Incorrect! Alleles are versions of genes, and mutations are events that change one allele into another. Things are not events.
"All alleles were new mutant alleles at one point," would be correct, but that doesn't address the question of which is the ancestor and which is the mutant.
I mentioned education, too. Do you care about it?
Can you claim with a straight face that we US scientists have done a good job of educating the public about evolution?
But what you seem to be missing is that underlying that misconception is a bigger misconception that populations are static, then we have a mutation, and only then is there evolution.
By using this straw-man version, Tom can reduce the number of genetic differences that can effect change by about a million-fold!
And what I'm pointing out is that the vast majority of raw material for selection is, as Darwin observed, already present, no mutations required. When I've tried explaining this to reasonable laypeople, several have told me that this makes the light bulb go on for them. No mutational boogeymen.
Do you think that Tom agrees with your view?