Sorry Earnest, I was in a hurry this morning...
First of all, I'm not sure if you are even clear on the term 'mtDNA Eve'.
Make people alive today X0. Make the mothers of those people X1. All the mtDNA of the people in X will be represented in X1. X1 will be smaller than X. Make the mothers of X1 = X2. X2 will be smaller than X1, but all the mtDNA of the people in X1 and in X will be represented in X2. Carry on the regression. With each successive generation, Xx (where x indicates the generations from present) is smaller. Eventually, the population of Xx = 1. That is mtDNA Eve.
Thus mtDNA Eve is a fact, provable mathematically. This is well known.
Now, you are interested in knowing if;
"it is possible to determine the mitochondrial DNA of fossils whether they be hominid or simian".
Well, beyond about 50,000-100,000 years so much degradation of DNA takes place it is not posssible with current techniques to do good work with the surviving DNA. There may be a limit to what is possible even with better technology. This is well known.
Now, quite why you want to know about mtDNA to determine whether a fossil is hominid or simian, when you would get as good an answer from 'normal' DNA, is why I was such a grouchy camper.
If you knew more about the subject, you would not have asked the question, as you would know DNA degrades significantly after about 50,000 years, and that asking specifically about mtDNA was pointless as normal DNA is just as good.
Thus my analogy about a painter. It was obvious to one extent or the other, you didn't know what you were talking about. You might object to me saying this, and I know why you object to me saying it - it's called the democratic fallacy; that everyone's opinion is as good as everyone elses'.
This is demonstrably untrue, but time and time again I have had to contend with people who, to one extent or the other, didn't know what they were talking about, and were using this 'position of authority' to make sweeping statements or assertations that they would not make if they knew their subject.
The fact that mitochondrial DNA proves that we have a common female ancestor can either point to an ancestor that evolved or one that was created.
Does it? It clearly indicates that the Biblical account of creation is hogwash, as mtDNA Eve lived long long before any Biblical Eve (I can detail how and why). But beyond giving a time point for that common ancestor, it doesn't prove diddly either way as regards origins. You are wrong. Oh, and how can I be a fundamentalist if I point out mistakes you make in an open ended fashion like that? Please try to make your insults more amusing and accurate.
Please realise, I claim no extra intelligence in this, I just have read a few books more on the subject than you.
You might notice I don't often have big debates about the Bible as a historical book. Why? Because I know my strengths! I no sooner expect people to put up with my ignorance of detail in a debate on a subject than I expect people to foist their ignorance on a subject on me. I actually think it would be rude to try and pass myself of as a Biblical expert unless I was one... yet time and time again Creationist apologetics try to pass themselves off as knowledgable when they are not. Your complaining about this is pointless as your time complaining would be better put to reading, as then you can rubbish me when I make elementary mistakes.
Harsh but fair, sad but true.
Creation is also a theory
Yes, without any supporting evidence. Evolution is a theory WITH supporting evidence.
You can nit-pick at Evolutionary theory, it doesn't change the facts evolution HAS evidence. God/creation has none, unless you accept interior proofs, which are objectively unprovable and create massive logical/moral quandries about the nature of god.
Avoiding this particular Gordian knot is something believers in supernatural entities are VERY good at. It convinces them, at any rate...