Except, as you say, some of us are making a point of being clueless. Some of us have most definitely not "known for some time" how evolution can account for increases in complexity. You couldn't get this information into a creationist skull if you put it into a notched bullet and shot it in.
Then they won't show up on this thread.
Tell us again about random mutation, natural selection.
My eyes are glazing over - just like in college.
Actually, the vast amount of redundant and non-functional content in the human genome, despite these duplications, is a good indication that all this new available space in the genome has not given rise to increased complexity, just imperfect copies of pre-existing information.
Sometime, read "Science and Information Theory" by Nobelist Leon Brillouin. Information (ie design specifications) do not arise from nothing. Only by transfer from other, equivalent information or intelligence. It is called "negative entropy" and is governed by the second law. Raw energy input increases entropy in a system, not negative entropy (information).
The problem with the above, and with the whole article is that there is no molecular clock. There are several reasons for this the most essential one is that we do not have any examples of half billion year old DNA, 100 million year old DNA or even million year old DNA to make comparisons to. Therefore all the samples we have (with a few exceptions that can be counted on the fingers of one hand) are of current DNA. So how can one tell how far current DNA is from millions of year old DNA if one does not have something to compare it to? The answer is one cannot. The second problem is that SUPPOSEDLY all organisms now living are equally far apart from the first life as all others, so to take one as an example of 'what is older' is totally fallacious. It is using the assumptions of the theory of evolution as to how species supposedly descended from each other to prove how species supposedly descended from each other. This is circular reasoning and utter nonsense. There are more problems with the molecular clock also. Since some creatures have much shorter generations than others, and mutations supposedly occur at each reproduction (how else could they happen!) the 'mutational clock' (for that is what is really being talked about here) should be going at a completely different speed for elephanst than for flys, yet evolutionists moronically claim that it goes at the same speed.
Does it, or does it merely speculate that such has occured in animals? The duplication of genes is (according to the article) far from random. Maybe genes that get expressed the most or tend to mutate the most have the most copies. That is engineering and it does not demand a naturalistic explanation.
The article assumes that gene duplication will automatically produce an increase in complexity. There is little evidence that this is true. The reason is that there is precious little evidence that gene copies can ever become a gene with a function much different from the old gene. Because of that, all the duplications in the world won't get you from ameoba to man. It will just get you to a man with a lot of psuedogenes. We have lots of such genes, but so much "junk DNA" is conserved that some have been led to wonder if it does not have a function after all, such as steering protiens to the right part of the cell.
Human Ancestors Went Out Of Africa And Then Came Back... 
ScienceDaily | Friday, August 7, 1998 | adapted from New York University materials
Posted on 12/17/2007 8:37:11 PM EST by SunkenCiv