This thread actually IS about biological evolution, not the age of the Earth.
The Rubio age of the Earth thread is a different one.
Yes, all change in living systems from one generation to the next is evolution - evolution is defined as descent with modification.
Creationism is anti-science, and useless. Presupposing supernatural causation to explain physical phenomena leads nowhere and to nothing - it is of no use in further discovery or application.
As to the actual science - the supposition that all variation is there from the beginning can be (and has been) tested - and it FAILS that test.
Please familiarize yourself with the e.coli experiment. They started with twelve identical populations, DNA sequenced them, and expanded them. They have derived variations that DID NOT EXIST in the original population.
Thus, if one is open to evidence, the idea that all variation had to be created from the beginning must be definitively REJECTED.
But if one was open to evidence they wouldn't be a creationist.
So can shoddy use of antibiotics give rise, through evolutionary change, to antibiotic resistant populations?
YES!
And the denial of that by creationists is not just useless, it is dangerous - because their ignorant behavior can put us all at risk.
"Creationism" is the very ground on which science stands.
An intelligible universe that contains intelligent minds capable of understanding the universe simply does not happen by "natural" accident.
Physical, material phenomena would do exactly nothing if left to their own devices. They would just be "random" phenomena, unless a natural law "tells" them what to do.
Otherwise we wouldn't even "see" them.
If you have a "natural law," (or a moral law for that matter) you have what philosophy calls a "universal." It is totally illogical to suppose that a universal — which by definition is timeless — can be the product or outcome of "random" material developments over time.
Which is essentially what Darwin's theory says. But then it is in the awkward position of explaining how its new "natural law," called "natural selection," got into the picture. Is "natural selection" itself but an evolutionary development?
A universal law is NOT the same sort of thing as a material phenomenon. They are two entirely and radically different types of being. The first never changes; the second is always changing. And the fact is that the "measure" of change logically can only be provided by comparison to that which does not change.
So, where is your ground of Truth, the criterion by which you make judgments about the phenomena of natural Reality — if not in the realm of the super-natural, the super-material? To which realm both reason and logic themselves belong — for they are universals, too.
If universals are not "natural" phenomena, then they must be — as you put it — supernatural. There's no other possible logical explanation.
And yes, dear AMD, I did get confused about the two threads. Sorry for my mistake!