And this is something we wouldn't have learned from an honest investigation of life sciences?
Indeed the investigation of life proceeds in spite of evolution. Scientists did not ask themselves before discovering DNA if it was in accordance with evolutionary theory or not, they went to try to find out what made humans tick regardless of what any theory might say and regardless of what the new discovery might disclose.
As to mtDNA, the evolutionists use it to prove evolution, but only when it fits the theory. A quite interesting example of evolution "science" can be found at Mammalian Genome. First evolutionists tried to use mitochondrial DNA to show the relationships between the monotremes (platypus), the eutherians (kangaroos) and the placentals (all other mammals). The mtDNA did not give them the desired results "The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study have been discounted recently by mytochondrial DNA evidence". So of course the evos could not let that happen, so they had to try again. They then tried DNA hybridization. However, under this method also Darwinian theory was refuted "It is significant that apomorphies of the theran ancestors, such as the braincase, cranial nerve architecture, and reproductive physiology" had to be reclassified as convergences under these two tests. So of course they had to pick another test to get the results they wished - a totally new one called MP6/IG2FR!
When evolutionists claim that DNA of any kind supports their theory it is because they have been very selective in their choices.
Thank you for relating these facts and your perspectives. It's good that at least those scientists are scientific enough to record their results, even when they drop them in order to go on with what supports theories of and hopes for spontaneous transitions.
I'm going to take my mother to the stores now.
Besides, I think we've made our points in this thread, well enough. Think so? There's still a bit of a weekend out there for me.