Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

Evidence should also show a relatively young genetic marker in the dna of only a very small subset of people, with no common ancestor between them and the rest of us before the timeline of "the fall".
(falsifiable predictions are bawss)

Why would it? Adam and eve were created in the beginning not at the fall. They were as old as the earth itself.

Because you've set up a scenario where other humans were out procreating like mad for all that time, but not with those two. So that "other" group of human beings would have markers that give us a general idea of how many generations the mtDNA has gone through. There would be substantially fewer in the subset of "Adam" and "Eve"s offspring. There would be no possibility of the two populations mixing before "the fall", and we would see the introduction of novel genetic code after "the fall". You really have no fucking clue, do you? I've said this before, but it deserves mention again. The faithful have never managed to conceive of a god or stories about gods that are not falsifiable. They do make predictions, each and every one. They all fail to produce results along the lines of the predictions they themselves chose. Handwaving is not evidence, and you have made claims, now, demonstrate the evidence. Some of us have been nice enough to point you in the right direction, if you were actually interested in backing your personal genesis narrative with some substance.