Haha, so predictable. Geez, I never imagined that my answer would cause you to jump to completely unjustifiable conclusions...
But just for fun, let's look at the questions you asked: what are the first three mutations that lead to a pressure sensing device.
Let's compare that with the question you're now claiming that you asked: how do mutations and natural selection actually build novelty and complexity.
In case you have forgotten, you didn't ask that second question, you only asked the first. My answer to the second question is NOT "unknown". But you did not ask that question. And your desire to print a revisionist history on this board is transparent.
As for your final comment on the article from PLoS, congratulations on finally finding a peer-reviewed journal. You're heading in the right direction. I really am proud of you. I'm wondering what conclusion you are drawing from this paper. Do you understand the scope of what the authors measured? Have you read the responses? Because the process for publishing a paper in PLoS is different than it is for most journals, it is vital for readers to read the responses. Here is one such response to this paper:
1. From Steven Goodman, As. Prof., Johns Hopkins:
~"So the model employed cannot be considered a proof that most published claims are untrue, but is rather a claim that no study or combination of studies can ever provide convincing evidence."
~"In addition to the above problems, the paper claims to have proven something it describes as paradoxical; that the “hotter” an area is (i.e. the more studies published), the more likely studies in that area are to make false claims. We have shown this claim to be erroneous (www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135)."
~"the claims that the model employed in this paper constitutes a “proof” that most published medical research claims are false, and that research in “hot” areas is most likely to be false, are unfounded."
Again, what exactly do you take from this paper? Should we, ironically, decide that Ioannidis's (the study's author) claims also are false? Are we debating the theory of evolution, or are we debating the value of science in general?