[[If DNA cannot be used to determine kinship, there are a lot of court decisions that need to be reversed.]]
you’ve made this statement several times in several threads- DNA comparison for court cases has absolutely no relevence to Genetic change that supposedly happeend in species- Common design accounts for similarities, however it does not need to ifner relatedness. Genetic comparisons in cases of relations shows FAR more similarities than does say even a man and ape comparison.
It's not the quantity of similarities and differences, but the nesting that argues for kinship. The best evidence is not the nesting of common coding genes, but the nesting of retrovirus scars in the genome.
The nestability of non-coding DNA has other implications.
The whole premise of intelligent design and common design rests on the analogy with human designers. After all, humans are the only designers we can actually observe.
But we have many examples of genomes designed or modified by humans — plant crops, insulin producing bacteria and so forth — and all of them have an instantly identifiable characteristic: they don’t nest. They can’t be the product of common descent.
So if we are using the designer analogy, we can sort living things into two categories: those things that fit the nested hierarchy required by the common descent hypothesis, and those things that don’t. The things that don’t fit are known to have been designed by humans.