changes or mutations ... perhaps clarifying the terms in the process.

RAZD, I find this incessant questioning of the terminology quite silly, honestly. Why is the definition useless? Don't you think we should have a word that means "all changes in the DNA"? I think a word defining that is damn useful.Is "dog" a useless word because it doesn't specify the breed of dog?You give your list of "types of changes". All these are qualified mutations.This is what the scientific world does. They use qualifiers to further define the mutation, as in "point mutation", or "duplication mutation", or "translocation mutation." (Noun. Adjective. Get it? Non-issue.) In many contexts, terms are shortenened - "duplications" or "indels" for example.In other words, all of the descriptive terminology needed is already in place and use, and your personal decision to start referring to "mutations" as "changes" has only made a more confusing situation - because you have used an even more generic term than the one you were complaining was too generic to begin with...A non-issue.

I feel like you are the only one having issue with this.No one is glossing over it, though it has been pointed out that you seem to make some unnecessary distinctions; sometimes seemingly incorrect distinctions.There is existing language to specify the type and mechanism of any particular mutation.Why add the redundant, generic term "change"? Weren't you just arguing that mutation was so generic is was "useless"? Isn't "change" even more generic, and thus more "useless"? Your statement is anything but "clear". It seems self-contradictory nonsensical doublespeak.Moo-moo dogface to the banana patch?

Perhaps if the thread intent is to list mechanisms of mutation, and NOT about defining mutations and changes, you should have thought of a better freakin' title than "changes vs mutations... perhaps clarifying the terms in the process".I also think it's silly to write a post, and then tell others what they can and can not respond to, especially telling them they're not supposed to respond the part of the OP that corresponds to the title of the thread.I'm sick of this crap. It seems like you are only interested in discussion if you are being told you are right. Otherwise you just post short, evasive, ambiguous comments.