Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

No no and no again you are wrong. I teach biology at a graduate level, you are making things up.

I don't make things up, and i'm impressed you teach it at the graduate level. My teachers that believed this nonsense then is way out there just like you.

You're are wrong again,.

Definition for neo darwinism:




Web definitions:




a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.

Try modern synthesis instead, which is the proper term.

If you say so

 

[Youwerecreated]

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids, that are themselves synthesized through biochemical pathways catalysed by proteins. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself,[3][4] with reliable fossil evidence of the first life found in rocks 3.4 Gyr old.[5] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[6][7] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[8][9]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).



Read more: abiogenesis: Definition from Answers.com

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

Humans, that God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.

 

[FurthurBB]

One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?

Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?

All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.

That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

wondered that myself ,
he never did give an answer to what a "real scientist" is.

Real scientist don't have an agenda and goes where the evidence leads and when they see a problem with the theory, that we are discussing ,they speak up and tell it like it is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You misread my statement. What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want. In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact. Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive? That depends on the environment. And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator. It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop. It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know. I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory. We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing. Not that we will ever stop trying to know. The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist. None of us want to be put in that position.

You've been brainwashed.

 

[FurthurBB]

It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.

I have seen macroevolution.

 

[FurthurBB]

But look at it throught the eyes of common sense. There are limits to adapting to our enviornment,why ?

If the enviornment forces change there should be no limits.

Look at the giraffe that sucker could have starved out by the time it took for that neck to get longer. Or it could be extinct and easy pray if the sponge in the brain didn't develop quickly because when it went to get a drink of water it would have passed out and been eaten by predators.

The theory makes no sense at all. Genetics and the fossil record is a problem for the theory.

No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory. We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing. Not that we will ever stop trying to know. The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist. None of us want to be put in that position.

You've been brainwashed.

Thanks, if you think I am brainwashed I must be doing something right!

 

[FurthurBB]

It's not mutations causing chirality it's our DNA our genetics.

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.

It wasn't chance and it is not random. Have you not noticed that lots of things in nature have a similar symmetry. Even Bacteria and viruses have a certain, albeit less complex, symmetry and they do not even have homeobox genes, which we know control our symmetry. For those who never learned much biology Discovering the Homeobox.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.

I have seen macroevolution.

What ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, why would mutations create chirality when we have never seen it? You are not making any sense.

Just like you have never seen macro-evolution,but your side should be able to explain how our genes cover both left and right by chance .to believe that it just happened by chance is rediculous.

It wasn't chance and it is not random. Have you not noticed that lots of things in nature have a similar symmetry. Even Bacteria and viruses have a certain, albeit less complex, symmetry and they do not even have homeobox genes, which we know control our symmetry. For those who never learned much biology Discovering the Homeobox.

So viruses and bacteria are no longer bacteria and viruses ? That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.

 

[LOki]

Let me ask you an honest question how can you know what a crearture looked liked with less then 25 percent of the body parts ?

From that 25% I've got more explanation for it than you have for your Creator.

Let me ask you an honest question; how can you claim that "a Creator" is an explanation when you can't explain this "Creator"?

That is where faith comes in.

Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?

 

[LOki]

No real scientist believes this theory,only the hard core naturalist believes this can happen.

There are so much bacteria we would be seeing new life constantly arising if what evolutionist say happened ,happened. but what we see is a decline in the amount of living species .

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

Humans, that God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.

Odin?

 

[Youwerecreated]

From that 25% I've got more explanation for it than you have for your Creator.

Let me ask you an honest question; how can you claim that "a Creator" is an explanation when you can't explain this "Creator"?

That is where faith comes in.

Upon what basis then should your "explanation" be considered superior to any creation story unfounded in evidence and/or valid logic? On what basis should it be considered intellectually honest?

Things that were written by men in the bible at the time man had no way to know such things.

We know it takes intelligence to build and design.

Complexity don't arise on it's own.

Molecular machines can't arise on their own,they are products of design.

There is so much bacteria there should be new families of organism's constantly arising and it is not happening. We are seeing a decline in the amount of organism's not an increase.

The evcidence is overwhelming that life produces life.

We have perfectly aligned planets and if they were not Aligned properly there would be no life.

To much evidence to be ignored from a rational thinker.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, genetics and the fossil record continuously add more weight to the theory. We do not know why giraffes adapted the way they did, we do not need to know every little thing. Not that we will ever stop trying to know. The problem is when you relegate god to these gaps, you force people prove he is not there when the gaps no longer exist. None of us want to be put in that position.

You've been brainwashed.

Thanks, if you think I am brainwashed I must be doing something right!

What if you're wrong ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hmmm ... so, we live in a reducing environment where there are many reactive species swirling around? How do we survive?

Humans, that God put at the top of the food chain have done well for 5,000 years or so.

Odin?

No,YAHWEH.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Beacause we see variations in each family and the ability to adapt is not a sound reason to believe everything was a product of evolution,especially when we see what genetics can do through cross breeding and knowing the harm of mutations that cause change.

 

[Dr.Drock]

From YWC's own link

"we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet. "

"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes."

Seems he's coming around, maybe science denying is getting old to him.

Please read the whole post it is one of your guys

The parts you ignore.

" Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."

This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.

Fossil of an extinct marine
mollusk (Ammonite)
and its living descendent

Notice the admission that inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?


"The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet."

Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water

"Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."

Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.

"Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."

Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.

"There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas."

Really.But what do they do ?

"When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"



"Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."


I wonder why ? funny stuff.

"Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."


Don't sound reliable to me.

"When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."



Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?

"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. "

Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.

"When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."

I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument

Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?

"There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."


Cherry picker.

Yes most fossils given enough time erode away, are destroyed, never found or what have you. What's the point?

Doesn't mean they all are, or the ones that are found are any less credible of evidence. You can pretend that's the case to your own detriment, but not to those of us who don't spend our lives denying basic verifiable, proven science.

 

[Dr.Drock]

One other question evolutionist ignore is all organisms experience mutations,but we have fossils dated back to hundreds of thousand years ago and further back, that show no change in the same organisms at all today ,how do you explain this ?

Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?

All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.

That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.

There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen. Just impacts the likeliness.

I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

From YWC's own link

"we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet. "

"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes."

Seems he's coming around, maybe science denying is getting old to him.

Please read the whole post it is one of your guys

The parts you ignore.

" Hard body parts, such as dense bones, teeth, and shells, are what most often are preserved. It is likely that the vast majority of fossils will never be found before they are destroyed by erosion."

This fossil pictured showed very little change it is the same family still. It was just a small variation within the family.

Fossil of an extinct marine
mollusk (Ammonite)
and its living descendent

Notice the admission that inference plays a role because the lack of evidence. Why do you cherry pick ?


"The fossil record is somewhat like an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing Our interpretation of this record has been biased by differential preservation. Some species are underrepresented or have not yet been found. We are left with a somewhat blurred picture of portions of the past, especially the early past. Despite these realities, we have been able to piece together a remarkable understanding of the evolution of life on our planet."

Look at this admission,sounds like fossils are found from a rapid burial like the global flood perhaps ,lots of water

"Whether an organism is preserved greatly depends on the local environment in which it died. Plants and animals from humid tropical forests are rarely preserved because they decay rapidly in these regions. Similarly, fossils from mountainous areas rarely survive due to high rates of erosion. Desert creatures generally become fossilized more often due to the preserving arid conditions. Likewise, aquatic organisms are often well preserved if their bodies ended up in deep water where there is little oxygen and life. However, bodies in shallow intertidal zones along coastlines are quickly eaten and the remaining bones are ground into sand particles by tide and wave action."

Aha,very little is found of an organism so we have to imagine what it is and reconstruct it show it looks like a transitional fossil,i see.

"Not all bones from the same animal survive equally well. Lightweight bones with relatively large surface areas deteriorate more quickly and are, therefore, less often fossilized. Small, delicate bones are also more likely to be crushed or carried away from the rest of a skeleton by running water. Human and other primate fossils frequently consist of teeth, bits of dense jaw, skull, leg and arm bone fragments. The more porous ribs and shoulder blades are rarely preserved."

Really,biased in where they look they must be biased in their interpretations.

"There has been a bias in the fossil record resulting from the fact that paleontologists have not equally searched all areas of the globe. Because of the inaccessibility of some regions, such as Central Asia and much of Africa, their fossil records are poorly understood compared to those of Europe and North America. Many in the current generation of professional fossil hunters are now concentrating their efforts in these under represented areas."

Really.But what do they do ?

"When only one or two skeletons of a species have been discovered, there is no way of knowing how representative they are of that kind of animal. They could be typical or atypical in size and shape. Until many more specimens have been found, it is unwise to attempt a definitive species description"



"Imagine if our species becomes extinct at some distant time in the future and extraterrestrial fossil hunters visit earth and find only one human skeleton. Just by chance, it could be male or female, young or old, tall or short, normal or deviant. The extraterrestrial scientists would very likely not grasp the full range of what humans are like from this evidence and would develop an inaccurate picture of our species."


I wonder why ? funny stuff.

"Early in the 20th century, just such an error was made by the noted French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule , when he analyzed one of the first nearly complete prehistoric human skeletons found in Europe. Boule described this Neandertal specimen from la Chapelle-aux-Saints , France as a dull-witted, brutish, ape-like man who walked hunched over with a shuffling gait. This misled several generations of anthropologists. In fact, the skeleton was abnormal. The individual was a very old, arthritic man with severe, near crippling orthopedic problems. We now know that Neandertals looked much more like us than was earlier believed. Paleoanthropologists today consider them to have been either an early variety of our species, Homo sapiens , or a closely related species. The complexity and size of their brains, along with their cultural artifacts, indicate that they were far from being a dim-witted, ape-like creature."


Don't sound reliable to me.

"When paleontologists trace the evolution of a species line, they often find that there are gaps of time in the fossil record. Nineteenth century evolutionists referred to these periods in which fossils were still lacking as "missing links" in the "chain of evolution." Such gaps are often the result of changing preservation conditions in the distant past. For long periods of time, most individuals in some species may not have survived long enough after their deaths to become fossils because they were eaten, and the few fossils that were formed may have been destroyed at a high rate by increased erosion in particular regions. Gaps in the fossil record are sometimes due also to the simple fact that we have looked for them in the wrong places. The climate has dramatically changed many times in the past. When that occurred, members of the same species often died out in one region but flourished in others. Unless we are alert to this possibility and search in different geographic regions, it will look like the fossil record has been abruptly broken, only to begin again thousands or even millions of years later. Eventually, the larger gaps in the fossil record are usually filled through intensive worldwide research. This has resulted in an ever more accurate picture of the past."



Reconstruct with very little recovered of an organism,where did i hear this before ?

"Fossils show us a great deal about earlier life forms. Not only can we learn about evolutionary processes and trends, but we can also reconstruct body shapes. "

Ladies and gentlemen this is why humans are put in the same category as apes, monkey's ,and chimps.

"When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species. They expect that separate species would exhibit major differences. The populationist approach to defining species has become the dominant one in the biological sciences today. For psychological reasons, however, some important discoverers of fossils have tended to take the typological viewpoint. It is ego boosting to say that you have discovered something new and unknown rather than just another specimen of an already well known species."

I love how you cherry pick drock to make an argument

Hmm,DNA don't last long,where did i hear that ?

"There probably always will be a heated debate regarding the species identification for new fossil specimens. We cannot use the criteria of reproduction to distinguish species from fossils because it is not possible to get two skeletons to breed in order to see if they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, paleoanthropologists often take a cautious approach and use the term paleospecies instead of species. This is a group of similar fossils whose range of physical variation does not exceed the range of variation of a closely related living species. Eventually, we may be able to define ancient species more reliably on the basis of DNA samples extracted from fossil bones and other preserved tissues. At present, however, this work is just beginning and it is frustratingly hampered by the fact that DNA usually is very fragmentary in mineralized bone. The earliest human whose DNA has been studied was much less than 100,000 years old, while hominin evolution goes back to at least 4,000,000 years."


Cherry picker.

Yes most fossils given enough time erode away, are destroyed, never found or what have you. What's the point?

Doesn't mean they all are, or the ones that are found are any less credible of evidence. You can pretend that's the case to your own detriment, but not to those of us who don't spend our lives denying basic verifiable, proven science.

The fossil record is built on imagination don't you get it ?

They reconstruct creatures they have very little fossils for.

They have no tranitional fossils even though they claim they do.

Teeth and a few bone fragments is no way to reconstruct a creature.

Another problem is they have not found enough of these so called transitional fossils of the same creature to say they existed or was just a product of cross breeding or deformity.

Evidence that organisms can adapt is not evidence of macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Got any science based link that says all organisms experience mutations?

All organisms do experience mutations, that is why polymerases have error rates.

That was the wrong way to put it, this is how we know the error rates of polymerases.

There's different levels of mutation rates, but a rate doesn't guarantee a mutation is going to happen. Just impacts the likeliness.

I'll keep waiting for a science based link that says all organisms experience mutations.

Do you understand the theory you defend ?