And this is something we wouldn't have learned from an honest investigation of life sciences? How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?
I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.
Pinging a few others, due to my limits of knowledge of cellular biology.
It's something that was learned from an honest investigation of life sciences.
How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?
If an exploration of the development of life obviates God, then I submit that this is because our understanding of God is limited and imperfect. We will simply have to rethink the nature of God, given that our current understanding is inherently flawed. Needless to say, this is our fault, not God's.
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.