to be taken seriously in science.Mutate and Survive

That is false, but you don't seem to care about truth anyway.

You don't know. You guess. And you've guessed wrong.

We know because we have the evidence.

If we apply the model of point mutations for neutral DNA with four different bases A, C, G and T, the similarity in junk DNA should drop to 25%.If we were sharing a common ancestor with plants and insects, given the estimate that over hundreds of millions of generations have passed (or even more for many species with shorter life cycles), every base should have gone through several mutations already in the vast majority of individuals today.
It seems that we share too much DNA with such supposedly distant relatives, it does not really add up.

95% of your evidence is junk for sure.

This brings up a valid question. What is the methodology for deciding/determining or testing evidence? Is there a preconceived bias in the process or is the process simply done blindly, so as not to skew the results?

What is "it" supposed to add up to? Is there a number in mind?