I'm really not about beating one drum (or whatever the cliche is) and I do appreciate your responses, BUT, couldn't great, great discoveries be made in DNA research with no regard to whether certain structures or features are relics or fossils from millions of years ago.
The DNA researcher conducting "natural selection" in the lab is simply adjusting variables - that's what experimentation is - I don't see how any opinion on the history of the DNA makes any difference to the outcome. Any predictions of the outcome of the experiments based on evolution seem impossible, in light of the aforementioned multiple factors of the "mechanism of change".
It seems that very definite predictions can be made based simply on understanding the NATURE of what is there right now.
It's the fact that there is a history that matters. Also, one can use the history as an indicator of the future even if not a predictor.