DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

This is a terrible argument.  Cherry picking scientists who only say what you want them to say wouldn't be scientific. That's why we have peer review.   If someone shares scientific work, that is the standard they are held by regardless of religion, ideology, or worldview.  As soon as you start adding unnecessary bias, then you begin floating out of the realm of scientific study.

Have your read Stephen Myer's books?  They are not peer reviewed, nor are they "scientific work".  Yes, adding unnecessary bias is not desirable, as is writing about something you have never read.

Why would his books necessarily be peer-reviewed?  They can be, but depending on the nature of the scientific work, a lot of times books aren't.  You may get a foreword from someone in a similar field with an endorsement.  Now journal articles are usually different when it comes to scientific works because they're meant to be a short rundown of the study and it's easy to use as a resource by looking at the parameters and numerical values assigned to variable.

I haven't read any of Stephen Myer's books personally.  Can you share something from one of them and why you dispute his findings and what you would assert differently through your own studies?

---

It has been disputed.  Here's one example.

There are plenty more as well.

We're not talking about a UCA. DNA PROVES humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. 
5 articles that dispute that should do.

If you keep changing your requirements or demands every time someone refutes one of your claims, then say "I meant that" then it seems begins to appear disingenuous.  Simply saying "DNA proves" doesn't demonstrate how it proves.  That's why it's good to use citations if you can't explain it outright in your own terms, and still it's good to provide sources for credibility, and absolutely if you're sharing someone else's work.