Evidence of DNA isn't ancient. Mendel, a monk with the RCC, by the way, first discovered genetics in 1857. That's not ancient.<quoted text>
You should consider giving up the word "therefore." It's pretty contemptible to put words into my mouth, too.
Evidence for DNA is ancient. It was long known that there was a heritable factor being innoculated into the mother by the father. That would turn out to be DNA.
The rest has been refining our understanding of just what that factor is. Evidence has been piling up since Gregor Mendel demonstrated the presence of dominant and recessive genes being transmitted through generations of living things. They woul dturn out to be made of DNA.
DNA wasn't a surprise, just its location and structure, after which it was named. That's why the abbreviation "DNA" had to wait for the mid-twentieth century to be coined. But the scientists who found it were looking for it - racing to be first, in fact.
So whatchu you talkin''bout absence of evidence here?
And speaking of which, where's the analogous evidence for a god? You should have found your god before we found the DNA.
Besides, you cleverly dodged my point, which refuted yours.
You say that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence - YOUR words.
Then before DNA was discovered (no evidence of it), it was absent, according to you.