I said you were being "argumentative", not considering what I wrote but simply arguing for the sake of arguing. That's wastes your time. It wastes my time.
the process of developing new species
Then you've simply substituted "speciation" for "evolution". What then is your theory of speciation?
That's what I asked. Does it happen to include natural selection, chance, mutation, genetic drift, in what order and what combination, in what way, and so on?
what evolution "is"
Do you really not understand the difference between fact and theory?
Then you've simply substituted "speciation" for "evolution".
No, I haven't. The "process of developing new species" could be God snapping his fingers, or whatever. I have specified adaptation to natural selection pressure. Do you need the link to read it once more? Here it is again, just in case. The modifiers were not optional.
That's what I asked. Does it happen to include natural selection, chance, mutation, genetic drift, in what order and what combination, in what way, and so on?
I specified natural selection. You will have to define what you mean by "chance" before I can answer to that, because people use it in different ways (particularly when they want to be rhetorically elusive). My dictionary has eight definitions. Yes, mutation and genetic drift are a given in "adaptive" .. that is how the adaptation takes place.
As for the rest, you're just trying to waste time now. They are encompassed in the basic definition and my only purpose was to refute your inane statement that one could not state what evolution is. I did that and have no further interest toward being your remedial biology tutor.
Do you really not understand the difference between fact and theory?
Of course I understand the difference. What evolution "is" is a theory. I never said otherwise. I choose my elliptical sentence structure very carefully. =)