"Second, you have changed your tune with respect to how mutations occur. Fantastic. Yes I agree, there are many ways that mutations occur. We're moving forward."
It's interesting that your faith in evolution precludes the fact that you don't know how it actually occurs. When given the chance to reflect your vast knowledge of it, this is all you could offer:
"The answers to your questions are unknown."
Do you believe that theories MUST be backed up with empirical evidence in order for them to be considered fact or is it OK to toss out claims and promote them as fact with absolutely no empirical evidence behind them?
In regard to your comment:
"I directly quoted many peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you don't believe what I wrote, read the article, then e-mail the corresponding authors of the articles. They'll tell you what they meant, then they'll provide the data to back up what they wrote."
Yes, they also make up wild claims with absolutely no empiral evidence substaintiating them:
The following is from a peer-reviewed journal published by the Public Library of Science:
Summary: “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
“Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, … Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
“This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing and disseminating its most impressive “positive” results. “Negative” results may become attractive for dissemination only if some other team has found a “positive” association on the same question. In that case, it may be attractive to refute a claim made in some prestigious journal. The term Proteus phenomenon has been coined to describe this phenomenon of rapidly alternating extreme research claims and extremely opposite refutations. Empirical evidence suggests that this sequence of extreme opposites is very common in molecular genetics.”