Originally Posted by CTD
The logic behind your doubt is twice flawed. There is no reason to assume that a single definition of 'mutation' exists, even among "genetics and molecular biology publications." Even if it were so (which it demonstrably is not), that does not mean the imaginary single definition differs from that which I stated they were probably applying.


(Bold mine for emphasis.)

Could I get you to demonstrate how this is "demonstrably" not so? Could you provide evidence which indicates the definition for mutation from source to source is so completely different from the next that it is impossible to create a definition for the word at all? Or, barring that since I have a strong suspicion you will be unable to do this can you please provide us with CTD's personal definition of mutation and see where we can go from there?

Thanks!