No they do not all arise from mutations. That's the whole point.
That indicates some kind of code and that code is not DNA.
What evidence do you have that all prions are the product of DNA? Perhaps they are one of the precursors that eventually became DNA? Like mitochondria in cells were once seperate organisms? They don't have to produce themselves to have a code. The very fact that they can transform proteins is code is it not? And that code is not DNA.
The problem with all this is that evolution is still the best theory that fits all the available facts. Unless you want to throw in Deus ex Machina nothing else even comes close that could still be considered scientific.
I question some of this. Talk Origins lists sources and those sources are scientific articles - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs
TalkOrigins draws it's conclusions from the articles and conclusions of paleontologists (among others). I haven't seen sources from you. Can you argue against any of these sources that back up TalkOrigins arguments? This is not one person or website making these conclusions.
You discount morphology as "wishful speculation" - why? Morphology is one of many methods used to determine transitional forms and indeed morphology is a powerful tool in determining species relationships though by no means the only tool since species occupying similar niches develop similar morphologies. In the case of transitional fossils however, when you can see clear changes in structures ocurring over a timeline that is pretty clear that transitions are occuring - from fish to amphibian and certain structures are evident linking them.
I don't know where you come up with this because the site lists many scientific sources supporting it's statements. Why don't you counter the arguments instead of the site?
