You left out the best part, the conclusions of the research:
From The gain and loss of genes during 600 million years of vertebrate evolution:
Conclusion: Based on phylogenetic analyses, we show that both the mode of duplication and the
functional class the duplicated genes belong to have been of major importance for the evolution of
the vertebrates. In particular, we provide evidence that massive gene duplication (probably as a
consequence of entire genome duplications) at the dawn of vertebrate evolution might have been
particularly important for the evolution of complex vertebrates.
The research you quote from does not hinder or disprove evolution, but rather it refines our understanding of evolution, and what role gene-duplication plays in it.
The global deluge and creation account in Genesis obscures things a bit. I'd have to look into it further as to whether they really did exist, but land bridges postulated between Britain and Europe, between New Guinea and Australia allows for the migration of various animals to this region.
It always does obscure things when you add variables to your equations like... events that have no evidence of ever occuring.
How is creating a synthetic living cell evidence for evolution? Creating a synthetic living cell is evidence for intelligent design.
The experiment demonstrates that our understanding of life and microbiology is becomming quite good. As T.G. Dobzhansky said "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." When you stop looking at life as if it were a machine that was designed, and start looking at it as a machine that evolved - then it becomes apparent why this functions this way.. instead of that.
When it comes to life, biologists are damn smart. I can't create life.. they can. That's some "God-level" power right there. If 99.9% of them agree that the thing they work on every day does not show evidence of intelligent design, but instead shows evidence evolution... that's a powerful opinion.
Let's see, on the one hand we have people who can create life, have completely eliminated some diseases, have fossil evidence, and spend their whole lives on documentation and experimentation to establish fact... and on the other an unclear sometimes self-contradictory book about visions, demons, possession, virgin births, men living inside of fish, and a big ol' boat.
Is it really that difficult to determine which side has their shit together, and which side is full of it?