RAZD posted
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.
Note the definitions that apply to genetics (one is a noun, one is a verb). They describe a change in the DNA, which is the scientific definition of a mutation -- as opposed to, say, the inheritance and expression of dominant and recessive alleles, which no scientist would define as mutation. Note there are other definitions here from other fields of resaearch, or colloquial use (I could write a story, for example, in which I used the term metaphorically).
I'll tell you what I note:
I note that your challenge has proven every bit as bogus as I cannot doubt everyone already knew it to be.
If you find any other definition of mutation, please post it here.
What's the point of this? You knew, I knew, everyone who's spent any amount of time on this or any similar forum knew that there are several definitions of 'mutation'.
Your task would be to find a scientific article about evolution and show that its use of the word "mutation" meant something other than a change in DNA. If you cannot/will not, then any claims you make about the misuse of the term by evolutionists will be considered time-wasting.
You do not assign tasks to me. Not during waking hours, at least.
I looked up your link and all I could see was something about "plain English." Maybe you can repeat, right here in this thread, what Mutations According to CTD are, and in the process also explain why geneticists have got it wrong.
The link goes directly to a post which begins
"I was lucky, and chanced to find this."
Perhaps I was too subtle, but this is not a definition of my own writing. Even now it remains ignored.
Before you make assumptions about what people don't know, you... Well, what silly insults would be left to post?
It seemed a reasonable assumption to make that you have a limited background in genetics, since you are quibbling about the definition of mutation without providing any evidence, and since you appear to be confusing Mendel's famous experiments with mutation.
I have confused nothing. I merely pointed out that adopting the approach I commonly see taken by evolutionists, one would have to say Mendel discovered mutations.
RAZD argued most insistently that the results of recombination need to be included in the definition of 'mutation'. And we know why: recombination produces beneficial results. If anyone should be ignorant enough to buy this definition, there's a chance such a person can be duped into thinking that since beneficial recombination occurs, beneficial mutations do too.
Mendel discovered recombination (one form). You can google "mendelian recombination" and find out for yourself.
Now before you up & get excited, thinking this is an opportunity to claim I didn't understand what RAZD said,
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38467#Post38467In 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.
What's more, you cannot claim ignorance.
You contributed your two cents.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=41079#Post41079Now you're welcome to claim
you didn't understand what RAZD was saying...
If changes are permanent, how can evolution be possible. Permanence is antithetical to change.
I don't follow the logic here. "Permanent" in this case would mean that the organism will retain that mutation during its lifetime. If the organism's offspring survive and the gene changes again at a future time, then that's another mutation.
Right... Mutations continue to accumulate throughout one's lifetime. They contribute quite a bit to aging. The definition you offer has too little thought behind it, and your skills are insufficient to cover for the blunder.
Bottom line: none of the new definitions promoted by evopushers are meaningful or honest. I'm not going to repeat the same argument all over again. Anyone interested can follow the link.
And LL's challenge, giving the impression that she has presented the only definition is misleading. Either she has memory/learning issues or she already knew better. Pretty obvious where the smart money is on that one.
