what is a mutation?

Larry,Do you see that you have not proven your argument?You need to show a text that defines mutation broadly and then goes into detail on exactly what it means by defining the types of mutation.One of these textbooks or when you put them all together needs to show that te types of mutations need to include all of the known horizontal mechanism for exchanging DNA from distinct genomes.You have yet to show this.The reason I had you define Horizontal Gene Transfer because it is quite clear that you are trying to define a term that is used within the realm of Bacteria and claim that it is used more broadly and encompassing.Your are going to have to prove that Biologist and Geneticist use the term Horizontal Gene transfer for organisms considered to be distinct genomes. Your going to have to show that it is used for multi-celled organisms.Your transposon point I covered months ago. There is a difference between foreign transposon and transposons within an organisms' genome. Many claim that foreign transposons or retroviruses consisting of transposons are the evolutionary precursor of transposons within an organisms genomes. But the transposon defined as a mutation under types of mutation in respectable resources clearly only defines itself as within in the genome. It usually even goes as far as saying they are part of the organisms junk DNA. If you disagree, Evidence please.And finally, Can we stop with the straw man that I am arguing that the word mutation can't be defined broadly? That has never been this argument. The argument is whether or not, including horizontal mechanism involving organisms from other genomes, would be consistent with the types of mutations defined by respectable sources, such as textbooks, of Biology and Genetics.This is such a minor point but I would be more than happy to find out that I was wrong on it. But I do need some respectable textbook to confirm that you are indeed correct.

Percy,Look at this other tangent on the meaning of the word mutation. Why is this argument a diversion as well? Because using Modern Synthesis the way that it was actual defined in the previous argument, one realizes that when the framers of MS used the term mutation, they did not even consider the credibility of the notion of horizontal mechanisms outside the genome and were unaware of most of the one’s that we know of today.But you wrote:
I own three textbooks on genetics (two by accident, but that's another story), and none mention horizontal mechanisms in their definitions of mutation. In fact, they don't mention horizontal mechanisms at all. They all deal solely with changes to the existing genome, never anywhere with additions to the genome from the outside. I don't know if this is typical for genetics textbooks, but all were published after 1998, so they're fairly recent.
But when I read in other places, such as books or articles on evolution, or in the aforementioned genetics textbook by Snyder and Champness, I see mutation defined more expansively in a way that includes horizontal mechanisms.The evidence that you personally own supports my argument about the definition of mutation and the context (types of mutation). Then you bring up something about Snyder and Champness. You present it as if it is evidence against me. Where is this evidence? The link that Larry gave did not list a horizontal mechanism from outside of the genome as a possible type of mutation.You see, I think you are missing my argument here as well. The word mutation can be ambiguously defined. That is what makes semantic arguments possible. But the actual biological/genetic usage of the term stems from the types of mutations that the textbook actually lists. My whole argument has been that if you take the meaning out of the context, you can include horizontal mechanisms. But if you place the meaning within the context that Biology and Genetics actually use the term, horizontal mechanisms are not possible. So once again, where is your sides evidence to the contrary? If Snyder and Champness or any other respected test book actually list horizontal mechanisms outside the genome in their types mutations, I love to see it. Where is the evidence?You mention when I read in other places, such as books or articles on evolution I see mutation defined more expansively in a way that includes horizontal mechanisms. Are you saying that the term is defined in a way that allows for horizontal mechanism or are you saying that horizontal mechanism are in fact defined as types of mutation? The first use is to be expected and does not contradict my argument. The second way this sentence can be interpreted would be direct evidence against my argument and I would love to see it. Where is this evidence?

Outside the context of a definition of Modern Synthesis debate, this thread is irrelevant.