Originally Posted by RAZD
Consider this fine point CTD:

Quote
... recombination reassorts the variants along a chromosome into novel combinations or haplotypes.


Recombination sorts existing DNA between two existing (parent) strands into two new (offspring) strands. Where it starts on each strand is highly variable, and so you can have one offspring strand longer and the other shorter than they would be by a 1 for 1 switch. You also have no guarantee that they start and stop on whole genes rather than some arbitrary point on each strand.
I need no such guarantee. Does anyone?

I'm much more concerned that they start & stop exactly where they're designed to start & stop. If they don't, bad things will happen.
Originally Posted by RAZD
Quote
Mutation, broadly defined here as novel heritable change in nucleotide state, introduces new variants ...
So when recombination, because the start and stop points are not fixed in stone, results in novel heritable change in nucleotide states at the points of crossover, introducing new variants in the process,what do you have?

Mutation?
Recombination?
Or is this a false dichotomy?
Consider the fine point intended by the writer's second word in the quoted portion. You attempt to use a broad definition as the basis of your equivocation.
Originally Posted by CTD
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.
Some predictions are just too easy.

Quote
Interestingly I started a thread on EvC Forum, "changes or mutations" where I tried to find distinctions of DNA change from mutations, and got taken to task by the geneticists there, who basically said that all changes were considered mutation.
Fulfilling my prediction. But we have ample evidence that quite a few real biologists don't share the opinion of the EVC posters who claim to be biologists, do we not?

Quote
Note the bolded = mutation attributed to the recombination process.
Evolutionology succeeds again.

Quote
Because recombination can result in novel change to DNA as well as restructuring, you do not have a black and white, one or the other, process. In fact the likelyhood of it being cut on strict genes on both strands is rather low, so the probability is that most recombination adds some novel DNA mix in the mix.
Sure it's cut & dried. Mutations are random mistakes. Recombination is a design feature. (A marvelous one, to be sure!) Doesn't get much simpler than that.

I hope you don't expect the world to stop & wait for you and/or your EVC friends to define 'mutation' for the rest of us. I certainly have no intentions of compliance with any such scheme.

In case anyone's wondering why 'mutation' needs to encompass recombination, the purpose is also quite simple: This is how they generate evohype. The finch beaks are a fine example. If folks attribute the changes in finch beak size to recombination or gene expression, there's no "shining example" of evolution. They want to say it's due to 'mutation', but not be vulnerable to folks pointing this out as a lie.

Finding examples of the mythical beneficial mutation is quite easy, if the person you're duping doesn't know about recombination or gene expression.

But if you mistakenly choose an educated mark, you just say "They're all mutations. I'm not a liar. You're ignorant, that's all." Then equivocate & change the subject - you know, the standard routine.

I haven't listed all the 'benefits' of including all genetic changes under the term 'mutation', but everyone should get the picture, and that's all the time I'm allotting for the purpose just now.
Originally Posted by RAZD at EVC
Quote
There are a number of processes which cause heritable changes in traits and might be considered 'mutations'.
Are there any that can't be considered 'mutations' and if so what do you call them what are they and how do they operate? I'm curious because of the "all change is mutation" crowd here.
That was a tad amusing. But there's no real mystery. I only hope I didn't strain anyone's patience by taking so many words to explain something so dreadfully obvious.

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