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.
What he actually said, and you quoted, was this:
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 he actually said, and I actually quoted was this:
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.
I don't yet see why you chose to alter the quotation.
He was making an argument for recombination being a change in DNA, which is a mutation. I don't know as much about genetics as he does and I don't know what the debates about this are in the scientific world; you may be surprised that scientists don't agree about everything.
You don't know me very well if you think I'd be surprised by such.
The second sentence of your quote is unsupported speculation.
It appears removing posts which violate the rules has not slowed you down one bit. In the past, warnings did not slow you down either. You are making a very convincing case that nothing short of banning will deter you in the slightest from violating the rules here.You can google "mendelian recombination" and find out for yourself.
The thing is, this is not going to get you from the four-legged ancestor of the whale, to the whale.
When
I say it, you don't understand. Oh well...
What Mendel got when he crossed pea plants was pea plants inheriting dominant or recessive alleles from the parents. If you want to pick bones about nuances in definitions then I suggest you do it with RAZD, whom you can freely speak with on CvE.
All I said was that if one employs the new bogus definitions, Mendel must be said to have discovered mutations.
You had to get all contrary and try to pretend there's only one definition, and I don't know enough...
By the way,
this site lists mutation and Mendelian recombination as separate things.
Yes, there are plenty of scientists even among evolutionists who do not agree with RAZD.
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.
That's not necessarily the case. Have a read
here. The genetics of ageing is more complicated than you seem to realise and we still know little about it.
Do mutations stop? No.
I find I've forgotten why we are having this conversation in the first place. let's re-focus. What is your point in disputing the definition of mutation?
Because you choose to dispute what I say, no matter how commonly known the fact may be.
For my part, this occasionally this leads to funny results. And studying evolutionology in theory just isn't the same as studying it in the field.
