Is a recent PNAS paper a knock against evolution? Does it support a "the concept of a preexistent design, with front-loaded genetic programs"?

Nonsense. PZ explains why. Go read this if you're at all tempted to believe the intelligent design peanut gallery over at Uncommon Dissent. Remember, those guys do no science - they have no labs, they do no field work, they don't test any hypotheses. They just sit back and distort the latest findings published by real scientists.