Originally Posted by RAZD
Curiously the sidebar lists
Quote
Mechanisms and processes

Adaptation
Genetic drift
Gene flow
Mutation
Natural selection
Speciation
And when I click on mutation I find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Quote
Large-scale mutations in chromosomal structure, including:
...
Loss of heterozygosity: loss of one allele, either by a deletion or recombination event, in an organism that previously had two different alleles.
In other words recombination is a kind of mutation that causes large scale change to the DNA, however it is not the only one, nor are mutations limited to large scale changes.

We come back to recombination still being regarded as a mutation, even by the "high priests" (although I would hesitate to call the wiki editors that), in large part because mutation is defined as change to the DNA. Any change = mutation.

Quote
mu·ta·tion n.
1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
3. Genetics
.. a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
.. b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
.. c. A mutant.
4. Linguistics The change that is caused in a sound by its assimilation to another sound, such as umlaut.
American Heritage Dictionary, 2008.

...

...

And we still have no answer to how tanned skin is hereditary, how muscular development is hereditary, how skin cell reproduction is different from bacterial reproduction (ie - by mitosis), or a number of other issues that get tedious to repeat as there are so many.

Enjoy.
Both RAZD and the wiki author have attempted to define 'recombination' as 'mutation'. They have fulfilled the prediction of evolutionology in doing so. To be clear, the prediction is not that efforts to confuse the two terms would take place - that much had been observed. The prediction was that such must continue.

A while ago, both the observation and the prediction were disputed at EVC. RAZD participated in the discussion, and one can certainly make arguments both ways - either that he did not or did indeed take notes.

If you'll follow the link, you'll find quite a list of evolutionists who disagree with RAZD's take. The funny thing is: I was not arguing that they didn't exist - only that RAZD's sect does exist. This may have been too fine a point for some to appreciate.

Surely a better, if downplayed, explanation of recombination can be found at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1526701
Quote
THERE are two sources of genetic diversity, mutation and recombination. Mutation, broadly defined here as novel heritable change in nucleotide state, introduces new variants while recombination reassorts the variants along a chromosome into novel combinations or haplotypes. Recombination can occur through both homologous crossover and homologous (intralocus) gene conversion, processes that occur as part of meiosis in diploid (or higher ploidy) organisms (Wiuf and Hein 2000). Under the Holliday junction model (Holliday 1964), homologous gene conversion is thought to occur when only a short tract of the alternate chromosome (usually a few hundred base pairs) is incorporated during meiotic exchange (e.g., Stahl 1994).
They go on to say
Quote
Estimation of the population recombination parameter ? = 4Ner is challenging. When based on nucleotide sequence polymorphism, the estimated value is always a product of the effective population size and rate of recombination. Methods for estimating ? from nucleotide sequence include product moment estimators (Hudson 1987; Hey and Wakeley 1997), “composite-likelihood” methods that result from a product of coalescent likelihoods for a series of two-site or three-site configurations (Hudson 2001; Wall 2004), “approximate-likelihood” methods that combine summary statistics from the data with estimated histories with recombination (Wall 2000), and “full-likelihood” methods (Griffiths and Marjoram 1996; Kuhner et al. 2000) that attempt to fit parameter estimates to the estimated underlying coalescent history with recombination (reviewed in Stumpf and McVean 2003).
The whole thing is about different methods of obtaining estimates of genetic change. Perhaps if RAZD had read this, he might have painted a different picture...

I think enough time has passed, so here's the heartbreaker.
Quote
It may seem somewhat surprising that bacteria can undergo recombination. After all, as was outlined in the module on recombination, the process requires two homologous DNA molecules, and bacteria have only one chromosome (and are therefore haploid).
Yes, this catches some by surprise. Although it's been known at least since the 70's that bacteria undergo recombination, news of this type does not travel fast. The link is not what I'd call an excellent piece, but it is still good. I recommend it for those who have an interest.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson