Are his claims bogus?Or is he presenting evidence that can't be disproven?

Don't know who he is. What claims are you referring to?

http://creation.com/peter-borger

 

 

 

I'm not a creationist out trolling,btw.I'm a believer in evolution,but I don't understand it to this level to understand if he is full of it or what.

Inactivation of such redundant genes does not jeopardize the individual’s reproductive success and has no effect on survival of the species. Genetic redundancy is the big surprise of modern biology. Because there is no association between redundant genes and genetic duplications, and because redundant genes do not mutate faster than essential genes, redundancy therefore brings down more than one pillar of contemporary evolutionary thinking.

First paragraph of the first link has a glaring misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. If something does not affect reproductive success it has no reason to be selected against. If anything redundancy has evolutionary benefits because 1.) if a set of redundant gene is mutated whatever deficiency it may have created will be softened and the mutation itself could help reproductive success 2.) it allows systems to work even in the event that the first system my be functioning improperly due to injury. I am unsure of what he means about the speed of mutation. Since mutation is more or less random a redundancy could happen, in cross-over event for example, just as easily as a codon insertion/deletion.