[js1138]

Look, I can read as well as you can. NOWHERE is anyone, not even biologists, using the word "evolve" to mean the word "change".

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

[muawiyah]

Your friends in Wikipedia provide sufficient information, to wit: "Futuyma is the author of the widely used textbook Evolutionary Biology and Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, an introduction to the creation-evolution controversy." that I'd suggest the reason he wants to change the meaning of the word "evolve" is political.

I guess he figures that if he controls what words mean he controls the debate.

Bet he doesn't have the guts to show up in FR.