Look, I can read as well as you can. NOWHERE is anyone, not even biologists, using the word "evolve" to mean the word "change".
Heretofore it has been used exclusively to mean a conceptual process of a very special kind.
When you elect to change a word you'd best be careful to try to escape the notice of the nomenclatura.
I'm sorry you have no sense of humor.
On the other hand, you don't use enough commas. I know you think you do, but you don't. Listen to how you speak sometime. Certainly you don't talk the way you write, else you'd suffocate.
And you post rubbish without providing evidence.
No?
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986