Pleasuring meeting @Babs!
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
We welcome questions. Please excuse the gruffness of some of our scientists, that’s just how we sometimes are, but we genuinely enjoy questions from the public.
I’ve written on this elsewhere. Perhaps this will help:
That formula + common ancestry predicts a large range of patterns in DNA. Common ancestry is important because it means that all the clocks have the same starting point in the past. That is why scientists think common ancestry is true. To reject it we would need to see a mathematical theory of equivalent rigor that makes predictions this well or better.
This may take some time to sink in, so feel free to ask some questions.
There are host of reasons the trees computed in different ways are not exactly the same. But they are very close to one another, and that is surprising. It did not have to be that way. We can imagine other ways God could have created life independent, but this is what we expect with common descent. So it just looks like God created us by common descent.
I am familiar with the claim but unfamiliar with evidence supporting it.
Yes. Thankfully, there are ethical rules against even attempting this. Can you imagine?
There is some evidence of this in a non-durable way, that might last just one or two generations. It is much more difficult to see any examples that really change the AGTC’s of our code to create more lasting changes.