An interesting article indeed, though this one bit in particular seems to be getting all the attention in this thread:
Here's an article on the same topic from BBC that doesn't require registration if anyone would like to read it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm
It would be a powerful rebuttal, if all the yammering (I won't dignify it with the term "debate") about evolution vs. creationism was confined to the realm of reason. But it isn't. The creationist position comes down to faith in the end, so as far as most of its adherents are concerned, no amount of evidence against it is going to make a bit of difference. But hey! Maybe this thread will settle things once and for all....the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
Here's an article on the same topic from BBC that doesn't require registration if anyone would like to read it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm