DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[pocaracas]

No problem with the journal.  But if someone says something is in it, then they should provide the reference.  If not, no point.   What have they found that they think is relevant and others should know?  Isn't that the basis even for writing journal material?  We include our sources so people can follow us without having to dig through an entire stack of science journals.

I don't need help.  I need proof.  If the proof is there, then that will be sufficient.

I think I see your problem.
And I'm sorry. No scientist will give you proof of anything, except mathematicians.

All you get is evidence. Evidence can overwhelmingly point in one direction, but it will never prove things beyond any (reasonable or unreasonable) doubt.

If you want the very first publication where many examples of evolution in action are given, look no further than Darwin's "On the Origin of Species": http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pd...Y_F382.pdf

It is known that this first approach has a few errors, flaws and missing details.
To correct those that have been spotted, biologists have developed what they nowadays refer to as "Modern synthesis", and here is the wiki version of its description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_syn...h_century).
As with any scientific wiki page, at the end, you'll find references to reputable publications. You'll notice that there are many for this page alone. What you want is the aggregate of all those references and, very likely, the references within those and, still likely, the references within these...
It is a huge endeavor, when you want to get the whole picture, to as complete a degree as someone with multiple PhDs on the subject.
Personally, I'm happy with accepting the contents of the wiki as trustworthy enough.
Good luck!