Seagrass 'tens of thousands of years old'.

I’m referring to the BBC report Seagrass ‘tens of thousands of years old’ . In that article the following parts occur under the heading ‘Copy errors':

quote:

---

Dr Arnaud-Haond added that there was a theory that even asexual reproduction could not continue indefinitely because tiny "copy errors" accumulated in the genes over time.
  —BBC Nature news

---

I have never heard of such a scientific theory. Maybe the relevant scientists or anyone else could enlighten me on it. Maybe Dr Arnaud-Haond was taking aim at creationist theories when saying this? Also:

quote:

---

"Most of [these errors] are expected to have a negative impact; through generations [the organism] will degenerate and eventually disappear," she said.
  —BBC Nature news

---

I’ve never seen or heard such an allegation by scientists anywhere. The only people who've ever done that were creation "scientists" in religious "articles". Again, I think that Dr Arnaud-Haond was taking aim at creationists.

quote:

---

"The age of clonal organisms should therefore be limited as well."
  —BBC Nature news

---

Never heard of anything like it or any scientist even hinting at anything like that, except for "articles" written by creation scientists in creationist "journals".

quote:

---

However, the study - which sampled seagrass across 3,500km of the Mediterranean Sea - found seagrasses with identical genomes spreading across large areas and large distances, challenging that theory.
  —BBC Nature news

---

So, I guess the researcher is challenging creationists?

quote:

---

"We were able, through modelling, to demonstrate that Posidonia oceanica has a mode of clonal spread, common to other seagrasses, that allows the plant to avoid the accumulation of deleterious mutations and explains how it escapes this theoretical rule," Dr Arnaud-Haond observed.
  —BBC Nature news

---

I think Dr Arnaud-Haond is taking aim at creationist theories, here.

quote:

---

She said the results were one of the first times that such a long life - tens of thousands of years - had been predicted for an organism's genetic material.
  —BBC Nature news

---

I don't know of any prediction on the life-time of genetic material ever made by scientists, except for "predictions" from creation "scientists", based on some "poofing" into existence a few thousand years ago.My question is: do you think the BBC reporter didn’t realize that Dr Arnaud-Haond was mocking creationist theories?Biological evolution please.Edited by Pressie, : Changed a word

Thanks everyone for clearing this up. I think I get it now.The original article is about individual organisms to have been living for thousands of years, while the report by the BBC mentions some law about "species" that can't be long-lived.

quote:

---

He incorrectly uses the word "species" when she's talking about the clones within a species. She's talking about how the same genotype is adapting through phenotypic plasticity, and he doesn't even mention that phrase in the article.
  —bluegenes

---

I bet that some quote from this BBC report will end up on some pseudoscience website where there will be a new "Law of Species-Longativity"; implying that researchers say that all species are very short-lived, will all die out soon and therefore creation by Allah or the FSM or whatever less than 10 000 years ago is "scientific".Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.