Go back far enough, and the smartest and most complicated thing around is a simple unicellular, or maybe a slime mold. Then you have sponges and so forth. If you want to call the voyage from then to now "change" rather than "evolution," then OK, but I don't see how it helps you.
The problem is that's not the definition which relates to this discussion. This kind of dishonest definition-shifting causes much (though not all) of the confusion in this debate. Let's try to stick to the original, relevant definition, shall we?
How about, "Let's try not to tap-dance away from the evidence." There is an incontrovertible convergence of independent lines of evidence that evolution has occurred.
The "theory of evolution", if you want to call it that, can be loosely summarized (I guess) by the statement "all life is a product of random mutations and natural selection". This is a very interesting statement for which there is certain evidence (and heck I may even accept it as the best explanation available) but it's a theory for how life, in all its varieties, has arisen.
That is the essential mechanism, although you can also include neutral drift. There are also detailed scenarios and patterns of speciation (allopatric, sympatric, polyploidy, etc.), which are a related but separate topic.
And that's all that will be stated in the disclaimer: "that evolution is a theory".
Again, you dodge the question of why the perfectly fact-based area of evolution is singled out for a disclaimer and not gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity ... But whether you continue to dodge or not, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU.
P.S. This [i.e, "The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled."], like several other of the sentences you wrote to me, has very little relevance to our discussion. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly not anything I wrote.
(Snort!)
Now you've shifted back to the relevant definition of "evolution", I guess. You're saying in effect that (according to the theory) humans had ancestors which were unicellular and/or slime mold (whatever, it's not clear). Yes, I agree, that is a better characterization of the "theory of evolution" - or at least one aspect of it.
And it's a theory. And textbooks will say so. What's your problem?
How about, "Let's try not to tap-dance away from the evidence." There is an incontrovertible convergence of independent lines of evidence that evolution has occurred.
Who are you arguing with? What makes you think I an "tap-danc[ing] away from" any evidence? I am not even arguing with "the theory of evolution" per se. You seem to be carrying an argument with someone else, not me.
Again, you dodge the question of why the perfectly fact-based area of evolution is singled out for a disclaimer and not gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity ...
I didn't "dodge" this question at all. In fact I addressed it head-on (see Posts #328 (which was TO YOU), #329, #331...). The answer is, essentially, "Who cares if evolution is 'singled out' for this disclaimer if the disclaimer is TRUE?"
I still don't see what objection you could possibly have to a textbook printing a true statement. The only conclusion I can draw is that Truth is not your primary concern here. So what is?
But whether you continue to dodge or not, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU.
Huh? Okay, tell me, what's "going on with" me, mind-reader?
What a weird outburst. Maybe you're not as rational as I'd first thought. Seriously: what the hell are you talking about, here?
(Snort!)
And now you're becoming sub-literate? Please try to elaborate on these outbursts. In English. Or some recognizably human language. I don't have time for a snorting contest.