And it has been. Now it's your turn. And, as for your contention that DNA denies evolution, nothing in the literature says that, indeed it states exactly the opposite -- that DNA evidence supports the evolutionist view of things. Unless, of course, you have any actual scholarship to back up your claims. Oh, I forgot, you don't actually do any research on the creo side, you simply carp at the guys down in the trenches doing the dirty work.
Now do a search on ‘Darwin gemmules’ and see what he speculated about what we now know as DNA. He was not a scientist mind you, so cut him some slack.
Was DNA what he predicted or was DNA something that was used to try to fit a preconceived notion? Does DNA fit better into a design scenario or a ‘no design necessary scenario’ as Darwin envisioned?
We will probably see two different things, but I hope you understand the general scientific philosophical flaw that I am suggesting.
And it has been.
You need to refute my post, not give us the nonsense that 'someone said it sometime somewhere'. Same for DNA, I gave you facts, I backed it up with articles. Your statement just means you disagree. We already knew your opinion, what we want is facts disproving my statements. Everyone has an opinion, I have the facts:
DURHAM, N.C. -- Classifying kangaroos and platypuses together on the evolutionary family tree is as absurd as adding your neighbors to your own family ancestral line simply because they share your love of the opera, according to scientists at Duke University.
But the current molecular method of using mitochondrial DNA to classify how mammals evolved is so flawed that it might have erroneously linked very different mammals, the scientists said. The mitochondrial DNA method of analyzing mammals has turned on its head the common-sense approach of linking mammals by similar anatomical traits or "morphology," they said.
Using a more comprehensive method to analyze the genetic material of 15 types of mammals, Duke researchers have shown that the mitochondrial DNA method that links disparate animals (hippo and whale, kangaroo and platypus) is statistically unreliable when it comes to evolutionary genetics, said Randy Jirtle, professor of radiation oncology at Duke University Medical Center. Their own research using nuclear genes (genes from the nucleus or core of cells) has shown a nearly 100 percent statistical likelihood that the Duke results are correct.
From: Kangarood and Platypus Not Related .
As you can read above, the evo 'scientists' threw out mtDNA as evidence of relationship and made up a totally subjective (and unexplained) 'scientific' analysis to prove their theory. In other words, since the DNA disproved their theory, they made up a new method that would. So no, DNA evidence disproves descent.