You still don't understand what the theory of evolution is. "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.."
That is not talking about clones, which are identical.
With Darwinists, it just depends on what the definition of is is.
Again you are confused. That was Clintons problem, not the theory of evolutions problem.
I understand that Darwinists like to use a watered down definition of evolution when it is convenient. The Darwinist version of evolution is that all life forms descended from a common ancestor through an unguided process. And that life began as a simple celled organism and evolved into more complex forms.
The definition that you are using is just a dishonest attempt to change the terms of the debate.
I could do the same thing... Intelligent Design is simply a theory that states that the origin of some systems have an intelligent cause. I you don’t believe in ID you must believe that automobiles evolved through natural unguided processes. Every one knows that cars are designed. Its settled science. ID is settled science that is indisputable. Only an ignorant anti science Darwinist would question ID. ID is a fact, depending on what the definition of is is, just like evolution.