Alright, I've read the whole article now. I see Musket's point that what you posted was indeed a cut-and-paste, so it is difficult to know whether it is something you would want to defend to the death or just something you thought we'd like to read.

I assume the article is just trying to say 'not necessarily' to the people who claim it disproves Genesis. But that has no relevance at all to people who don't take Genesis literally in the first place, and I can't see dating of camels persuading any literalist, giving the much bigger oddities they have to defend.

I found the article patronising: it seemed to contain nothing that a few moments wouldn't also have revealed to anyone bothered enough to think about it.

So in short I'd be much happier hearing your views than those of a cut'n'paste.