First of all, the word "evo" is a term of derision which translates roughly as: "since I hate science and can't argue with facts and reason, I'll just call you nasty names."
Second, to answer your question: over the long period of four billion years, all DNA codings were once mutations from whatever came before.
Useful mutations survived, multiplied and so became standard in following generations.
But the rate of DNA mutations is quite small -- maybe one per generation -- and most are not helpful.
Finally, computer comparisons of different DNAs from around the world can show which mutation-changes are relatively recent and which more ancient.
Evo is simply short for evolutionist which nobody wants to take the time to write out fully every time used. If you take it as an insult I cannot help that. I will refer to Republicans as Repubs and certainly am not insulting all Republicans. Second, you were extremely insulting with your comment: "First of all, the word "evo" is a term of derision which translates roughly as: "since I hate science and can't argue with facts and reason, I'll just call you nasty names." It seems that clearly you are doing the exact thing you accused me of doing in triplicate so who is reverting to name calling instead of logic? And who is judging somebody's heart saying that someone hates science just because they do not agree with you? I love science.
Finally, computer comparisons of different DNAs from around the world can show which mutation-changes are relatively recent and which more ancient.
What perimeters do they base their comparisons on or do we simply trust them blindly. I prefer to know the basis, or assumptions, that analysis are built upon. There is a lot of fraud out there in the scientific community as well as in almost every other aspect of society today. In case you haven't noticed we are being scammed on all different levels of society today. People in academia have a lot of motivation to falsify their data in order to get acceptance by others in their fields, grants, prestige, and advancement, plus they may be just ill informed by previous false but highly accepted assumptions.
Just look at what is perpetrated in the name of science when it comes to the green house agenda if you want to know the kind of thing I am referring to. Since this view is the view promoted by academia, for whatever reasons, then data that supports green house warming is pushed through the system, even if changing that data is required while data that doesn't support the promotion of the warming of the planet is summarily left out. Those who do not go along with the status quo are not promoted, loose their grants and may even be, if not tenured, let go. The system is set up to keep the lie going, excluding the truth at every level. Those that do not believe that the green house effect is ruining the environment keep their mouths shut if they want to be accepted by academia.
The informed see the same kind of thing happening at many levels of society and in all kinds of fields of study. It happened starting many years earlier concerning the theory of evolution and this false theory has become even much more extremely entrenched in academia then the green house effect has even begun to be. It is a irrefutable "fact" to many of those who have been indoctrinated since their early childhood to believe in it. Only by an act of clarity from Almighty God can those so indoctrinated ever be expected to escape from it. Hate evolutionist? No I don't hate evolutionist, I pity them as victims of a system of propaganda exceedingly hard to escape out of. After all, I use to be an atheist who thought evolution was fact myself. I didn't stop believing in evolution because I became a Christian but rather before I became a Christian based upon a search into fact.